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
The better analogy would be a race car where you worry about how many cylinders the engine has, rather than how long it takes to complete the course.
There was a time when everyone was overclocking and AMD was the CPU brand of choice. Older forum users will remember processors like the Athlon XP 1700+. We were all fascinated by it's abilities. Back then you didn't just order a CPU - you looked for the best series, because they had different OC characteristics. And it was way before large tower coolers or factory-bilt watercooling became so popular. People were actually making watercooling sets from things they got at a home improvement supply shop and they were leaking all the time.
Just think how much this whole market matured since then. Overclocking used to be an adventure that lured us all. Every page of PC part manuals told you that overclocking is pure evil and that you'll almost surely be killed if you try it. And now it's 2017: motherboards have auto overclocking modes doing everything for you, while efficient factory-built watercooling solutions are easier to get than a fresh croissant on Sunday.
I admit the current Intel offer isn't perfect, but is this cheap OC-friendly CPU what we actually need? :)Honestly, I don't see this. Intel is (clearly) overcharging for the LGA 2011 processors (the socket itself being just a way to suck more cash on "specialized" motherboards etc), but as far as I can remember the prices in "consumer" segment looked pretty much the same. Under $100 for a decent entry-level gaming/multimedia CPU and around $200-400 for something that will work well for the next 3-5 years. So I would say the pricing for everything for LGA 1151 seems right (or what I would expect). AMD has always been the cheaper company, so it's not like Intel will drop prices just because AMD offers the same for 10% less.
Truth be told, software requirements slowed down lately and Intel took advantage of that concentrating more on power efficiency. Let's remember the problems for AMD started not because they couldn't match Intel's most powerful CPUs, but because they totally lost the battle for notebooks.
And even now we don't see much information about Ryzen mobile versions. So what is AMD hoping to achieve other than maybe regaining a few % market share coming from high-end gaming desktops?
Ryzen isn't going to beat 7700k gaming. The real strength will be applications that use the extra threads. I don't know if you noticed, but AMD has announced a full consumer lineup starting at $129. Server chips shouldn't be too far behind.
Ryzen will have ~33% higher peak integer throughput per clock, so it will perform well in certain benchmarks, but always remember that pre-release benchmarks are always cherry-picked. We'll have to see how good the rest of the chip is; the front end, cache, etc.
Here's to hoping he's wrong and it scales better for the extreme guys, and reaches mid 4ghz+ for the rest!
They also mention the VRMs of the used board to not be up to the job of powering more than one core ...
www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5l33or/canard_pc_confirms_5_ghz_ryzen_oc_only_on_1_core/
That doesn't bode well either... single core??? Not a daily situation there...
And they didn't show squat at ces...
If anything it shines poorly on AMD rigs in general.
The difference here is that we MAY be getting Corvettes for the price of Escorts.
Zen is quite different from Bulldozer, so it should scale differently. Zen seems even "better" than Intel in terms of superscalar abilities, with 4 ALUs and 2 FPUs (seemingly) on separate execution ports, while Intel have three ports with combined ALUs and FPUs. So there will be certain fairly well written software that scales slightly better on "better" superscalar CPUs, giving Zen an edge. Unfortunately most software wouldn't.
Using old code paths means lower performance.
Because i7-6700K and i7-7700K overclocked will not be able to reach even Ryzen 5 in multi threaded application.
Price and value of Maxmus Extreme and Formula will be reduced significantly.
From other side our 3 years old platform is still alive and we need only CPU change for same or more performance than premium AMD.
Intel x86 domination is over but Intel have space to delay Skylake Xtreme and optimize him nicely and in mean time to start production of Intel i7-6900K and i7-6950X with reduced price.
For 400 and 700$ they will sell 100.000 processors. Their performance improvements after OC is up to 40%.
Many owners have chipset and premium motherboards and memory and need only better CPU.
Owners of i7-5820K, i7-5930K, i7-6800K and i7-6850K will have chance to install 8 and 10 cores.
Better to change only CPU than whole platform. Price of Rampage series will stay similar because they work and with Intel Xeon with far more cores.
We are even in better position, Quad Channel memory and after overclocking Cache frequency our performance will be better than AMD.
We will see... Everything is possible. I vote for delay of Skylake Xtreme and production of 8 and 10 cores Broadwell-EX with competitive price with AMD.
Aaaaa... Haahahaaaa
I'm very smart, Intel could put me as manager I will work on destroying AMDs hype sending performance of overclocked i7-6900K and i7-6950X and their price on Newegg will be
450$ and 650$... Intel X99 re-birth and stabb AMDs Ryzen from back. Name of Topic...
After 3 years STILL DOMINATE Intel Wellsburg - X99 with i7-6900K and i7-6950X.
And that's full experience, it's not only competitive CPU performance, offer everything as newest AMD chipset and more, NVMe, USB 3.1 Gen 2, SATA Express, Quad Channel, faster DDR4, overclocking Cache Frequency, and what customers love most overclocking CPU, performance improvements up to 40% after OC i7-6900K and i7-6950X.
AMD doesn't care about selling a few thousand chips to people like me and you. But if we can provided them the "proof" that their chips are exactly what they say, then they will be in a better position to renegotiate their console contracts, better position to sell 100K+ chips to a server hosting service, and enter markets like mid and high-end laptops and tablets.
That's almost as they didn't change nothing from previous years. They usually ask 1000$ for Xtreme... this year they have chance for 700$ more per Processor. Such profit give them oportunity to drop price later. Intel could sell a lot of Broadwell-EX if drop price, they could start again production and sell one more circle for lower price and don't need to launch nothing in premium segment next 18 months, until Skylake Xtreme is not ready.
Customers will be very satisfied and happy to see that same chipset old almost 3 years give them opportunity to beat AMD premium Ryzen.
People love such things when life time of one generation is longer, no situation or feature where AMD is in advantage to Broadwell-EX.
OK Intel don't need to sell only 8 and 10 cores. Whole Broadwell-EX line price will drop...
Example 200, 280, 450 and 800$. And they are in game, prices are only little reduced compare to Nehalem, Sandy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-E and Haswell-E, just little.
I will not allow you to enjoy in Ryzen completely... hahahaa hahahaa.