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

Page 217 - 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.

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
249
76
If AMD has truly matched Broadwell for IPC,that is a massive jump in IPC over the AM3+ Piledriver CPUs.
This is just the gains in one particular benchmark. Others may show less gains, which is specially likely in the ones using AVX.

On average it may well be 5pc slower
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
videocardz is adding to the confusion. The new chart comparing all scores from futuremark official database now has the 8C/16T (3.4/3.8) faster than core i7 6900k. This is what we saw from the Blender and Handbrake benchmarks by AMD where inspite of marginally lower clock(because of no turbo on Ryzen) the Ryzen chip was on par or faster. The only way we can get a true idea is when all variables are matched. Memory capacity and speeds, HDD, SSD etc. This cross comparison across different sites results is not helping at all. march 2 can't get here sooner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
I know this is all unofficial and thus unproven.. but damn this is incredibly surreal. There was a point even the most optimistic of us hoped for only ~Sandy Bridge IPC at decent clocks. AMD may indeed have a stunner on its hands... Grrr doing my best to suppress the inner hype beast..
Well, the deluded ppl here ran off anyone that wasn't horribly biased towards intel, so that extremely pessimistic outlook makes sense given this environment.

This "official" zen benchmark thread was a troll thread ffs!

I have been saying 5960x performance for months. I also told people that not only would it match that performance, but the flagship would be under $600!
 
Last edited:

CentroX

Senior member
Apr 3, 2016
351
152
116
I have never in my life seen such hype for a new cpu. Amd is getting so much exposure it is crazy. They cant afford to crash and burn when official benchmarks arrive. It will be a worse setback then bulldozer.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,045
3,913
136
So it's not looking like RyZen will dethrone the 10C/20T 6950X... but it won't cost $1723 either.

I'm okay with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psolord

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
There was never any chance a ryzen 8 core would beat a broadwell-e 10 core.

Besides, that cpu was never king to begin with. King of frivolous pc hardware expenditures maybe...
 
  • Like
Reactions: strategyfreak

Agent-47

Senior member
Jan 17, 2017
290
249
76
So it's not looking like RyZen will dethrone the 10C/20T 6950X... but it won't cost $1723 either.

I'm okay with this.
It won't dethrone a Intel 10c20t. The ryzen chip was overclocked. The intel chip can also overclock, but in the benchmark it was at stock. And the WCC graph probably did not have turbo enabled or had poor memory.
 

hotstocks

Member
Jun 20, 2008
81
26
91
I've read a lot and owned most of the processors discussed. It seems pretty simple. Ryzen will be considerably slower in single core performance, so unless it is going to overclock to 4.7 GHz, it will be slower in almost every game, very few games use more than 4 cores. And OF COURSE Ryzen 8C/16T is going to be faster at mulitcore benchmarks than a 4C/8T i7-7700 even at 1GH higher clockspeed. So what we really have here is the 7 year old debate of which is faster for games, the fastest dual core cpu or the new slower quad core cpus? Well for 95% of the games right now, Intel's faster 4C will be faster than Ryzen. For the other 5% of games that are actually coded for 6 or 8 cores EFFICIENTLY, then Ryzen should be faster than Intel in those games. But the bottom line for me is this, I have a Nvidia 1080 and a 1080p monitor, so both Ryzen and Intel will be fine, I don't really care if I am playing games with Ryzen at 112 fps and Intel at 132 fps on a 60 hz monitor. What I AM looking forward to (If Ryzen isn't buggy or a fail), is playing that same game at 112 fps using 4 Ryzen cores and having the other 4 cores ripping video, running windows, running my two open browsers, 3 chat programs, backup software, etc. all at the same time. If Ryzen can get over 4Ghz and do all those things, it will be a win. And then when future games do start to use 6 or 8 cores, you will be kinda future proof against a speed demon i7-7700k at 5ghz. Just remember the video card is almost always the bottleneck. Any game bringing my Nvidia 1080 to 60 fps or below, well in that scenario an i3 is going to be just as fast as a i7-7700.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,977
8,956
136
FORE!!!!!!!!!:)
Move aside and let the man go through.

Ryzen's power consumption is and stays relatively low, unless the user is a complete imbecile and acts accordingly.
I'll have you know I've made an entire hobby of being a complete imbecile. Er I mean overclocking.

If XFR works as it should, this would be a great feature for those who participate in Distributed Computing. Especially for those who find overclocking to be a daunting task. And if prices are as reasonable as it looks, I can finally retire some older rigs in my DC arsenal.
That depends, are you going for perf/watt? Overclocking of any kind is usually hostile to that metric. If you are socket/hardware limited then maybe you are correct.

Some say, that B350 MoBo will be available for as low as 69$, but its hard to believe in this... O_O.
Probably a low-end board with a shoddy VRM config.
 
Last edited:

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
I've read a lot and owned most of the processors discussed. It seems pretty simple. Ryzen will be considerably slower in single core performance, so unless it is going to overclock to 4.7 GHz, it will be slower in almost every game, very few games use more than 4 cores. And OF COURSE Ryzen 8C/16T is going to be faster at mulitcore benchmarks than a 4C/8T i7-7700 even at 1GH higher clockspeed. So what we really have here is the 7 year old debate of which is faster for games, the fastest dual core cpu or the new slower quad core cpus? Well for 95% of the games right now, Intel's faster 4C will be faster than Ryzen. For the other 5% of games that are actually coded for 6 or 8 cores EFFICIENTLY, then Ryzen should be faster than Intel in those games. But the bottom line for me is this, I have a Nvidia 1080 and a 1080p monitor, so both Ryzen and Intel will be fine, I don't really care if I am playing games with Ryzen at 112 fps and Intel at 132 fps on a 60 hz monitor. What I AM looking forward to (If Ryzen isn't buggy or a fail), is playing that same game at 112 fps using 4 Ryzen cores and having the other 4 cores ripping video, running windows, running my two open browsers, 3 chat programs, backup software, etc. all at the same time. If Ryzen can get over 4Ghz and do all those things, it will be a win. And then when future games do start to use 6 or 8 cores, you will be kinda future proof against a speed demon i7-7700k at 5ghz. Just remember the video card is almost always the bottleneck. Any game bringing my Nvidia 1080 to 60 fps or below, well in that scenario an i3 is going to be just as fast as a i7-7700.
Wait, what!? You have all these cpus and a gtx1080, but a 60hz 1080p monitor!?

Also, a faster cpu doesn't always net more game performance, and when it does, it's normally not much.
 
Last edited:

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,385
2,288
136
I've read a lot and owned most of the processors discussed. It seems pretty simple. Ryzen will be considerably slower in single core performance, so unless it is going to overclock to 4.7 GHz, it will be slower in almost every game, very few games use more than 4 cores. And OF COURSE Ryzen 8C/16T is going to be faster at mulitcore benchmarks than a 4C/8T i7-7700 even at 1GH higher clockspeed. So what we really have here is the 7 year old debate of which is faster for games, the fastest dual core cpu or the new slower quad core cpus? Well for 95% of the games right now, Intel's faster 4C will be faster than Ryzen. For the other 5% of games that are actually coded for 6 or 8 cores EFFICIENTLY, then Ryzen should be faster than Intel in those games. But the bottom line for me is this, I have a Nvidia 1080 and a 1080p monitor, so both Ryzen and Intel will be fine, I don't really care if I am playing games with Ryzen at 112 fps and Intel at 132 fps on a 60 hz monitor. What I AM looking forward to (If Ryzen isn't buggy or a fail), is playing that same game at 112 fps using 4 Ryzen cores and having the other 4 cores ripping video, running windows, running my two open browsers, 3 chat programs, backup software, etc. all at the same time. If Ryzen can get over 4Ghz and do all those things, it will be a win. And then when future games do start to use 6 or 8 cores, you will be kinda future proof against a speed demon i7-7700k at 5ghz. Just remember the video card is almost always the bottleneck. Any game bringing my Nvidia 1080 to 60 fps or below, well in that scenario an i3 is going to be just as fast as a i7-7700.
Why are you comparing stock Zen to 5GHz overclocks? Alot of your point goes away @ 4.5 or above. We will have to wait and see.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,396
277
136
You do realize only a small minority of people overclock. I understand the theme as this is an older community built around maximizing your purchase. However, I'd like to refrain from overclocking cpus and stock comparisons. It provides little, to no useful data.
 

Stormflux

Member
Jul 21, 2010
140
26
91
So it's not looking like RyZen will dethrone the 10C/20T 6950X... but it won't cost $1723 either.

I'm okay with this.
I wish there were some Dual Socket motherboards being announced... 2 1800x at the rumoured prices for a render/3D workstation could be amazing.
 

hotstocks

Member
Jun 20, 2008
81
26
91
Yes. Games barely look better at 4k than 1080p on a 32" or smaller monitor. Sure if you are talking about using a 60" HDTV as a monitor AND your games has 4k texture packs, it will look better, but that is a rarity. And I certainly think modern games with everything on Ultra at 1080p and 60fps looks and plays a hell of a lot better than at 4k and choppy between 47 and 53 fps.
 

unseenmorbidity

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,395
967
96
Yes. Games barely look better at 4k than 1080p on a 32" or smaller monitor. Sure if you are talking about using a 60" HDTV as a monitor AND your games has 4k texture packs, it will look better, but that is a rarity. And I certainly think modern games with everything on Ultra at 1080p and 60fps looks and plays a hell of a lot better than at 4k and choppy between 47 and 53 fps.
Even if you were satisfied with 1080p, you could get a monitor with a higher refresh rate...

I have 1440p 144hz monitor. Best of both worlds really.
 

hotstocks

Member
Jun 20, 2008
81
26
91
I can easily tell <60 fps and see it as choppy. But 60 fps or 144 fps look both the same and buttery smooth to me and 99.9% of humans eyes. Not to mention the 120hz and 144hz monitors are shitty TN panels with poor color and viewing angles. I will take a nice IPS monitor at 60 hz any day over a TN. I've returned every TN monitor I have ever bought, laptops included, you move your head 1 inch and the colors fade or change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psolord
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY