Tuesday, February 21st 2017
AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Glorious Benchmarks Leak; IHS, Pin Layout Photographed
Another day, another leak: the folks at XFastest have indeed been the fastest to leak images of an actual Ryzen 7 1700X processor, with pictures of the processor's IHS and pin area running rampant throughout the Internet (the Ryzen chip is located to the right in both pictures, with a sample of AMD's previous-generation FX CPUs on the left side for comparison sake).
While revealing shots may have their appeal, it's the benchmarking portion that most of us are expectant about. Until actual reviews are out, we're left nothing more than these leaks (which should be taken with appropriate amounts of salt). In this case, benchmarks of AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 1700X have been released, showing just how the upcoming CPU delivers in 3D Mark Fire Strike, CPU Mark and Cinebench R15.
Let's take it from the top: on Fire Strike's Physics test, the Ryzen 7 1700X scores a grand total of 17,916 points. CPU-Z screenshots running alongside the completed benchmark show us a 3.89 GHz clockspeed (up 400 MHz from the chip's base speed, at 3.4 GHz). The multiplier is set at 39x (4 units higher than the base 35x), though for now it is unclear if this was done through manual overclocking (remember, all Ryzen CPUs will come multiplier unlocked,) or through the chip's own XFR automated overclocking.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that this is XFR working as it should - remember, rated XFR speeds for the Ryzen 7 1700X are of 3.8+ GHz, meaning it can hit the mentioned 3.89 GHz by itself, provided sufficient cooling is at hand. CPU voltage in this test appears at 0.672 V. In this test, like in all others from this leak, the CPU was running with 16 GB of DDR4 memory running at 2132 MHz frequency.
Moving on to the CPU Mark portion of the leaked benchmarks, we see a couple differences from the Fire Strike test. For one, the CPU clockspeed as reported by CPU-Z fell by 400MHz towards 3.49 GHz, with the multiplier taking a proportionate hit (35x). The voltage has also gone down though, from the previous 0.672 V to a more conservative 0.536 V - another circumstantial piece of evidence that we are looking at XFR toying with voltage and multiplier values. On this test, the 1700X scores 583 points.
Now on to one of the kings on multi-threaded and single-threaded benchmarking: Cinebench R15. Here, the 1700X is shown as achieving 1537 points on the multi-threaded test, and 154 points on the single-threaded one. It is worth noting that Cinebench R15 reports the 1700X's base clock speed of 3.40 GHz, while again CPU-Z reports 3.49 GHz with a 0.672 V.
Let me just take a slight tangent here whilst saying that this variation in clockspeeds and voltages is probably revealing of the leak's source screenshotting results after different time intervals have elapsed since a given test's completion. Soon enough for the clockspeeds to remain at the XFR frequency (Fire Strike's 3.89 GHz); when both clockspeed and voltage have already decreased (CPU Mark); and when the boost clocks decrease but voltage lingers (Cinebench R15).
Let's just take a little more critical approach regarding these Cinebench results; compare the 1700X's scores with these, taken from Anandtech:
Some comments: AMD's 1700X achieves virtually identical scores to Intel's 6900K CPU on both tests (loses slightly on the multi-threaded test, but eeks out a win on the single-threaded one) once you take variabilty into account. We also can't forget how the test systems differ in terms of memory specs and all those other small things, which still end up affecting the final score. Whether you think this variability favors AMD's 1700X or Intel's 6900K in this particular scenario, there is one thing variability can't account for: the 55 W difference between rated TDP on AMD's 1700X (95 W) and Intel's 6900K (140 W).
Another thing that can't (apparently) be denied is the enormous leap in performance compared to AMD's now defunct Bulldozer architecture (and later refinements). The 1700X at 95 W TDP scores the vaunted 40% more in the single-threaded test than AMD's FX 9590 running at 5 GHz and at 220 W (!!) TDP, with 154 points against the FX 9590's tiny 110. This, allied to the 1700X's use of SMT with its 16 logical threads, also helps put into perspective how AMD managed to achieve a 111% boost in the multi-threaded score compared to the FX 9590 (1537 on the 1700X, 728 on the FX 9590). And this happens, again, despite the 9590 running at 4.7 GHz base and 5 GHz boost, whilst having a TDP rated at 125W more than the 1700X. You don't have to ask me for evidence. Look here:
However one cuts this, these leaks (assuming they're remotely accurate) truly bring to light the enormous engineering challenge AMD had to surpass on its way to Ryzen: the enormity of the task for Jim Keller and company in bringing a competitive, efficient architecture to market despite AMD's inherent difficulties in funding, manufacturing... And on and on. That they managed to engineer an architecture such as this, which apparently gives Intel a run for its money even on the efficiency metrics, is nothing short of extraordinary. Add to that the potential for a many-core democratization even on the entry-level, and we could also see an important push towards more parallelized applications, taking advantage of 4-core solutions at the entry level, finally doing away with the overreaching dual core, four-thread CPUs that have more than outstayed their welcome.Source: Anandtech
Source:
XFastest
While revealing shots may have their appeal, it's the benchmarking portion that most of us are expectant about. Until actual reviews are out, we're left nothing more than these leaks (which should be taken with appropriate amounts of salt). In this case, benchmarks of AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 1700X have been released, showing just how the upcoming CPU delivers in 3D Mark Fire Strike, CPU Mark and Cinebench R15.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that this is XFR working as it should - remember, rated XFR speeds for the Ryzen 7 1700X are of 3.8+ GHz, meaning it can hit the mentioned 3.89 GHz by itself, provided sufficient cooling is at hand. CPU voltage in this test appears at 0.672 V. In this test, like in all others from this leak, the CPU was running with 16 GB of DDR4 memory running at 2132 MHz frequency.
Let's just take a little more critical approach regarding these Cinebench results; compare the 1700X's scores with these, taken from Anandtech:
Another thing that can't (apparently) be denied is the enormous leap in performance compared to AMD's now defunct Bulldozer architecture (and later refinements). The 1700X at 95 W TDP scores the vaunted 40% more in the single-threaded test than AMD's FX 9590 running at 5 GHz and at 220 W (!!) TDP, with 154 points against the FX 9590's tiny 110. This, allied to the 1700X's use of SMT with its 16 logical threads, also helps put into perspective how AMD managed to achieve a 111% boost in the multi-threaded score compared to the FX 9590 (1537 on the 1700X, 728 on the FX 9590). And this happens, again, despite the 9590 running at 4.7 GHz base and 5 GHz boost, whilst having a TDP rated at 125W more than the 1700X. You don't have to ask me for evidence. Look here:
115 Comments on AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Glorious Benchmarks Leak; IHS, Pin Layout Photographed
Anyway aside from that I have a tremendous nerd boner over the potential of Ryzen and Vega ( I pre ordered the bull dozer cpu and got burnt so I'm waiting for proper 3rd party reviews) it's seriously tempting me to do a full system build....
But at the same time wouldn't mind a laptop with a Ryzen + Vega set up if the hype is real. Clevo get on it 1800x plus high end Vega please.
Maximum average overclock 4 to 4,1ghz while Intel with 4,8ghz to 5ghz stinks even more on Ryzen. Same with ddr 4 3200mhz vs 4000mhz.
Ryzen is competing with an i5 for gaming and it still looses on some games.
Just wanted to make sure I would quote you all on the D-Day, after you all hated on me and called me fanboy. There you go.
Don´t expect any reply from me. My replies are all on the benchmarks you have around the internet.
Cheers.
There's obviously an issue, so I'll be sure to come back and taunt you.
AMD has a winner here and it's about damn time. Now we'll see some good competition again and both sides will force each other to make advances.
So yes, go crawl back under your rock, fanboy. Stay there. At least until you grow up a bit.
The $1000 Intel CPUs are not targeted at gamers. They fall behind much cheaper consumer chips like the 7700K, which didn't shock anyone a few weeks back.
While Ryzen looks like a very good, highly optimized chip and a great choice for some uses (or users), I think many here are so overwhelmed that they struggle in admitting that Intel CPUs are still leading in some applications.
We're getting to the point when people start to blame software developers for bad design, because a good one would have supported more cores...
I've even seen comments like "future patches for games will improve Ryzen performance". They just won't (not significantly, anyway).
Ok here's the deal. In the 35+ years since I first built a PC I've built literally 10's of thousands of them. I used AMD chips only when requested by the client/customer. There were times when I actively promoted them, but ONLY when they were competitive and using their chips made sense from a performance/cost point of view(Hell, at one point I promoted Cyrix CPU's because they performed better and ran cooler than anything AMD/Intel offered in that price point).
For the past 10 years, Intel has been the best deal in town bang-for-buck, full stop. Nothing AMD has offered since the release of Core2 has been a performance competitor to Intel's offerings. Ryzen has just changed that. The numbers prove that Ryzen is very performance competitive and at a price point that is likewise competitive. And AMD is just getting started with this generation of CPU's.
I am most certainly an Intel guy, but history has taught me to be objective. Have always admired AMD for regularly bringing kick-ass stuff to market. So yes, I am absolutely delighted that AMD has brought Ryzen to the table! It will force Intel to actually compete again instead of releasing the incremental stuff they've been releasing the past few years. The tech industry just got interesting, fun and exciting again and my guess is that it will stay that way for a while. Here's my logic as to why; AMD has only just released the FIRST set of this new generation of tech. They still have their mainstream CPU's to release. I'm betting AMD also has a few higher performance CPU's offering waiting in the wings[1900x, 2000x anyone?]. Then there's the Vega GPU line they're about to release.
The testing and benchmarks done by everyone who has the chips PROVE Ryzen is an excellent all-around performer. And bang for buck, AMD is now the best option. Intel still has it's performance Kings but in every test except memory bandwidth, Ryzen is competing well with Intel's best offerings. So unless you're blind and in need of glasses, can't read or can't tell the difference between your bum and a hole in the ground, you can not deny the achievement AMD made with Ryzen.
We geeks are going to have a lot of fun over the next few years!
Note to TPU editors; The fact that you've had a delay in receiving your Ryzen samples, you actually have a bit of an advantage. You've seen everyone else's article's and can now test aspects of the technology that have been brought to light, such as overclocking and the memory clocks struggles. Try doing something different and covering points of view that others have missed. Just an idea..
This only means that the games are still heavily unoptimized for Ryzen arch, which is logical TBH.
First they've shown 44 core Ryzen wiping the floor with 44 core Xeon (nearly twice as fast).
Then enabled all 64 (it is 2x32) and, well, wiped the floor again.
And then they increased data size to a point where... 0.75Tb in Intel's system wasn't enough (AMD's had 1Tb). (lol)