• 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 225 - 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 said:
Can someone with i7 or i3 run the test with HT disabled?
Click to expand...
The following SS contains 2 data sets, both from a Haswell i7 @ 3.4Ghz with DDR3 1600 CL11. The first set contains default values, the second set was run with the benchmark program set with restricted affinity on logical cores 0-2-4-6.

O5wLdc8.png


Anybody who can actually disable HT is welcome to come with more appropriate results.
 
i5 480M 2c4t... my old laptop. Prime number scores

2c4t => 8
1c1t => 4
2c2t => 8

HT disabled from BIOS. but maybe someone with a newer CPU should run it.
 
Face2Face said:
i7 5820K @ 4.25GHz
DDR4 @ 3GHz
Click to expand...
Looking at these, it becomes more and more obvious, how insanely good the Integer and Floating Point Math scores of Zen are @3.4/3.8 :openmouth:

Even If we normalize them to per Ghz and core count,Ryzen is still:
Zen: (39672 / 3.4 / 8 = 1458.53; 14807 / 3.4 / 8 = 544.37)
HW: (30931 / 4.25 / 6 = 1212.98; 12787 / 4.25 / 6 = 501.45)
~= 16.8% faster in Integer performance per core vs Haswell
~= 7.9% faster in Floating Point performance vs Haswell

in Highly Multithreaded scenarios.

Yet it still loses out in Single Threaded performance:
Zen: 2046/3.8 ~= 538.42 (turbo working, as per the video)
HW: 2542/4.25 ~= 598.12 (no turbo presume?)

So it seems it's per-core scaling, at least in some applications, is better than any Intel product. I wonder what causes that?

Disclaimer: I know, it's only a single (and not that good to begin with) benchmark, but still
... CHOO CHOO! 😀
 
Agent-47 said:
I am afraid not. If it was quad channel 7700k would have at least half the score of ryzen. Also is evident by looking at the normalized score I posted which shows 7700k has the same IPC as the quad channel intel
Click to expand...

IOC and IMC are not the same AIDA64 shows my 5960X max memory performance twice that of a SKL/KBL. Max bandwidth is like 80k vs 35k. Clockspeed helps memory benchmarks as well as timings and latency ram clocks etc.

Memory benches are super synthetic, may as well call them McDonald's
 
Gideon said:
Looking at these, it becomes more and more obvious, how insanely good the Integer and Floating Point Math scores of Zen are @3.4/3.8 :openmouth:

Even If we normalize them to per Ghz and core count,Ryzen is still:
Zen: (39672 / 3.4 / 8 = 1458.53; 14807 / 3.4 / 8 = 544.37)
HW: (30931 / 4.25 / 6 = 1212.98; 12787 / 4.25 / 6 = 501.45)
~= 16.8% faster in Integer performance per core vs Haswell
~= 7.9% faster in Floating Point performance vs Haswell

in Highly Multithreaded scenarios.

Yet it still loses out in Single Threaded performance:
Zen: 2046/3.8 ~= 538.42 (turbo working, as per the video)
HW: 2542/4.25 ~= 598.12 (no turbo presume?)

So it seems it's per-core scaling, at least in some applications, is better than any Intel product. I wonder what causes that?

Disclaimer: I know, it's only a single (and not that good to begin with) benchmark, but still
... CHOO CHOO! 😀
Click to expand...

The pass mark leak was a flat 3.4ghz a 1800 between 3.6 to 4 would score 2150-2400 odd, thats sick
 
It is not out the question, HT has latency and some people prefer gaming with it off. I had a i3 2100 at one point,. Terrible for gaming when the two physical cores were saturated
 
HT on or off should be important in some benchmarks even if this effect is not like in Pentium 4.
Most games we have today should run better with HT off.
 
Face2Face said:
It appears so... Odd. Let me run it again.

EDIT:

Ran the test again and got the same result, slightly higher actually.
Click to expand...

A reason for this might be that since Hyperthreading helps with utilization of functional units but the workload is identical for each thread, it should be harder to parallelize when the needed units aren't available. Just a guess though 😉
 
Interesting results here! The HT effect might be related to cache thrashing, partitioned core resources, fighting for sparse resources (which incl. cache and mem channels of course). Just fighting for an IDIV unit alone (if used at all) wouldn't cause such a significant drop.

Someone wondered about the string sorting. That test's lower mem dependency could come from cache blocking or easier to detect access patterns for prefetching, or both.

OTOH Passmark has a history of fiddling with IDIV. It's past CPU benchmark result measured the runtimes of loops with special instructions, one being IDIV. But it ran the same amount of instructions (IIRC) and created the score from the whole runtime. Now imagine 1 IDIV loop contributing maybe 80% of a benchmarks runtime if there is no HW divider. This way the per patch deactivated Llano HW divider got some attention.
AMD_A6-3650_Benchmark_bug.png

http://www.passmark.com/forum/performancetest/3705-amd-llano-a-series-benchmark-and-cpu-bug
 
This could tell us that Ryzen's SMT doesn't do as good a job at managing the resources between the two threads.
Makes sense, Intel's years and years of work on SMT basically amounted to minimizing the performance regressions in certain cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top