• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

Page 203 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,565
1,983
136
Can anyone with BCLK overclocked Skylake chime in? BCLK OC bios should make AVX on Skylake work at same speed as Ryzen theoretically does (never switch into 256 bit mode, that is), so it could help to verify that PN/Physics test are actually AVX based and there's nothing else fishy going on with them.
+1, should be fun to see
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,565
1,983
136
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html



I believe the Bullet Physics Engine uses AVX2.
"Prime Number Test
The Prime Number Test aims to test how fast the CPU can search for Prime numbers, reported as operations per second. A prime number is a number that can only be divided by itself and 1. For example, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 etc. This algorithm uses loops and CPU operations that are common in computer software, the most intensive being multiplication and modulo operations. All operations are performed using 64-bit integers."

I'm at a loss...
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,129
2,088
136
I would disregard those 2 outliers. We will have other benchmarks that can test similar things(ie. wprime). Ryzen looks extremely good. If we could only know if that sample was running with Turbo enabled or not.
 

blublub

Member
Jul 19, 2016
135
61
101
I was wondering if you could tell if XFR was enabled.

I looked at the Sandra result and compared it to a random 6900K score that seemed like it had turbo disabled (3.2 ghz):

MM Integer: 718 vs 525 for the Ryzen "38_34"
MM Long Int: 211 vs 159
MM Quad Int: 3299 vs 3589
MM Single Float: 654 vs 522
MM Double Float: 374 vs 300
MM Quad Float: 13352 vs 13271

Not sure what to make of it beyond perhaps some have AVX(2) optimizations and some don't.
On this MB from the leak XFR is not supported. So no XFR but maybe normal Turbo with 3.8ghz was working
 

Dresdenboy

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,730
554
136
citavia.blog.de
Eh, their HPC share is not going to grow with such AVX performance (that statement is independent from these benchmarks because we do not know if they use AVX).
I think many expected this already 16 months ago when it became clear that Zen would have 128b FPUs. Aside from Snowy Owl they'll not have a pure CPU based HPC contender until at least 2018.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exist50 and cytg111

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,129
2,088
136
Yep, that is why Lisa Su said that they will cover 85% of the server market with Zen. The missing 15% is HPC. Zen+ should address that I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Greyguy1948

Member
Nov 29, 2008
151
15
91
Regarding Sisoft Sandra Multimedia:
From 3.14 GHz to 3.4 GHz
(Eng Sample <-------> Ryzen)
int...... 458.....................526
long....137.....................159
quad....2.7...................... 3.6
single..348.....................522
double.201....................300
quad.....9.5.....................13.3

Floating point improvement is impressing!
 

Greyguy1948

Member
Nov 29, 2008
151
15
91
CPU Marks. Some of the tests use no L3 cache.

Test............Memory/ core
Int math.......240 kB
Compr...........16 kB
Prime.............4 MB
Encrypt........ 1 MB
String sort.....25 MB
Fp math.......240 kB
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
Why is sm625 calling it a turd? At those clockspeeds thats good results by ryzen.
Look at the physics score. That is what is going to condemn it to gaming mediocrity. The memory score is also a grave concern, if it is cache bandwidth that is pulling it down.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
LMAO at the people going on full damage controll...why be worried guys? Ryzen is a clear success..at 3.8ghz it has almost the same ST of an i3 4160 running at 3.6ghz..
Because that i3 is 3 years old? If you take an objective perspective, you might recall that bulldozer also looked pretty decent compared to 3 year old intels chips at the time.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
4,701
3,317
136
Because that i3 is 3 years old? If you take an objective perspective, you might recall that bulldozer also looked pretty decent compared to 3 year old intels chips at the time.
You understand that if your claims, are not turning out to be reality, that Ryzen is a failure, you are deserving to be banned for spreading FUD, as well as vissarix?
Sudden spike in "concern trolls" in CPU enthusiast forums has me excited for this launch.
Yep, its best indication, that Ryzen is strong, and Intel is in trouble.
 

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
Look at the physics score. That is what is going to condemn it to gaming mediocrity. The memory score is also a grave concern, if it is cache bandwidth that is pulling it down.

Because that i3 is 3 years old? If you take an objective perspective, you might recall that bulldozer also looked pretty decent compared to 3 year old intels chips at the time.
1) You took some cherry picked results of a 4.7 GHz i7 5960X, 4.8 GHz i7 5820K and 4.2 GHz i7 6900K to make the physics score appear far worse than it needs to be. That physics test also seems to make heavy use of AVX, where Intel will still hold a big advantage. BUT MOST GAMES STILL DO NOT USE AVX!!

Thanks to WhyCry and the VideoCardz team for posting more unbiased scores.

2) You seem to imply that going from IPC like Conroe (Piledriver) to IPC between Ivy Bridge and Haswell is somehow a bad thing?

You have got to be the single biggest troll I've ever seen on tech forums anywhere.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
Look at the physics score. That is what...
Name 5 games with Bullet physics engine. I agree that either it uses AVX or something is gravely wrong there, though.
The memory score is also a grave concern, if it is cache bandwidth that is pulling it down.
That i may agree with.
Because that i3 is 3 years old? If you take an objective perspective, you might recall that bulldozer also looked pretty decent compared to 3 year old intels chips at the time.
In single threaded bench my recently refreshed CPU loses to 3 year old i3 too, so what? Not to mention that single threaded bench is fairly flawed: x4 845 actually posts a result nearly matching my 6400.
Afaik, GPUs do the physics nowdays, not CPUs.
PhysX in mainstream engines (Unity/Unreal) runs on CPU. GPU physics is actually fairly rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatMerc

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,129
2,088
136
I did a small comparison between A12 9800 and Ryzen sample in ST test. Interesting findings.
This test clearly shows IPC improvements between 3 different AMD generations(PD,SR,XV).

A12 9800
Single Thread Rating: 1824 @ 4.2Ghz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A12-9800&id=2861

A10-7870K
Single Thread Rating: 1542 @ 4.1Ghz => 1580 @ 4.2Ghz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A10-7870K

AMD FX-8350
Single Thread Rating: 1505 @ 4.2Ghz

XV is having ~15% higher score than SR at the same clock
SR is having ~5% higher score than PD at the same clock

Compare with Ryzen sample:
Single Thread Rating: 2046 @ Unknown clock

Let us see what might be the unknown clock (3.4Ghz or 3.8Ghz?)

If it was ran @ 3.4Ghz, in IPC sensitive benchmark like this Ryzen would be showing:
2046 x 4.2/3.4=2527 pts or
1) ~1.39x (39%) higher IPC vs XV. Checks well with AMD's quoted >40% IPC jump
2) 68% higher IPC vs PD

If it was ran @ 3.8Ghz, in IPC sensitive benchmark like this Ryzen would be showing:
2046 x 4.2/3.8=2261 pts or
1) ~1.24x (24%) higher IPC vs XV. This is a lot lower than AMD's quoted >40% IPC jump
2) 50% higher IPC vs PD

According to above math it is **more likely** that Ryzen chip ran that one ST particular benchmark at 3.4Ghz (than at 3.8Ghz). Whether Turbo was not activated at all or something else is in question remains to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psolord and blublub

CatMerc

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2016
1,114
1,146
136
Afaik, GPUs do the physics nowdays, not CPUs.
Depends on the physics really. Calculating tons of tiny particles is a lovely job for a GPU, calculating the movement of a large rigid object is still better done by the CPU.
 

lolfail9001

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2016
1,056
353
96
According to above math it is **more likely** that Ryzen chip ran that one ST particular benchmark at 3.4Ghz (than at 3.8Ghz). Whether Turbo was not activated at all or something else is in question remains to be seen.
Do note, however, that in this particular bench XV is only 20% behind Skylake per clock, making is **even more likely** that Passmark is Con-core biased, and as such using it to draw conclusions on Ryzen via AMD's statement would be at best weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
I did a small comparison between A12 9800 and Ryzen sample in ST test. Interesting findings.
This test clearly shows IPC improvements between 3 different AMD generations(PD,SR,XV).

A12 9800
Single Thread Rating: 1824 @ 4.2Ghz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A12-9800&id=2861

A10-7870K
Single Thread Rating: 1542 @ 4.1Ghz => 1580 @ 4.2Ghz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A10-7870K

AMD FX-8350
Single Thread Rating: 1505 @ 4.2Ghz

XV is having ~15% higher score than SR at the same clock
SR is having ~5% higher score than PD at the same clock

Compare with Ryzen sample:
Single Thread Rating: 2046 @ Unknown clock

Let us see what might be the unknown clock (3.4Ghz or 3.8Ghz?)

If it was ran @ 3.4Ghz, in IPC sensitive benchmark like this Ryzen would be showing:
2046 x 4.2/3.4=2527 pts or
1) ~1.39x (39%) higher IPC vs XV. Checks well with AMD's quoted >40% IPC jump
2) 68% higher IPC vs PD

If it was ran @ 3.8Ghz, in IPC sensitive benchmark like this Ryzen would be showing:
2046 x 4.2/3.8=2261 pts or
1) ~1.24x (24%) higher IPC vs XV. This is a lot lower than AMD's quoted >40% IPC jump
2) 50% higher IPC vs PD

According to above math it is **more likely** that Ryzen chip ran that one ST particular benchmark at 3.4Ghz (than at 3.8Ghz). Whether Turbo was not activated at all or something else is in question remains to be seen.
Seems to be according to Passmark that it was at 3.4Ghz and no turbo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY