AMD Ryzen Performance Review Leaked: Promising

[phanbuey]

Link?

We all know that its pretty obvious that this new Zen CPU is going to be quick bla bla bla its going to be competitive yay for us the consumers. But what im really looking forward to is the APU's, small form factor PC's are on the rise and to have a little tiny beast that can play pretty much every game out there at medium to high settings and use not alot of power at 1080P now thats what I think will be exciting! Somewhere around i5 performance with a GPU of erm idk just under a RX 460? would be awesome.

the leak is the link - look at gaming.

 

[mastrdrver]

An 8 core chip doesn't have the thermal headroom to have higher clocks. Might AMD do a 4 core/4 thread cpu with higher clocks that still sits in the 95w TDP range?

Seeing as how the 8 core 16 thread has a TDP of ~95w, I'd expect a 4 core 8 thread to have a TDP of like ~60W.

 

[R0H1T]

Seeing as how the 8 core 16 thread has a TDP of ~95w, I'd expect a 4 core 8 thread to have a TDP of like ~60W.

It could be higher than that, really depends on the clock speed of the 4c version. The deca core 6950x has a TDP of 140W whilst quad core 7700k sits at 91w, similarly the regular 7700 is rated for 65W but 7700T is just 35W in terms of TDP.

Usually the best bins are rated for low(er) power i.e. TDP & generally go into laptops as well.

 

[Melvis]

the leak is the link - look at gaming.

All I see is a lower clocked CPU getting beat by a higher clocked CPU? by 1-2% nothing surprising there! I dont see anything getting this so called "spanked" you mention

 

[Joker2988]

and how you know which is which if is this leak even real prof of performance

 

[efikkan]

Thanks for correcting me but this just reinforces my point even further i.e. people don't need to upgrade say from a Skylake to 97xx on the basis of more IPC, which posters continually harp about, because they think ST performance is all that matters.

Like I always say; if you have a Sandy-Bridge or newer and don't need more cores, then there is no point upgrading a working chip.
While single threaded performance remains important to use cases such as gaming; any power user should buy at least 6 cores at this point, since people don't run single programs any more, even while gaming.

 

[Joker2988]

always think for future when your buying a new pc want to change stuff after a year or after 10 i for one got phenom II 945, 12gb ddr2, gtx 1070 can run almost any game at ultra but i need to upgrade so i will get ryzen 8 core and 32gb ram 3200mhz. I believe with this build should for 5 years not have problems with games but i hope for at least 10.


most games these days are gpu intensive than cpu. bf1 ultra settings with vsync on, 1080p i have constant 60 fps it dont uses more than 50% of my gpu usage.

punctuation its overrated

 

[EarthDog]

Punctuation...use it.

That poor 1070 is so limited by that processor, yikes.

 

[phanbuey]

All I see is a lower clocked CPU getting beat by a higher clocked CPU? by 1-2% nothing surprising there! I dont see anything getting this so called "spanked" you mention

You must be missing that i5 moniker in front of it...

 

[Melvis]

You must be missing that i5 moniker in front of it...

You must be missing the half a GHz clock speed difference?

 

[Fx]

consider that it was an engineering sample that never went above 3.4 in the tests, that the mobo probably wasnt very high quality and these benchmarks make for a good baseline, it can only go up from here, especially since lisa su said on new horizon that 3.4 will be the minimum base clock for all ryzen chips.

Yep, I'll be starting off with that and upgrade once they release something higher-end. This is all very exciting news.

didnt we just close a thread on this very "french review"?

Its not even the same chip that was in the announcement stream. Its not even a released chip. Its also been said that the clocks are lowered during the pre-release. Far as I'm concerned, its a bogus review of a stolen prototype, so not a review worth its salt.

While this is true, it still offers a bit of perspective on what its potential can achieve.

 

[phanbuey]

You must be missing the half a GHz clock speed difference?

I did - because it doesn't matter. The comment I was responding to was referring to game performance.

Here is my process: Look at chart, see score. See Intel midrange chip from last gen ahead of AMD high-end chip releasing in 2 months; see Intel high end desktop chip 20% ahead. Feel sad, point out reality of data.

Here is the alternative process: Look at chart, make excuses as to why score is so low. Discount data.

 

[GhostRyder]

Seems alright, its definitely an improvement but since this is an early bench with an engineering sample we really have not gained much info on the chip yet. At least we get enough info to know we are getting a decently performing chip out of Ryzen, but its going to come down to the final product and price.

 

[mastrdrver]

Someone is saying that the final picture in that magazine has a binary string that says: ZenOC@air=5ghz

I did - because it doesn't matter. The comment I was responding to was referring to game performance.

Here is my process: Look at chart, see score. See Intel midrange chip from last gen ahead of AMD high-end chip releasing in 2 months; see Intel high end desktop chip 20% ahead. Feel sad, point out reality of data.

Here is the alternative process: Look at chart, make excuses as to why score is so low. Discount data.

So are you telling me that an old intel 6900k is better then the 6600k because it's higher on the chart and because of that Intel's newer processor is crap?

 

[phanbuey]

Someone is saying that the final picture in that magazine has a binary string that says: ZenOC@air=5ghz
So are you telling me that an old intel 6900k is better then the 6600k because it's higher on the chart and because of that Intel's newer processor is crap?

What?

 

[kruk]

What?

He is saying that you don't have a clue how game benchmarks work. If you look at the results, it's clear that results correlate with clock speed. The proper way to analyze this graph would be normalization by dividing the score with speed in MHz. You might be surprised with the result ...

 

[Nordic]

Seeing as how the 8 core 16 thread has a TDP of ~95w, I'd expect a 4 core 8 thread to have a TDP of like ~60W.

Exactly. Would AMD make a 4core part with high clockspeeds? The only problem is I could see it competing with their 8 core part in some ways.

 

[phanbuey]

He is saying that you don't have a clue how game benchmarks work. If you look at the results, it's clear that results correlate with clock speed. The proper way to analyze this graph would be normalization by dividing the score with speed in MHz. You might be surprised with the result ...

OH MY GOD? IT SCALES with clockspeed!?!? well thanks for pointing that out, that changes EVERYTHING.

Except wait, nope... zen still has a lower clockspeed and won't really make sense for games.

Exactly. Would AMD make a 4core part with high clockspeeds? The only problem is I could see it competing with their 8 core part in some ways.

I think they will have to - the high end product looks geared for content creation.

 

[kruk]

OH MY GOD? IT SCALES with clockspeed!?!? well thanks for pointing that out, that changes EVERYTHING.

Except wait, nope... zen still has a lower clockspeed and won't really make sense for games.

.

Now I see it. You are right, this is the final product. They will produce ONLY ONE cpu model: It will be named Ryzen, it will have 8C/16T, 3.15 GHz base and 3.3 GHz boost. It's all clear now. How could I be so blind? /s

STOP TROLLING!!

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

Zen might be amazing! The review that gave origin to this news thread actually had a easter egg. Check this out guys:
ZenOC@Air=5G

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5krghq/remember_the_canard_pc_magazine_about_zen_it_has/

 

[phanbuey]

Now I see it. You are right, this is the final product. They will produce ONLY ONE cpu model: It will be named Ryzen, it will have 8C/16T, 3.15 GHz base and 3.3 GHz boost. It's all clear now. How could I be so blind? /s

STOP TROLLING!!

Look I'm sorry if i am hurting your feelings by pointing out that, at least the first model, that is shipping in late feb /march is the 8ct/16 and its not ideal for games (not factoring in overclocking) as it is matched/outperformed by a 58W $250 part. Feel free to divide the numbers however you would like and make any assumptions regarding future models that will make you feel better.

I am not, nor was I ever talking about the IPC of ryzen or how it is inferior in games; but about the actual chip that is rumored to come out; pre any overclocks is not going to be the ideal product for gamers.

I will be waiting for a higher clocked quad or hex.

 

[kruk]

Look I'm sorry if i am hurting your feelings by pointing out that, at least the first model, that is shipping in late feb /march is the 8ct/16 and its not ideal for games (not factoring in overclocking) as it is matched/outperformed by a 58W $250 part. Feel free to divide the numbers however you would like and make any assumptions regarding future models that will make you feel better.

I am not, nor was I ever talking about the IPC of ryzen or how it is inferior in games; but about the actual chip that is rumored to come out; pre any overclocks is not going to be the ideal product for gamers.

I will be waiting for a higher clocked quad or hex.

Nobody except AMD (and mabye some lucky reviewers) knows what the final base/turbo clock of the first released model will be, but feel free to compare a prototype to a already released CPU in whichever way you would like - if that will make you feel better. I rest my case ...

 

[phanbuey]

Nobody except AMD (and mabye some lucky reviewers) knows what the final base/turbo clock of the first released model will be, but feel free to compare a prototype to a already released CPU in whichever way you would like - if that will make you feel better. I rest my case ...

umm.. thats the point of this thread lol, its pure speculation with what very little data we have to go on. And it gives us a very rough glimpse of what the performance will be like.

 

[efikkan]

The proper way to analyze this graph would be normalization by dividing the score with speed in MHz. You might be surprised with the result ...

Actually no, gaming performance is better with higher clocks, but it's not proportional to clock frequency.
There are a lot of other factors that matters, like i7-6900K is beating i5-6600K (if I read the chart correctly), even when i7-6900K is an "older" architecture and has "lower clocks". There are several reasons for this, first of all boosting works differently, especially on CPUs with many cores. Different amounts of L3 cache matters, and of course more cores can sometimes free up resources.

As always, real world performance is the only thing that matters. I wish more of these benchmarks were performed with background applications to get a more realistic workload.

 

[Melvis]

I did - because it doesn't matter. The comment I was responding to was referring to game performance.

Here is my process: Look at chart, see score. See Intel midrange chip from last gen ahead of AMD high-end chip releasing in 2 months; see Intel high end desktop chip 20% ahead. Feel sad, point out reality of data.

Here is the alternative process: Look at chart, make excuses as to why score is so low. Discount data.

What? soooo clock speed doesnt matter for gaming is that what your saying? are you really that dense?

20% ahead? wow I think the problem is you have no idea how to read, you might need to go back to the classroom boy and learn the basic's first before commenting and making yourself look like a total dumb ass!

Maybe you work for intel? and your scared? and your job is to inflict as much BS into these kind of threads to mislead people? ether way your comments are so incorrect and have no real meaning that you have just told us all that read this thread how in-mature and full of trolling BS you are