AMD Ryzen 21% slower than i7 6700K in gaming

[FYFI13]

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-12/amd-ryzen-magazin-test-vorschau-prototyp/

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

 

[Caring1]

It's been posted already.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...00k-with-lower-tdp.228684/page-7#post-3574761

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

That's an Es chip and less than official test ,not even at release clocks not definitive then hey.
It's been posted but not so sensationally.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

I'll wait for the official reviews. At release the performance will be better than this early sample using silicon older than the new horizon event one.

 

[R0H1T]

Misleading title, unless you'd want/play games that don't scale past 4 cores?

 

[silentbogo]

Well, with overall picture it seems like besides lower clocks, it's quite close to what AMD demonstrated.
I like this part a bit more than everything:

93 Watt benötigt das Ryzen-System, 96 Watt der Rechner mit Core i7-6900K.

If both AMD and some independent french magazine show the same numbers, I can safely assume that it won't be a flop as previous generations (regardless whether AMD manages to make a consumer version run faster or not).
8 cores at 3.1GHz is still an impressive feat and I'd like to see more of that.

 

[FYFI13]

Misleading title, unless you'd want/play games that don't scale past 4 cores?

Not sure about other games but Butterfield 1 is using 8 threads on my PC. Plus, vast majority of current games using 1-2 threads only. Not talking about very latest titles.

It's been posted already.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...00k-with-lower-tdp.228684/page-7#post-3574761

I can't see link in OP. If it was posted in comments - sorry, I didn't read them.

I'll wait for the official reviews. At release the performance will be better than this early sample using silicon older than the new horizon event one.

Let's say AMD will manage to improve performance by 1-2%, an overclocked i3 7350k going to beat it in single threaded games by a big margin.

 

[FR@NK]

If zen cant clock higher then it wont be able to compete with intel. The 6900k does up to 4GHz with turbo boost 3.0 enabled same as the 10 core 6950k. This gives intel more then a car's length advantage.

 

[RejZoR]

Percentage based comparisons are the most idiotic and meaningless comparison one can make for gaming. Use framerate and we can talk, otherwise it's pointless. Besides, when games run at max 4 threads, all it then makes the difference is per core clock or IPC. So, if you clock it higher, it'll perform better. I personally think the difference will be irrelevant unless you're a hardcore gamer with dual GTX 1080 in which case you probably already have a top of the line X99 platform...

 

[kruk]

Misleading title. It should say:

AMD Ryzen Prototype 21% slower than i7 6700K in gaming

Since we don't know the final base/boost clock of their best offering, there is no way to draw any conclusion yet.

 

[IceScreamer]

Not sure about other games but Butterfield 1 is using 8 threads on my PC. Plus, vast majority of current games using 1-2 threads only. Not talking about very latest titles.



I can't see link in OP. If it was posted in comments - sorry, I didn't read them.



Let's say AMD will manage to improve performance by 1-2%, an overclocked i3 7350k going to beat it in single threaded games by a big margin.

To be fair that i3 7350k is probably very similar to i7 6700k in single core perf, so based on that comparison there is no need to buy the 6700k if single core is all that mattered.

Anyway, I'm liking the performance if that wattage is true.

 

[TheHunter]

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.

 

[FYFI13]

il, 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.

Yeah, overcloking is the only hope for Ryzen. I really hope that AMD using very low clocks just to reduce power consumption and not because that's all it can do.

Percentage based comparisons are the most idiotic and meaningless comparison one can make for gaming.

Depending on games you play. 160fps vs 200fps in Skyrim wouldn't make any difference, 40fps vs 50fps in Arma 3 would be a deal breaker for me.

And just to clarify, i am not one of AMD haters. I am waiting for Ryzen, if it will perform better than my i7 4790k in Arma 3 - I'll buy it ASAP.

 

[TheHunter]

Yeah, overcloking is the only hope for Ryzen. I really hope that AMD using very low clocks just to reduce power consumption and not because that's all it can do.

well from what ive read so far they used a very Early ES in this review, later versions were already 3.5ghz, that said I think retail it will be a great chip.

especially 4core and 6 core variants, those will be high clocks for sure.

 

[EntropyZ]

They still have until the end of Q1 2017 to finalize what will be the retail chips. Upgrading from something like a i5 2400 to Ryzen should be interesting. The previous generation CPU's from AMD didn't age well for me because most of the games that I played didn't scale OK past 2 cores.

It's a real shame that we had CPU's with multiple cores since 2005, and AAA game developers only seemed to start perfect support to use the cores that usually do very little to increase game performance 5 years ago, it's been over 10 years since the first consumer dual-core CPU's and only now we get the stuff that I thought was gonna be there from the get go. I do know IPC was not very good back then and it had long ways to go before we saw something impressive.

It's all in the past now I guess. But I am hoping multi-core CPU support will be dominant from now on. Oh and Zen will kick butt with their four core and beyond offerings.

I wonder how the automated overclocking based on how much cooling headroom you got will turn out. Basically it seems to be Turbo Core with temperature sensors attached to it like siamese bulldogs attached to your ****. (Taking readings and adjusting clocks + voltage)

I've been checking out the news and my take on them is that people either are making up theories (which hype me up more or less) or regurgitate whatever the AMD events have already shown.

The smart buy is probably going to be the mid-range CPU for gamers as always. Unless game developers pull a magic trick out of their unmentionables and make any CPU with more than 4C4T be more useful at gaming. Considering anything past four cores from Intel cost significantly more, and not a lot of games make use of the extra threads.

In the end I think everything is going to be okay, it's just that I will still be mad over the companies' past mistakes, that and screwing the consumer at times, but they don't care lol. Everyone is just trying to make money and be a little more than anti-competitive.

 

[LightningJR]

I like those numbers, I just hope it can overclock (because I love to OC ) and it is priced well. It's MINE if so.

Just looking at the gaming graph it already competes with my 2500K @ 4.6Ghz so if I can get 4Ghz out of it it'll smoke my 2500K and in multi-threaded workloads it'll be in the stratosphere.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Aggregate benchmarks from lazy guy that released this for clickbait.

Yeah....still waiting. And I don't trust the French (wahhh, I don't want to work more than 4 hrs per day and never weekends or I'll riot).

 

[alucasa]

ES chips at this point are likely final with only minor alternations to be made. There was a reason AMD pushed hard with Blender; it focuses on perfornance of core # instead of core frequency.

Having said that, since I prefer higher core #, Zen will probably be a good alternative to Intel's 6800k - 6900k, provided that its price is lower.

 

[FireFox]

What a surprise.

I'll wait for the official reviews

Official reviews won't be much better.

 

[peche]

What a surprise.

cant believe it neither lad... lol

 

[FireFox]

cant believe it neither lad... lol

I am so sorry for those whom have been waiting for so long.

 

[peche]

I am so sorry for those whom have been waiting for so long.

its always the same, i see no surprise here

 

[prtskg]

People are whining about the gaming performance of an 8 core ES in games which are quite happy with 4 threads. Retail 6900K is only 10% ahead. Why aren't you talking about that? How blind can people get!

 

[kruk]

People are whining about the gaming performance of an 8 core ES in games which are quite happy with 4 threads. Retail 6900K is only 10% ahead. Why aren't you talking about that? How blind can people get!

Yeah, if the final chip will really have 3.4+ GHz base (10% over the ES), it will be really competitive to 8C/16T 6900K.
Additionally, we really don't know what the clocks of the 4C/8T chips will be. If they are able to achieve around 4 GHz base clock, then everybody wins (except fanboys and Intel .

 

[prtskg]

Seeing the games used, I'd say that the writer wanted to show worst possible cases for an 8 core 16 thread chip. And nothing beats 3rd party testing from a reputed magazine. Also the guy who tested the ES also tested Athlon much before it was launched. Maybe he does these leaks only when he's impressed.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-154#post-38646829