AMD Ryzen 21% slower than i7 6700K in gaming

[Tatty_Two]

fail ;p, have you thought about clock vs clock? I think that ES does great by games considering it runs at only 3.15ghz vs 4.2 or 4.4ghz intel quads.


clock that zen to 4ghz and it will win for sure.

But not for the 95% of buyers who don't overclock

 

[prtskg]

But not for the 95% of buyers who don't overclock

Isn't that why AMD implemented auto overclock feature in zen.
For those who have problem with french, here is translation thanks to tpi2007 from overclock.net
http://www.overclock.net/t/1619110/cpc-first-unofficial-ryzen-benchmarks/90#post_25730623
And some from Mahigan -
http://www.overclock.net/t/1619110/cpc-first-unofficial-ryzen-benchmarks/130#post_25731197

 

[FordGT90Concept]

4 GHz + 4 cores versus 3.4 GHz + 8 cores. Clockspeed is 17% slower with 200% more cores. Games are about frames which benefit from clockspeeds so...I'd say they're pretty well matched all things considered.

 

[HD64G]

Only fair comparison should be done to 6900K. For gaming the 4C/8T highly clocked CPUs are still the best solution atm.

 

[Xzibit]

But not for the 95% of buyers who don't overclock

According to Steam Nov H&S the most popular freq (Intel) are between 2.3 to 3.6 ghz over 50% of users in there. Only 9% are above that, the rest are below 2.3ghz

If you look at core count (Intel) 45.28% on 2c, 48.27% on 4c. Above 4c only 6c 1.56% even register in single digits. For funzzies the 8c in the survey are at 0.27%

*AMD looks to only make up a small percentage of the CPU survey. The freq they are most popular is higher than intel, 3.0ghz to 3.7ghz and above.

The majority of people are using Intel 2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz. Then again the majority of people wouldn't be comparing a 8c/16t to a 4c/8t. There hasn't been any word on the 6c/12t or the 4c/8t variants and what freq they will be arriving at.

AMD will be at CES 2017 and they did say they had one more embargo/NDA event scheduled in Q1.

 

[mrthanhnguyen]

Look like Ryzen cant help us to buy a 6/8 cores Intel at mainstream price.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Look like Ryzen cant help us to buy a 6/8 cores Intel at mainstream price.

Why is that? Even this baloney review says it's as fast as the 6900K. There's about 400 MHz missing here compared to the 6900K (it's probably holding steady around 3.5GHz).

Gotta love this crappy clickbait, though. Percentages, no individual tests, no details, no specs. Totally legit, guys.

Boy, Intel fanboy mantra is stronger than ever as dogma.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Why is that? Even this baloney review says it's as fast as the 6900K. There's about 400 MHz missing here compared to the 6900K (which is probably holding steady around 3.5GHz).

Gotta love this crappy clickbait, though. Percentages, no individual tests, no details, no specs. Totally legit, guys.

I agree this is thread is clickbait and misleading title, its not even the same chip featured in the press release stream. So not a fair comparison. The upside is that even at 3.1ghz, this prototype is a better performer than expected.

I vote to close this thread.

 

[Folterknecht]

I 'd prefer an AMD Zen 6 Core with HT that goes 4-4.4 GHz with OC for 300 bucks or less over any Intel 4c + HT. If you are streaming while gaming or you have a bunch of other applications (browsers and whatnot) in the background running that sure beats Intel shitty 4 cores.

Intel and their shitty 4 cores + iGPU that nobody really cares about but eats up ~50% of the chip

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I 'd prefer an AMD Zen 6 Core with HT that goes 4-4.4 GHz with OC for 300 bucks or less over any Intel 4c + HT. If you are streaming while gaming or you have a bunch of other applications (browsers and whatnot) in the background running that sure beats Intel shitty 4 cores.

Intel and their shitty 4 cores + iGPU that nobody really cares about but eats up ~50% of the chip

Ya see that's probably a bit too far the wrong way that G

 

[FYFI13]

I agree this is thread is clickbait and misleading title, its not even the same chip featured in the press release stream. So not a fair comparison. The upside is that even at 3.1ghz, this prototype is a better performer than expected.

It is not misleading nor a clickbait, if you have somewhat functioning brain and IQ higher than your shoe size. AMD Ryzen hasn't been released yet, so yes, we're talking about about a product that is in some pre-release state.

 

[TheGuruStud]

It is not misleading nor a clickbait, if you have somewhat functioning brain and IQ higher than your shoe size. AMD Ryzen hasn't been released yet, so yes, we're talking about about a product that is in some pre-release state.

Then why is there a clickbait review of it (supposedly old ES at that), a thread with a clickbait title for an unreleased product not out of NDA and no proof?

Can't get much more clickbait than that.

Here's a proper title: Slim pickens review of purported Ryzen ES.

 

[FR@NK]

Then why is there a clickbait review of it (supposedly old ES at that), a thread with a clickbait title for an unreleased product not out of NDA and no proof?

Can't get much more clickbait than that.

If you know its clickbait then its not really clickbait.....

 

[TheGuruStud]

If you know its clickbait then its not really clickbait.....

I'm a better learner than most of the interwebs.

 

[FR@NK]

I'm a better learner than most of the interwebs.

Which I believe most of the members here on techpowerup fall into this same category.

No matter how bias this benchmark is, its still worthy of a discussion.

 

[FYFI13]

Then why is there a clickbait review of it (supposedly old ES at that), a thread with a clickbait title for an unreleased product not out of NDA and no proof?

Can't get much more clickbait than that.

Here's a proper title: Slim pickens review of purported Ryzen ES.

Let's be very optimistic and say AMD will improve performance by 5% on retail version. It won't change much. And don't forget 3.15GHz might be a base clock, so even ES in those tests probably was running at higher clocks

 

[Folterknecht]

Ya see that's probably a bit too far the wrong way that G

 

[TheGuruStud]

Let's be very optimistic and say AMD will improve performance by 5% on retail version. It won't change much. And don't forget 3.15GHz might be a base clock, so even ES in those tests probably was running at higher clocks

ES with boost in another ES mobo (or OEM mobo...but doubt there's bios support)...I'd say that's a bit optimistic

 

[Xzibit]

Then why is there a clickbait review of it (supposedly old ES at that), a thread with a clickbait title for an unreleased product not out of NDA and no proof?

Can't get much more clickbait than that.

Here's a proper title: Slim pickens review of purported Ryzen ES.

Actually I think the OP just wanted to use this article to re-assure himself of his pre-determined expectation.

Even i5 6600 beats it, just as i expected...

About the only thing concrete we know is this

Of course there hasn't been anything said of the 6c/12t or the 4c/8t but if this article feeds his pre-determined expectation why not...

 

[Recon-UK]

Well there ES chips are 3.4ghz base with no turbo mode.
AMD have said these are not final clocks and they will be higher.

You are also comparing a intel CPU that sit's at 4ghz base.

 

[Xzibit]

Well there ES chips are 3.4ghz base with no turbo mode.
AMD have said these are not final clocks and they will be higher.

You are also comparing a intel CPU that sit's at 4ghz base.

This ES is doing.

While these results are from an AMD Ryzen CPU, they are from an Engineering sample that has lower clock speeds than AMD's retail versions, with this CPU featuring a base clock speed of 3.15GHz, a boost/turbo clock speed of 3.3GHz on all cores and a maximum turbo boost of 3.5GHz on a single CPU core.

 

[Recon-UK]

This ES is doing.

Thanks for clarification, i was going off of what i saw on the AMD Ryzen sneak peek from AMD not the bad article posted by the OP.

The AMD chip at 3.4 base was on par and faster in the tests demonstrated by AMD vs the 6900k at 3.7ghz boost.

To say that is representative of gaming performance would be a lie, but it's not the picture the OP is trying to show.

A thread to downplay AMD.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Bit too much Intel hate, thought experiment.

AMD could bring out a R5 four cores no HT and clocked higher and likely will.

 

[Melvis]

21% slower gaming performance at 23~27% slower clocks than i7 6700K sounds great, good IPC

 

[Frick]

A thread to downplay AMD.

Which we absolutely should do. Remember the claim it had a 40% increased IPC over Piledriver, and how that would put it against Haswell? Now we're seeing and hearing how it will go toe-to-toe with Intel's latest offerings and people seem to think they will disturpt Intel entirely. Sure, it could happen, but it is important - especially for AMD - to manage expectations. If they manage to compete against Broadwell-E and Skylake ... that would be nothing short of miraculous. Miracles are rare freaks of nature but are usually not the result of the hard workings of a corporation, especially not one so cash strapped as AMD.