By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite on 14 March 2017
Edit Thread
JEMC said:

AMD CPU fans, I have a bunch of news and a rumor (a very bad one) about Ryzen. Let's start with the negative rumor:

First Ryzen Quad Cores Will not Pass 3.2 GHz?
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-ryzen-quad-cores-will-not-pass-3-2-ghz.html
The French Canard PC in a tweet stated that the first Ryzen Quad Cores processors would not exceed 3.2 GHz and will get a lower clock-frequency then expected. You should take this information with a grain of salt alright, but Canard PC in the past has proved to be a fairly reliable source of information.

>>I really hope this is not true, because if it is, those processors will be almost useless. At least for gaming.

Wouldn't be surprised. Ryzen is not a good clocker. The 8-core chips on average seem to be doing 3.9-4ghz... If you throw to much voltage at the problem you can fry a few things...

JEMC said:

AMD Ryzen 7 have a Temperature 20 Degree C Reporting Offset
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-7-have-a-temperature-20-degree-c-reporting-offset.html
Alright, in the same blog post as mentioned in the previous item AMD also talks about a Temperature Reporting Offset. This one was new to us, but basically what they claim is the following. To keep a "consistent fan policy," AMD is forcing 20C offset on the Ryzen 1700X and 1800X processors. This makes them report temperature a good 20C above what the sensor reads.
In the short term, users of the AMD Ryzen™ 1700X and 1800X can simply subtract 20°C to determine the true junction temperature of their processor. No arithmetic is required for the Ryzen 7 1700.

>>WTF? So not only do their 8-core chips use less power than Intels, but they're also a whole lot cooler? Very impressive.

The Phenoms had a 13'C temp bug, that meant if it was 50'C. It was really 63'C.

Nice to see AMD has stayed true to form and done a complete reversal. :P

 

 

vivster said:
TomaTito said:

I haven't opened it yet, and WD just launched some nice deals on refurbished My Books. That's what got me thinking.

You guys scared me for some reason... Might just stick with the Seagate and see how it performs, it has a two year guarantee either way.

There really is no general problem with Seagates, otherwise they wouldn't be in business anymore. Seagate is just the AMD to WD's Nvidia.


I personally haven't owned a Seagate since the mid 90's back when they had the 10,000rpm Cheetah drives.

But... Some Western Digital Drives are notorious for early deaths.
Case in point: Western Digital Greens with their aggressive head parking that leads to fast wear and tear.
Or the Seagate ST3000DM001 which had failure rates of almost 30%.

Or the old Hitachi "Deathstar" drives.

It's not so much the brand that matters, but the individual models.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--