I'm pretty happy about Ryzen + architecture. They have at least proven that they can iterate on their existing architecture and work on a 12nm die. I was an early adopter of Ryzen and was happy to get my 1800x running stable with all cores at 4GHz. The price to performance ratio of Ryzen is great for almost all workloads.<p>While this article doesn't mean too much for real world applications. It does show that AMD is really competing with Intel. I agree that if Epyc can penetrate the server market (which I think it can), then it's really going to start an innovation war between Intel and AMD which is going to be good for the consumer.
I hope to god the big three cloud providers pick up EPYC in good quantities. High core counts, lots of PCIe lanes, competitive perf per watt, what’s not to like? We badly need some kind of viable competition for Intel.
The original article is: <a href="https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-6-ghz-world-record-overclock/" rel="nofollow">https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-6-ghz-world-record-ov...</a>
Educate a noob: What is the significance of overclocking at this insane frequency when the CPU is not stable? From a digital design perspective I would imagine that a lot of timing constraints are not met, and this makes the CPU unstable. What prevents other CPU's unable from reaching this speed?
That's nothing, the old P4s could do 8GHz on liquid nitrogen! I guess it's impressive that it's a multi-core AMD processor rather than an architecture that clocked well but had little else going for it.
Since TechRadar redirects me to some boilerplate BS because I block 3rd-party scripts by default, I needed to use a mirror. Here it is for anyone else who needs it:<p><a href="http://archive.is/yyBpa" rel="nofollow">http://archive.is/yyBpa</a>