Ryzen benchmarking and overclocking results

[mastrdrver]

I'm still setting up benchmarks, then reinstall Windows, then bench everything new on all comparison systems + Ryzen.

At the same time working on VGA Bench rig, so I can get GTX 1080 Ti review done asap.

Maybe Wednesday for Ryzen

Are you having problems that some report, in that Windows 10 not allocating resources correctly with Ryzen?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

 

[cdawall]

That is all true, though the process (moving to multithreaded games) is really slow. Admittedly in the last ~2 years it developed some momentum, but I 'm probably right giving it an other 4-5 years before we are finally there.

Based off of what? There are more and more games being released on the same engine that does perform well with multiple cores. All that has to happen is the big three engines go multithreaded and it will spread through everything.

Also quite honestly if you use a comparison of a MOBA or MMORPG I will stop listening to anything you say.

 

[W1zzard]

Are you having problems that some report, in that Windows 10 not allocating resources correctly with Ryzen?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7

 

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Every interview I have read, AMD is comparing the Ryzen 1800k to the 6900K.

That's the kind of chip they are targeting with the Ryzen 7 product line. When the lower core count 5 and 3 series are released then we will see how other chips like the 7700k stack up. It is obvious AMD has made some marketing mistakes here and the stock price is suffering from unwarranted hysteria. The cheaper non SMT chips may be the best values for gaming even if performance is a bit less. I am typing this from a stock clocked I7 920 and still use a variety of "lousy" FX and even Phenom II systems for 2K and 4K gaming. I even use, (gasp), a stock FX 8320 with stock SLI GTX 1070s for 4K.

 

[Folterknecht]

Based off of what? There are more and more games being released on the same engine that does perform well with multiple cores. All that has to happen is the big three engines go multithreaded and it will spread through everything.

Also quite honestly if you use a comparison of a MOBA or MMORPG I will stop listening to anything you say.

Should have been more specific - I meant using more than 4C/4T - sorry.

And regarding MOBA/MMORPG ... not my cup of tea, personally I 'm more into single player games.

 

[cdawall]

Should have been more specific - I meant using more than 4C/4T - sorry.

And regarding MOBA/MMORPG ... not my cup of tea, personally I 'm more into single player games.

Those are very quickly moving to 8C just fine. Even crysis 3 was relatively well multithreaded

 

[mroofie]

I'm still setting up benchmarks, then reinstall Windows, then bench everything new on all comparison systems + Ryzen.

At the same time working on VGA Bench rig, so I can get GTX 1080 Ti review done asap.

Maybe Wednesday for Ryzen

and Gtx 1080 Ti ? :whistle:

(Just hyped )

 

[erek]

Yeah, what's wrong with running a $5500 monster system (according to PC Partpicker) on an outdated $135 TN monitor? If you don't know, you're doing it wrong.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ymCvYr

even so, my system's platform is obsolete with it being a X99 platform I do have some options left on the X99, and that's going the a Xeon E5 2699 V4 22-core, and also could double my ram and still remain viable

 

[Killerdroid]

even so, my system's platform is obsolete with it being a X99 platform

My x79 hardware is still viable because it does what I need it to do.
What exactly do you want to do with your x99 system?

 

[erek]

My x79 hardware is still viable because it does what I need it to do.
What exactly do you want to do with your x99 system?

Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299 ... I hate how with the new platforms to get Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...

It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5

 

[Killerdroid]

Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299 ... I hate how with the new platforms to get Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...

It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5

They only become obsolete when nothing new will run on them.

Are you really wanting a 32 core Xeon???
That many cores are good for nothing but servers or workstations. Not a good idea for gaming at all.

My Xeon X79 platform is a workstation and breezes through anything thrown at it.
I was looking at X99 kit a while back but the speed comparisons were barely noticeable. Saved myself a ton of cash.....

I'm not a gamer BTW so really don't need the latest hardware.
And unless the new stuff does the housework for me, I see no reason to upgrade.

 

[cadaveca]

So with a simple answer, can anyone tell me ....have these chips lived up to the hype? Are they truly "Intel killers"? Or is it still too early to know?

hype? Not met. Intel killer? At multi-threaded workloads, yes. Too early to know? Not at all.

AMD had a botched launch, sending people hardware that wasn't truly compatible. Ryzen is a good platform, but in some workloads (ie gaming), Intel wins when comparing stock CPU speeds. OC'ed, Intel still gets more raw frequency, so wins.

So, Intel is not in trouble from Ryzen at all. but should AMD be able to push the clock speeds up... Intel could be beat in all workloads. AMD just needs these chips to clock to 5 GHz on "traditional" cooling methods like Kaby Lake does. Seeing how Kaby lake has 65W and 95W "OC" models, just like Ryzen, this might be possible in the future, but not right now.

 

[cdawall]

hype? Not met. Intel killer? At multi-threaded workloads, yes. Too early to know? Not at all.

AMD had a botched launch, sending people hardware that wasn't truly compatible. Ryzen is a good platform, but in some workloads (ie gaming), Intel wins when comparing stock CPU speeds. OC'ed, Intel still gets more raw frequency, so wins.

So, Intel is not in trouble from Ryzen at all. but should AMD be able to push the clock speeds up... Intel could be beat in all workloads. AMD just needs these chips to clock to 5 GHz on "traditional" cooling methods like Kaby Lake does. Seeing how Kaby lake has 65W and 95W "OC" models, just like Ryzen, this might be possible in the future, but not right now.

Comparing TDP's between companies? Brave...Those numbers don't equate to real world power consumption and never have. The current AMD chips are easily pulling over TDP under load at stock and any amount of overclocking is pushing that envelope way up. The Skylake and Kabylake chips do not consume anywhere near as much power overclocked or stock for that matter.

That being said Ryzen does seem to be pulling comparable numbers to broadwell-e chips of the same core configuration.

 

[cadaveca]

Comparing TDP's between companies? Brave...Those numbers don't equate to real world power consumption and never have. The current AMD chips are easily pulling over TDP under load at stock and any amount of overclocking is pushing that envelope way up. The Skylake and Kabylake chips do not consume anywhere near as much power overclocked or stock for that matter.

Of course. Intel TDP is max draw, AMD TDP is required cooling.

However, those "targets" by AMD, to me, were clearly chosen to match Intel's offerings.

And yeah, Ryzen and broadwell-E are very similar, but Broadwell-E has quad-channel ram, more PCIe and more cache in that same power envelope. core config may be similar, but not to me, since to me, broadwell-E is a 10-core/20-thread chip (6950X). The rest of the chips are not using all their cores or PCIe root complex or both.

 

[notb]

This isn't a 5ghz quad core product. This is a slower running 8 core model. If all you want to do is game than wait for AMD to drop the quad and six core parts and see how they clock. As it stands now we are looking at a 5-20FPS difference at 1080P not exactly a deal breaker for most going from 140FPS to 120FPS. There are also games when that is reversed and AMD offers MORE performance, yet those games aren't mentioned.

Most people don't overclock at all, so it's really irrelevant in large scale (aka financial results) whether the 4/6 core chips overclock well or not.
And honestly, why would they? TDP for 8 cores is just 95W, while the tests shown they use around 120W in max stress (as much as Intel's 8 core). These are still fairly low numbers. Disabling 2 or 4 cores won't change much.

Moreover, think about product placement. Intel could release Skylake LGA1151 with excellent single-core performance and OC potential, because they're in totally different segment than their HEDT models (socket, features).
AMD can't really afford that. All Ryzen variants are on the same platform - no qualitative features distinguish them. Imagine what would happen to 8-core sales if 4 and 6-core alternatives (half the price) outclass them in gaming? This might as well kill the whole idea of Ryzen bringing back positive financial results at AMD (if it's still alive).

As for the "games aren't mentioned"... oh come on. Reviewers usually test games that people actually play (AMD fans call this a bias towards Intel ). Do you remember the whole action around Polaris and Ashes of the Singularity? Basically under every test there was a comment complaining that this game wasn't included. But the game itself is fairly mediocre and as a result - not really popular among gamers. That said, I've seen a few people recommending buying it because "you'll finally see what your RX480 can do!"

 

[cdawall]

Of course. Intel TDP is max draw, AMD TDP is required cooling.

However, those "targets" by AMD, to me, were clearly chosen to match Intel's offerings.

And yeah, Ryzen and broadwell-E are very similar, but Broadwell-E has quad-channel ram, more PCIe and more cache in that same power envelope. core config may be similar, but not to me, since to me, broadwell-E is a 10-core/20-thread chip (6950X). The rest of the chips are not using all their cores or PCIe root complex or both.

It is typical AMD marketing. Unluckily that doesn't lead to comparable numbers for a consumer, but it looks great on a piece of paper. You could very easily call a 6900K a 95w chip using AMD's rating scheme. They have released a mainstream CPU with HEDT consumption. I am sure later revisions will fix this a lot like we saw with B2 for B3 for Phenom 1 and C2 vs C3 for Phenom II (most consumers never saw C1 chips, but I had those as well).

Most people don't overclock at all, so it's really irrelevant in large scale (aka financial results) whether the 4/6 core chips overclock well or not.
And honestly, why would they? TDP for 8 cores is just 95W, while the tests shown they use around 120W in max stress (as much as Intel's 8 core). These are still fairly low numbers. Disabling 2 or 4 cores won't change much.

Moreover, think about product placement. Intel could release Skylake LGA1151 with excellent single-core performance and OC potential, because they're in totally different segment than their HEDT models (socket, features).
AMD can't really afford that. All Ryzen variants are on the same platform - no qualitative features distinguish them. Imagine what would happen to 8-core sales if 4 and 6-core alternatives (half the price) outclass them in gaming? This might as well kill the whole idea of Ryzen bringing back positive financial results at AMD (if it's still alive).

As for the "games aren't mentioned"... oh come on. Reviewers usually test games that people actually play (AMD fans call this a bias towards Intel ). Do you remember the whole action around Polaris and Ashes of the Singularity? Basically under every test there was a comment complaining that this game wasn't included. But the game itself is fairly mediocre and as a result - not really popular among gamers. That said, I've seen a few people recommending buying it because "you'll finally see what your RX480 can do!"

Some of them are games currently played by people. I mean even games as old as crysis 3 show scaling across higher core counts. Most of the DX12/Vulkan benchmarks show excellent scaling etc.

I also don't care if it isn't the best gaming chip, there actually exists a life outside of games.

 

[notb]

Some of them are games currently played by people. I mean even games as old as crysis 3 show scaling across higher core counts. Most of the DX12/Vulkan benchmarks show excellent scaling etc.

I've never played Crysis and really don't care about this that much. On my "todo" list of games there are titles like Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, Witcher 1-2-3. Based on how much I've played in last 5 years, I'm covered for the next decade easily. By that time The Witcher 3 will run on Intel IGP.

I also don't care if it isn't the best gaming chip, there actually exists a life outside of games.

I also don't care about gaming results that much, while Ryzen is clearly an excellent choice for productivity, numerical computation, encoding and so on.
Problem is, AMD themselves are marketing Ryzen as a gaming solution. It was all about gaming in leaks and the launch event.
You've seen their website lately?
http://www.amd.com/en/products/desktops
For business and consumer solutions they recommend the refreshed APU (Bristol Ridge, AM4).

Both the (somehow theoretical) product placement and the (very real) lack of IGP mean, that is very unlikely that we'll see Ryzen 7 in vendor's business PCs and workstations - exactly the place where it could really shine. AFAIK companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo didn't show anything new, while we're already being flooded by Ryzen-based gaming rigs.
I'm pretty sure the initial issues/bugs don't help that either.

IMO big fail for AMD here.

BTW: I've just checked the very popular Passmark results, as Ryzen chips started to appear in the database. It's really not great, but still calculated on not enough samples to be treated seriously - I'll check very often from now on.
PC Mark (mixed single/multi thread):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2874&cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=2969
Single thread:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare-test.php?cmp[]=2970&cmp[]=2863&cmp[]=2347

 

[Caring1]

Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7

 

[HTC]

Same here

I know it's not "supported" but, for now, it seems it's running better (game performance wise) then 10: that SMT problem in 10 seems not to be present in 7, @ the moment.

Ofc it may change in a near future, so there's that too ...

 

[r9]

Can somebody disable 4 cores and SMT and do some game benchmarks. Just to get a glimpse from what to expect from the Ryzen 3 cpus.
Also that would take out Windows scheduler optimization from the equation.
The issue with scheduler not distinguishing between actual and SMT cores, assigning threads to SMT that are four time slower than actual cores.
Moving threads between CCX and causing bottlenecking from split L3 cache and slow inter cache link.
Explained here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x7oaq/ryzens_memory_latency_problem_a_discussion_of/.

 

[mastrdrver]

Haven't done any game testing yet and no plans to look at Windows 7

Sorry, I posted the wrong link originally (I thought I fixed it when I edited it originally). It should be this one:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-2#post-38770630

Logical Processor to Cache Map:
**------  Data Cache          0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
**------  Instruction Cache   0, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
**------  Unified Cache       0, Level 2,  256 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
********  Unified Cache       1, Level 3,    8 MB, Assoc  16, LineSize  64
--**----  Data Cache          1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--**----  Instruction Cache   1, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
--**----  Unified Cache       2, Level 2,  256 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----**--  Data Cache          2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----**--  Instruction Cache   2, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
----**--  Unified Cache       3, Level 2,  256 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------**  Data Cache          3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------**  Instruction Cache   3, Level 1,   32 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64
------**  Unified Cache       4, Level 2,  256 KB, Assoc   8, LineSize  64

So code which takes this into account would assume each logical core has its own Cache, with a totally wrong Cache size. Also a NUMA group per CCX would make sense. This could explain some of the bad results.

 

[phanbuey]

Is there a way to disable the win 8/10 features in the bios and run it in legacy mode?

 

[Caring1]

Same here

I know it's not "supported" but, for now, it seems it's running better (game performance wise) then 10: that SMT problem in 10 seems not to be present in 7, @ the moment.

Ofc it may change in a near future, so there's that too ...

Gigabyte Motherboards at least have drivers for W7, so we might see some tests yet.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well seems X99 / X79 are obsoleted by Z270 and X299 ... I hate how with the new platforms to get Skylake-EP Xeon E5 2699 V5 32-core you need to move to the non-Enthusiast but Workstation/Server Platform LGA 3647 ...

It's lame how we don't have a path on LGA 2066 for the Xeon E5 2699 V5

X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.

 

[phanbuey]

X79 and X99 are only obsolete if they don't do what you need them to. Don't let Intel or AMD tell you your shit is obsolete. Don't fall for marketing.

except z270 and x299 are intel chipsets, so its Intel that is telling you it's obsolete with their 15% increased performance and $1000 pricetags.

Granted, AMD will definitely try to tell you that too, so your point still stands