AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Leaked Benchmarks Analyzed, Faster Than Intel’s Fastest 6 Core

[Xzibit]

Games have been taking 8 cores into account on consoles (6 for the game) for 2 cycles this year. (PS4, PS4 Pro, X-Box One, X-Box Scorpio)

Porting doesn't have to be compacted to 2C as much anymore going forward. Not going to happen over night but if you keep selling 2C to the masses you still have to cater to them for sales. Especially if they make 50% of the market according to Steam

Now we can stick to the status quo and have Intel still selling 2C and making entry level 4T+ north of $300. Which is obviously out of reach for 50% of the masses. After all the pass 2yrs there ASP (Average Selling Price) has increase 10% each year. Much higher then their IPC performance gains.

If the RyZen rumor prices stick. We are looking at 4T+ at 60% of Intel price with competitive IPC. Which will eventually make that steam 2C/2T number move a bit.

 

[EarthDog]

Yep.. still waiting!

 

[medi01]

Expected to be...

Those, "onwards" are expected. Those in 2016 already are: Overwatch, Assasin's Creed, The Division, to name a couple.

 

[EarthDog]

Yup.. just a couple!

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

Yup.. just a couple!

I have a different question, what AAA games that came out in 2016-2017 don't use more than 4 cores? This is just a question not a challenge

 

[EarthDog]

4 cores? I was talking 8 threads, lol...

Not sure... I'd bet the majority use 4 threads or less however. Let me know though!

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

Not sure... I'd bet the majority use 4 threads or less however. Let me know though!

So you don't have facts...you're guessing

 

[EarthDog]

Lol, i dont play l or know all. I play many games, I review and test on several.. only a couple show use over 4 cores. I have monitoring running constantly on a second monitor on both rigs. I'm good with what I said.

Also, I look at techspot game coverage as they used to show scaling on several cpus. You'd see many it wouldnt matter, performance wise, over 4 cores.

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

Lol, i dont play l or know all. I play many games, I review and test on several.. only a couple show use over 4 cores. I have monitoring running constantly on a second monitor on both rigs. I'm good with what I said.

Ok cool, I understand.

 

[FYFI13]

I have a different question, what AAA games that came out in 2016-2017 don't use more than 4 cores? This is just a question not a challenge

First of all, the question should be "how many games actually benefit from more than 4 cores". The list would be quite long and I'm not sure if i want to waste so much time for it now.

Far Cry Primal is one of many examples where 2c 4t processor can kick in the butt to top tier CPUs. That's why we need strong single core performance:

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

In my case I think the CPU does not impact gaming performance that much as I am using 3440x1440 rez, If Ryzen can give me more CPU performance than I have now (not only in games) I see that as an improvement and a good reason to buy. It remains to bee seen

 

[laszlo]

in the light of recent events i bring you all something useful:

excessive usage may cause addiction; other noticeable problem will be that after a while it may become blunt and loose sharpness

those who notice the last problems can put it in their cpu or vga to restore it to a better condition!

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Nice 1fps gain going from 4 to 8 core, woo hoo, I'm getting me a 8core CPU

 

[BiggieShady]

Nice 1fps gain going from 4 to 8 core, woo hoo, I'm getting me a 8core CPU

Maybe you should, but not because of that particular game.
When testing FPS scaling with core count you gotta ask the following: Is GPU already maxed at this resolution and settings? Is engine's multithreaded renderer designed to be scalable past certain number of cores in the first place? Is engine's implementation of multithreading largely suboptimal and made just to have a check mark on the feature list?
The ultimate scaling test would be: keep the same(ish) framerate on 4 core 4GHz and 8 core 2GHz
When designing software using thread pools rather than having predefined number of threads, if you set max thread pool size limit 2x than the largest number of cores in the biggest cpu on the market, you need not to worry about scaling

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

First of all, the question should be "how many games actually benefit from more than 4 cores". The list would be quite long and I'm not sure if i want to waste so much time for it now.

Far Cry Primal is one of many examples where 2c 4t processor can kick in the butt to top tier CPUs. That's why we need strong single core performance:

Yes but on a technical level what you want is not practical, you and many others have banged on about i3s beating my chip but the same can be said of Intel's i7s , some mostly older games use two cores best so by implication anything more is overkill for some regardless of brand.

And secondly the more cores get added the greater the heat dissipation requirements , no one is making 16 core chips that run at 4-4.5 GHz out of the box and certainly not Intel so be realistic.

Two cores alone will always clock better than 8-16 unless AMD really have been holding their cards close to their chests, I hope so , be nice to see the blue reality disrupter field gone.

 

[heky]

I think i might switch to team red this time...

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I think i might switch to team red this time...

I want to see game comparisons against the faster clocked Intel quads. I also want to see more info on how AMD's turbo boost works. The last part of that vid kinda indicates maybe we should go more by Ryzen's turbo speed than base speed.

Now matter how much you talk tasking efficiency, or how they compare to 6 core chips in gaming, for those whom mostly game, it still comes down to best gaming performance, and there Intel's quads do pretty well, and they may drop in price.

At the end of the day though, if it comes to very close performance to similar or higher priced Intel quads, I have to think Ryzen wins just on overall efficiency, and future readiness for higher threaded games, not to mention killer pricing.

 

[mcraygsx]

I7 4790k at stock gets about 180 points in single thread benchmark. If Ryzen with XFR can only do 146, then I'm really disappointed.

7700K is still the best CPU for average gamer unless Ryzen 7 can achieve same frequency on air. But with all the new games (AW, Ghost Recon, Siege etc) coming out, they are very well optimized for hexa core CPU's.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

^Yeah this will likely come down to how much one values tasking speed, how much you bank on games increasingly supporting 6-8 cores, and how close in speed Ryzen is to the higher clocked Intel quads on quad threaded games. Another factor of course is how long you keep your core parts (MB, CPU, etc).

The only thing I'm not really getting about Ryzen is they seem clocked low for how low it's wattage is. I know those are already good clock speeds for 6-8 core chips, but when you consider how much lower wattage they are than Intel's hex cores, you'd think they could easily clock them higher out of the box and just obliterate Intel.

Any thoughts on this? I know they're already being touted as good overclocking chips, but it just seems AMD is playing it safe with stock clocks. Do you think they plan on using user feedback to determine the average safe OC threshold, then release Black Editions clocked higher at a higher price? If so, the initial stock clock choice could be more of a future profit scheme than playing it safe.

 

[kruk]

The only thing I'm not really getting about Ryzen is they seem clocked low for how low it's wattage is. I know those are already good clock speeds for 6-8 core chips, but when you consider how much lower wattage they are than Intel's hex cores, you'd think they could easily clock them higher out of the box and just obliterate Intel.

Any thoughts on this? I know they're already being touted as good overclocking chips, but it just seems AMD is playing it safe with stock clocks. Do you think they plan on using user feedback to determine the average safe OC threshold, then release Black Editions clocked higher at a higher price? If so, the initial stock clock choice could be more of a future profit scheme than playing it safe.

This might be a process limitation. It will surely improve over time and with Zen+ the clocks should be higher.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

This might be a process limitation. It will surely improve over time and with Zen+ the clocks should be higher.

If you mean low initial yields, I know that always factors in, but as far as I know, yield is generally better on lower wattage chips. Plus I'm going by initial responses that they seem to be good overclockers.

 

[kruk]

If you mean low initial yields, I know that always factors in, but as far as I know, yield is generally better on lower wattage chips. Plus I'm going by initial responses that they seem to be good overclockers.

Yields are probably great and thats why we don't see the cut down chips yet. I'm talking about the process (is it 14 nm LPP?) which might have to be improved to achieve much higher clocks.

 

[FYFI13]

I know they're already being touted as good overclocking chips

I heard the opposite, they hardly can go over 4GHz + issues with higher clocked RAM.
There might be reason why AMD pushed back release of Ryzen 5/3.

 

[Xzibit]

I heard the opposite, they hardly can go over 4GHz + issues with higher clocked RAM.
There might be reason why AMD pushed back release of Ryzen 5/3.

AMD didn't push anything back. They never said anything besides the 8c/16t in thier presentations prior to yesterday, where they unveiled the first information about the 5 and 3.

If we stuck to rumors we'd be missing RyZen 7 CPU variants and HSF combinations for the chips.

 

[FYFI13]

AMD didn't push anything back. They never said anything besides the 8c/16t in thier presentations prior to yesterday, where they unveiled the first information about the 5 and 3.

If we stuck to rumors we'd be missing RyZen 7 CPU variants and HSF combinations for the chips.

No, they never said so. But, if everything was alright they could have launched full product lineup at same time.