Friday, February 17th 2017
AMD Ryzen 1700X, 1600X & 1300 Benchmarks Leaked
A number of sites have been reporting on some leaked (as in, captured from Futuremark's database) scores on AMD's upcoming CPUs. Now, some benchmarks seem to have surfaced regarding not only the company's 8-core, 16-thread monsters, but also towards its sweet-spot 6-core, 12-thread CPUs and its more mundane 4-core offerings.
Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly). We don't know whether Turbo was disabled or not on these tests, for either AMD's or Intel's processor, so we have to consider that. However, if Turbo were enabled, that would mean that the R7 1700X's clockspeed would only be 100 MHz higher than the 6900K's (3.8 GHz max, vs 3.7 GHz max on the Intel CPU).
We see the same when comparing AMD's six-core, $259 R5 1600X against Intel's $617 6850K, with the Ryzen sample posting virtually the same score, despite running at a 300 MHz lower base clock (3.3 Ghz against Intel's 3.6 Ghz).
Jumping to a per-core analysis of processor speed in the same test suite, though, also reveals some very interesting metrics. here is a test which clearly doesn't scale all that well with extra cores, actually becoming more inefficient, per core, as the number of those increases. However, we can clearly see how much of an improvement AMD has achieved in per-core performance, with the R7 1700X scoring within spiting distance of its much more expensive i7 6900K competition.
Can we just get some real reviews of these pieces of silicon already?
Sources:
Videocardz, WCCFTech
Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly). We don't know whether Turbo was disabled or not on these tests, for either AMD's or Intel's processor, so we have to consider that. However, if Turbo were enabled, that would mean that the R7 1700X's clockspeed would only be 100 MHz higher than the 6900K's (3.8 GHz max, vs 3.7 GHz max on the Intel CPU).
Can we just get some real reviews of these pieces of silicon already?
99 Comments on AMD Ryzen 1700X, 1600X & 1300 Benchmarks Leaked
What kind of math exactly?
1700X @ 3.2GHz = 17878 / 3.4 * 3.2 = 16826 (How is this faster than 6900K at 17100?)
6900K @ 3.4GHz = 17100 / 3.2 * 3.4 = 18168
Must be Friday math.
I can hardly believe that after all these years AMD may finally have something I can actually consider buying, after so many let downs. Ok, I considered a 480 last year, but decided to pass till they get their Linux support straightened up.
It's something I've noticed in many of your news posts. You have too many run-on sentences.
This is a good example of what I mean:
"Taking into account some metrics (which you should, naturally, take with some grains of salt), and comparing Intel's and AMD's Ryzen offerings on 3DMark's Fire Strike Physics scores, we can see that a $389 Ryzen 7 1700X (8 cores, 16 threads) at its base clock of 3.4 GHz manages to surpass Intel's competing (in thread count alone, since it retails for $1089) 6900K running at its base 3.2 GHz frequency - with the Ryzen processor scoring 17,878 points versus the 6900K's 17,100. "
That's one sentence, its way too long. It reads very clumsily and it sounds awkward. It's a whole paragraph in one sentence. You need more full stops, and less run-on sentences.
Also, less information in brackets in the one sentence. No more than one or two brackets in the same sentence, three is too much. Unless it's just basic information like CPU clockspeeds (3.4Ghz) or something, but if the brackets contain whole sentences, try to keep them to a minimum in the one sentence.
I hope you dont take this personally, it's meant to be constructive criticizm.
i just move-on from amd to skylake a couple month ago, , , ,
If these leaks are genuine, then it means that the 1700X will be of best value. I cant wait to upgrade my system towards a AMD platform. I just love them being back in the game, taking a huge dump on Goliath with a much smaller budget & R&D.
If so it is a win for everyone.
IMO even for Intel, they needed a kick up the posterior.
If the 3.4 GHz = 2235 is true then a linear scaling should give:
2256 /3,4*4= 2654
Now it could be throttling and the 3.4 ghz chip is boosting but still, callously optimistic.
IF the leaks are true and zen is a power users wet dream and oc better than a nealhelm I will get one, have had enough problems with x99.
The leaks looks nice, and if they hold AMD will kick some intel ass, amd as MrGenius points out, a AMD chip at $400 that beats a $1000 intel chip does makes the CPU market interesting
1700X @ 3.2GHz = (17878 / 3200) * 3400 = 18995
6900K @ 3.4GHz = 17100
OR
1700X @ 3.2GHz = 17878
6900K @ 3.4GHz = (17100 / 3400) * 3200 = 16094
This is what I think @mouacyk was trying to show - a rough estimation of score if we assume both processors share the same frequency. Obviously other factors come into play, in reality.
thats alot of money wasted :(