• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 216 - 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.
lopri said:
See, that is why you cannot do this. Take for example 7700K:

7700K @4.8 GHz = 3893, 811.0/GHz
7700K @4.2 GHz = 3552, 845.7/GHz

So we have a situation where 7700K's IPC is 4% higher than.. 7700K. This is why you cannot derive ST numbers by simply dividing MT numbers by core count.
Click to expand...
you qouted the 8 core results which had similar clocks. IPC do not scale linearly at higher clocks, but i scaled down, so if my scores were biased, they were biased towards intel marginally 😛

also the more important results are the 4c and even the 6 core. the 6 core was clocked similarly and still points towards the same result
6c-> amd@3.3 = 2545 intel@3.4 = 2645 or amd 5% slower clock for clock.
4c-> amd@3.2 = 2544 intel@4.2 = 3552 or amd 6% slower clock for clock.
 
lopri said:
So we have a situation where 7700K's IPC is 4% higher than.. 7700K. This is why you cannot derive ST numbers by simply dividing MT numbers by core count.
Click to expand...

That's more of a good example of why you can't take the reported frequency on some graph at face value in the age of turbo clocks, and maybe the dangers of mixing and matching test environments too. In general, the stock results probably have less uncertainty because we can assume certain things about how turbo is behaving.
 
lolfail9001 said:
What is 7700k's 4 core turbo bin? 3dmark physics is load light enough for generally all CPUs to use their max turbo bin. Napkin math suggests that it should 4.4Ghz.

3.5Ghz, actually, checked wiki.
Click to expand...

does TH run benches with turbo active? its a little strange if they do because than the stated clocks are misleading considering overclocked CPUs do not turbo any higher.

if so, in these benchmarks zen is faster than BWE and 1.5% slower than SK.
 
HurleyBird said:
That's more of a good example of why you can't take the reported frequency on some graph at face value in the age of turbo clocks, and maybe the dangers of mixing and matching test environments too. In general, the stock results probably have less uncertainty because we can assume certain things about how turbo is behaving.
Click to expand...
I am in agreement. That just adds to the reason why the 2nd graph is silly and misleading.
 
lopri said:
I am in agreement. That just adds to the reason why the 2nd graph is silly and misleading.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is silly and misleading. If all processors involved had the same number of cores/threads then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
 
Last edited:
Looks like all but the 8 core non OC are running at 4GHz. Probably XFR at work.

20249 / 8 (cores) / 4 (GHz) = 632.7

Now if we plop those numbers onto the 4 and 6 core, we get...
632.7*6*4 = 15,184 --- The score in the benchmark is 15,271
632.7*4*4 = 10,123 --- The score in the benchmark is 10,177


The only chip that doesn't line up is the 8 core without the 4GHz OC.
17,878 / (632.7*8) = 3.53GHz

Edit:
lopri said:
That implies a near 100% linear scaling, which is somewhat difficult to accept. Not impossible depending on other factors, but very rare indeed. Clearly the Intel ones do not scale linearly.

Thinking about it SMT might also factor into it and I have no idea how that works out.
Click to expand...
Well, taking into account that the 6900K scored about 13% less than my calculations would predict, meaning there's 13% penalty for two extra cores, I worked back to get the 6 core clockspeed.

3.56GHz, which oddly lines up with the 8 core non OC speed I calculated.
Could be we just found the all core turbo of Ryzen.

(18,961 / 6 / 4.2) = 741.7
741.7 * 8 * 3.5 (all core turbo) = 21,067
21,067 / 18,635 = 1.13

Ryzen 6 Core:
15,271 / (632.7 * 6 * 1.13) = 3.56GHz
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CatMerc said:
Looks like all but the 8 core non OC are running at 4GHz. Probably XFR at work.

20249 / 8 (cores) / 4 (GHz) = 632.7

Now if we plop those numbers onto the 4 and 6 core, we get...
632.7*6*4 = 15,184 --- The score in the benchmark is 15,271
632.7*4*4 = 10,123 --- The score in the benchmark is 10,177


The only chip that doesn't line up is the 8 core without the 4GHz OC.
17,878 / (632.7*8) = 3.53GHz
Click to expand...
That implies a near 100% linear scaling, which is somewhat difficult to accept. Not impossible depending on other factors, but very rare indeed. Clearly the Intel ones do not scale linearly.

Thinking about it SMT might also factor into it and I have no idea how that works out.
 
I'm kind of interested in Asus's 3d printing mounts on the top end motherboards, so that may sway it for me. I have a good friend with a good quality 3d printer, so the ability to make my own mount may swing it. Especially if I can design a shroud that holds a CPU cooling fan over an AIO waterblock for VRM cooling.
 
lopri said:
That implies a near 100% linear scaling, which is somewhat difficult to accept. Not impossible depending on other factors, but very rare indeed. Clearly the Intel ones do not scale linearly.

Thinking about it SMT might also factor into it and I have no idea how that works out.
Click to expand...
Well, taking into account that the 6900K scored about 13% less than my calculations would predict, meaning there's 13% penalty for two extra cores, I worked back to get the 6 core clockspeed.

3.56GHz, which oddly lines up with the 8 core non OC speed I calculated.
Could be we just found the all core turbo of Ryzen.

(18,961 / 6 / 4.2) = 741.7
741.7 * 8 * 3.5 (all core turbo) = 21,067
21,067 / 18,635 = 1.13

Ryzen 6 Core:
15,271 / (632.7 * 6 * 1.13) = 3.56GHz
 
9bXzF5B.png
 
CatMerc said:
Core scaling, rather than clock scaling. See my second post.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with that.

That's why I compared cpuz with same number of core to compute IPC difference .

6c-> amd@3.3 = 2545 intel@3.4 = 2645 or amd 5% slower clock for clock.
4c-> amd@3.2 = 2544 intel@4.2 = 3552 or amd 6% slower clock for clock.

Granted a 6c ryzen with +100mhz clock scores same as the 4c ryzen, but the percentage nonlinearity is minimal and technically eliminating under the assumption that both and and Intel scales similarly with number of cores.

If you factor in boost clocks the difference is less than 2%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top