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

[Arachnotronic]

I am just picturing a bean counter in an office calculating and saying if we shorten the pins by .5mm we will save 1 million dollars in copper over the next two years.

Such a beancounter would exist at both Intel and AMD

Really, cutting costs on stuff like this is good, gives companies more room to put in features that people care about.

 

[looncraz]

I am just picturing a bean counter in an office calculating and saying if we shorten the pins by .5mm we will save 1 million dollars in copper over the next two years.

I thought it was because it reduces the risk of bending the pins... but your reason makes more sense.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Juan was correct on his clockspeed findings, so 1 out of 5 for him.

It is a "Brainaic" over a "speedster" as he puts it. Thermals are real at 4Ghz lol.

Zen of course is a brainiac design -- high IPC. Speed demons (or "speedster" as your friend put it) are designs with relatively low IPC but can clock "to da moon" (or are supposed to -- sometimes it doesn't happen as intended).

 

[deasd]

I too wish he would update this thread with as much love as devotion that he puts into his beloved Skylake/Kabylake thread. I suspect he thought Zen would end up being rather poor; now that it's very likely going to upset the Intel monopoly he has stopped posting.

I assume he's financially involved with Intel, what a sad state of affairs.

This thread start with a suspicious AoTS bench leak that is possibly ran by Zen, and it paint a bit 'bad' picture about how poor Zen perform against Intel. Not only him the thread starter, but also quite a lot post at the forepart of this thread keep exaggerate and bashing. Now I still can see some people keep emphasis it cannot beat Skylake even if it just hardly beat HSW/BW with a bit margin % of error......

After few months' observation, those who kept bashing AMD before in this thread, now has been silent and fade out since December Demo event and CanardPC leaked a good result about Zen. I can't help sigh with feeling that people always shortsighted.
Although sometimes I cannot bear some people with prejudice in this forum, I still don't want to put them into ignore list cause I think maybe they just only have different point of view. We should accept and welcome a healthy AMD and healthy competition shouldn't we?

 

[ultima_trev]

I think there are problems on both sides. On the AMD side, you have some people who are convinced Zen will beat Kaby Lake in single threaded performance AND outperform the i7 6900K in multi-threaded performance, all the while costing under 300. Between the leaks from Canard PC and elsewhere, Zen is not quite there, most likely it will be ~90% of i7 6900K performance over all while costing half.

But then there are the AMD fans who are jaded because they realized Zen would only have roughly Haswell/Broadwell IPC, not meeting their unrealistic expectations of beating Intel in every conceivable metric at under 300 dollars. Because of the R7 1700 and higher SKUs starting at 320+, Zen is all the sudden “overpriced junk” and the jaded AMD fans decide to either stick with their Phenoms/FX while they wait for a “better” upgrade option or suck it up and go Kaby Lake.

Then you have the Intel fans who will say the AMD solution will suck regardless of how good it actually is.

It seems AMD just can’t get anything right.

 

[Doom2pro]

Such a beancounter would exist at both Intel and AMD

Bean Counter eh?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I think there are problems on both sides. On the AMD side, you have some people who are convinced Zen will beat Kaby Lake in single threaded performance AND outperform the i7 6900K in multi-threaded performance, all the while costing under 300.
.

That is a strawman.... I have never seen anyone suggest anything like that. I have seen people argue that the difference in ipc wasn't significant, which is arguably true in the right circumstances.

 

[Mopetar]

Zen of course is a brainiac design -- high IPC. Speed demons (or "speedster" as your friend put it) are designs with relatively low IPC but can clock "to da moon" (or are supposed to -- sometimes it doesn't happen as intended).

Has a low IPC design with high clocks ever won out though? Intel tried with P4 and failed and then AMD failed with Bulldozer, which still wouldn't have been that great even if the GloFo process didn't suck majorly at the time. Even in the ARM space Apple has done better with the high IPC chip that runs at lower clock speeds.

 

[.vodka]

The good thing out of this, is that now both Intel and AMD have tried high clock low IPC designs and both have failed miserably when looking at the big picture.

They have very good reasons and hands on experience not to walk down that path ever again (hopefully)

The day a time traveler comes with future tech or someone screws with physics enough allowing ≥10GHz CPUs at 100-150w TDP and ambient temperatures, well, that could change...

 

[Hitman928]

I thought it was because it reduces the risk of bending the pins... but your reason makes more sense.

Reducing the length will also reduce the inductance of the wires. Not sure if that's why it was done, but wouldn't surprise me if that was part of it. Especially since the wires look thinner than before which will increase their inductance.

 

[sirmo]

That could be true too. Inductance, maybe even EMI, as well as pins being harder to bend.

 

[lolfail9001]

I believe i remember it was mentioned at SA that the best absolute performance design ignoring power consumption would be the ultra long pipeline one, there was even a paper on this.

Anyways, so you guys are telling me that the shorter the pin the better on all accounts ?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Has a low IPC design with high clocks ever won out though? Intel tried with P4 and failed and then AMD failed with Bulldozer, which still wouldn't have been that great even if the GloFo process didn't suck majorly at the time. Even in the ARM space Apple has done better with the high IPC chip that runs at lower clock speeds.

It's a balance. Taking either speed racer/demon to the extreme OR brainiac to the extreme is likely to yield sub-optimal results.

 

[looncraz]

I think there are problems on both sides. On the AMD side, you have some people who are convinced Zen will beat Kaby Lake in single threaded performance AND outperform the i7 6900K in multi-threaded performance, all the while costing under 300.

You do realize that every bit of that can be true, right?

Not every application behaves according to some magical IPC number - each application has their own instruction mix and sensitivity to optimizations for that mix.

Ryzen could, in some tests, obliterate Kaby Lake... and lose horribly to it in other cases. Bulldozer was exceptional for 7-zip, for example.

Between the leaks from Canard PC and elsewhere, Zen is not quite there, most likely it will be ~90% of i7 6900K performance over all while costing half.

We already know that Ryzen bests the 6900k pretty much across the board. Even at the same frequency. Quite literally the only result we have that shows anything other than a Ryzen victory (IIRC) is Cinebench single-threaded results... where Ryzen only matches Haswell.

But then there are the AMD fans who are jaded because they realized Zen would only have roughly Haswell/Broadwell IPC, not meeting their unrealistic expectations of beating Intel in every conceivable metric at under 300 dollars.

Broadwell IPC is only ~5% behind Skylake... Very few expected AMD to price as low as they are. I suspect it's to drive volume... AMD doesn't have the need to maintain a large product margin - they should be easily doubling their margin and possibly quadrupling or more their volume... if they can do that while also giving Intel a market-place nightmare... all the better for AMD.

Because of the R7 1700 and higher SKUs starting at 320+, Zen is all the sudden “overpriced junk” and the jaded AMD fans decide to either stick with their Phenoms/FX while they wait for a “better” upgrade option or suck it up and go Kaby Lake.

Then you have the Intel fans who will say the AMD solution will suck regardless of how good it actually is.

It seems AMD just can’t get anything right.

This is a return, at worst, to the Phenom II vs Core 2 era. Except, this time, the price delta is larger and the performance delta smaller. It is not necessary to have the fastest product - it's necessary to have the best product for the investment.

 

[lolfail9001]

We already know that Ryzen bests the 6900k pretty much across the board.

Both Cinebench and Passmark (not even Physics/PN, just non-Integer tests) disagree.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Both Cinebench and Passmark (not even Physics/PN, just non-Integer tests) disagree.

ST - close in true ratio to Broadwell AMD is ~5% or so to that level which is not a lot given that Intel havent improved single thread by 10% since Haswell.

MT - I am told it is better in many instances, even beating out the 6950X in some popular ones.

Physics and Prime numbers are dual channel aided, sometimes by 20%. Aida64 is far better as Ryzen can push 50+Gb/s on dual channel, an i7 7700K can barely do 35. The difference is Intels runs higher speeds, AMD's runs higher bandwidth.

Other metrics had pointed to ~Haswell IPC's and it is about correct, I don't understand why people want more. As my informer said, people will cherry pick the best or the worst but in reality it is across the board good.

 

[looncraz]

Both Cinebench and Passmark (not even Physics/PN, just non-Integer tests) disagree.

The CPU Mark score is tainted by low physics and prime scores - which are both related to the memory problems AMD has apparently now solved (we'll see...).

At 3.6Ghz: Ryzen / 6900k / DIFF (Broadwell > Ryzen)

Mark: 15334 / 16540 / +7.8%
Integer: 41306 / 33169 / -19.7%
Prime*: 38 / 58 / +52.6%
Compress: 25505 / 26313 / +3%
Physics*: 753 / 1134 / +50.6%
CPU ST: 2116 / 2044 / -3.5%
Float: 15256 / 14061 / -7.8%
SSE: 742 / 781 / +5.2%
Encrypt: 4005 / 3667 / -8.4%
Sorting: 15709 / 15223 / -3.1%

Ryzen has some 20% better integer performance, 8% better floating point performance, and even manages a meager (margin-of-error) victory in the single-threaded test. It is possible that the Ryzen CPU was running slightly faster, but the numbers mostly come from an older ES with broken turbo.

We can't include the physics or prime numbers until we have final silicon running final AGESA code.

Now... CPC Hardware results aren't easy to use, we have a gross average with disparate frequencies.... and they only say that the max turbo they ever saw was 3.3Ghz - they never said that was their average frequency. We know that the 6900k will usually run at 3.5Ghz+ in heavy multi-threaded tests and can hit 3.7~4Ghz in many tests, giving us far too much room for error using their numbers... but let's do it anyway.

If CPC's Ryzen (early A0 sample...) was running at a fixed 3.3Ghz (unlikely) and the 6900k was running at 3.55Ghz average (likely) the results are as follows:

Ryzen: 181.48%
Broadwell: 193.4%

Each 100Mhz difference is about 6.5%... Our margin for error is actually over 500Mhz..

3.2Ghz Ryzen vs 3.7Ghz 6900k: 195.1 vs 193.4%

That means the data is worthless, especially considering it was a bugged SMT implementation an a first-revision ES... we can torture the data to tell any store we want without leaving our margin of error.

Gaming is interesting... if you account for the likely clockspeeds of each, they are a dead-even tie... maybe because the buggy SMT isn't having any impact?

So.. what OTHER data do we have?

Well, AMD gave us three demos which included enough data to draw the conclusion that a 3.4Ghz Ryzen 8-core, with a fixed frequency, is slightly faster in Handbrake and Battlefield 1 and more or less equal in Blender when compared to a stock-clocked 6900k.

They made these demos live, gave out the data so it was reproducible, and people verified the 6900k results (and will eventually verify the Ryzen results, I'm sure).

The evidence, at this point, supports nothing less than parity with an edge for Ryzen. Once the memory situation is sorted (or, perhaps more likely, AMD allows the proper reviewers access to the untainted AGESA revision), we will likely see some more improvements.

 

[looncraz]

Physics and Prime numbers are dual channel aided, sometimes by 20%.

Why didn't I think about that... what would happen in single-channel memory mode?

Hmm... on to find out!

EDIT:

WHOA! 20% my royal 3/4-white behind!

No impact on memory latency, though...

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Why didn't I think about that... what would happen in single-channel memory mode?

Hmm... on to find out!

EDIT:

WHOA! 20% my royal 3/4-white behind!

No impact on memory latency, though...

Yeah everyone is acting like PN is attached to some weak IMC but in reality it is a pure bandwidth bench, since Quad has higher bandwidth than dual and dual over single the numbers AMD posted ~40 is actually very high.

 

[lolfail9001]

Physics and Prime numbers are dual channel aided,

I ignore those.

Aida64 is far better as Ryzen can push 50+Gb/s on dual channel, an i7 7700K can barely do 35.

Hm... http://techreport.com/review/31179/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-cpu-reviewed/4
You. Are. Wrong. Ah, yes, it was with 3866 MT/s but you did not specify on what MT/s rating does Ryzen push the 50+GB/s. Not on 2133 MT, that's for sure.

The CPU Mark score is tainted by low physics and prime scores - which are both related to the memory problems AMD has apparently now solved (we'll see...).

I ignore those. Let's just look at fp/compression/sorting, that give us our single threaded score, shall we? I found a random PT9 6900k baseline that reports as stock clocked 6900k with STOCK MEMORY (that's important one, right?).

Test: Ryzen ES/6900k and comment on performance per clock.
FP: 15256/15145, but 6900k obviously runs at 3.5Ghz against 3.6ghz. That makes the latter 2% faster. We can call that a tie if you wish.
Sorting: 15709/18501, that makes the latter 21% faster.
Compression: 25505/28192, that makes the latter 13% faster.
Encryption: 4005/3961, they are virtually equal here.
SSE/AVX test in PT9: 742/817, the 6900k is 13% faster.
Integer test, for consistency sake: 41306/36369, Ryzen utterly humiliates 6900k with like... 10% more performance per clock.
Single threaded test: 1980/2168, with 6900k presumably running at 3.7Ghz, makes 6900k... 12% higher perf/clock in single threaded test, and well, average of first 3 tests in this table is.... 12%, thus validating my own calculations.

Just in case you want to verify it yourself, the baseline for 6900k used is #651748.

Post scriptum. The guy over at reddit who was actually witnessing the BF1 demo did comment that Ryzen had lower fps than 6900k there, so i have no clue where the rumor that Ryzen was "faster than 6900k in BF1" comes from.

And make no mistake, even with all that, it still makes Ryzen a damn appealing CPU.

 

[looncraz]

I ignore those. Let's just look at fp/compression/sorting, that give us our single threaded score, shall we? I found a random PT9 6900k baseline that reports as stock clocked 6900k with STOCK MEMORY (that's important one, right?).

Memory is important for only prime and physics in the CPU section of the bench app.

Test: Ryzen ES/6900k and comment on performance per clock.
FP: 15256/15145, but 6900k obviously runs at 3.5Ghz against 3.6ghz. That makes the latter 2% faster. We can call that a tie if you wish.
Sorting: 15709/18501, that makes the latter 21% faster.
Compression: 25505/28192, that makes the latter 13% faster.
Encryption: 4005/3961, they are virtually equal here.
SSE/AVX test in PT9: 742/817, the 6900k is 13% faster.
Integer test, for consistency sake: 41306/36369, Ryzen utterly humiliates 6900k with like... 10% more performance per clock.
Single threaded test: 1980/2168, with 6900k presumably running at 3.7Ghz, makes 6900k... 12% higher perf/clock in single threaded test, and well, average of first 3 tests in this table is.... 12%, thus validating my own calculations.

Just in case you want to verify it yourself, the baseline for 6900k used is #651748.

Post scriptum. The guy over at reddit who was actually witnessing the BF1 demo did comment that Ryzen had lower fps than 6900k there, so i have no clue where the rumor that Ryzen was "faster than 6900k in BF1" comes from.

And make no mistake, even with all that, it still makes Ryzen a damn appealing CPU.

We need more samples that represent the entire range of likely performance and frequencies - understanding that the two Ryzen samples are different revisions with a 200Mhz frequency difference between them.

http://files.looncraz.net/zen/

That should do it ... every single i7 6900k using PT9.0 and running a TURBO speed of 3500~3700... against the two Ryzen ES samples running locked at their base clocks (granted, that is partly an assumption based on their scaling and other scores...).

Compression: hands down, 6900k wins.
Encryption: Ryzen wins (3.6Ghz Ryzen > 3.7Ghz 6900k).
Floating point: Ryzen wins (3.6Ghz Ryzen >= 3.7Ghz 6900k)
Integer: Ryzen humiliates the 6900k with room to spare.
CPU Single Thread: 3.4Ghz Ryzen matches 3.5Ghz 6900k... (F3 Ryzen had a problem here... obviously resolved in F4)
Sorting: Basically a tie
SSE: It's a sweep: 6900k wins

Excluding the integer result... it's basically a draw... we were both wrong / seeing what we wanted to see.

 

[beginner99]

OrangeKrush, I guess if you are so in the know. Then the only real question left is will Ryzen 1800x at 4.0Ghz BEAT a 6 year old Intel chip at 4.7Ghz in SINGLE THREADED performance where Intel shines and most customers care about (IE. Most games)? Easier way to put it is will a 4GHz Ryzen single core passmark score be above 2500? I do get your point, Ryzen is like a Porsche with 4 cylinder turbo beating an old muscle car with a V8, but if it only beats it on programs that use all cores and threads, it will be a fail, because in reality 99% of programs don't use all those threads and cores.

Exactly. I have currently no need for an 8-core cpu. Main thing I do is browsing and gaming. High clocked quad still rules in this aspect. I agree that 7700k is kind of a disappointment. Still, without to much tinkering (eg. delid) a 4.8Ghz OC should be possible easily. Can the 6 or 8-core Zen get close to 7700k 4.8Ghz ST performance? That's what will really matter to make a decision for me. I Don't care if it's cheaper than the 6900k. And with close I mean max 10%. Because nowadays 10 percent in ST performance means 2 "ticks" or said in other words 3+ years.

As mentioned in another thread, pure DX12/vulcan games with 0 legacy support built on an engine without legacy support (zero compromise) compared to current tacked-on dx12 are still years out. Only such games can make full use of dx12 and hence multi-threading.

 

[ultima_trev]

We can't assume Ryzen's turbo was disabled in those Passmark baselines because of gossip on /r/Amd or WCCFTech. Even if it was, we're still talking an average baseline of ~15300 overall (~2040 single thread) for Ryzen versus ~17600 (~2150 single thread) for i7 6900K. That 400 MHz boost (with some low CAS DDR4-3200 memory) might help it even the playing field but I doubt will result in victory outside the margin of error.


Expecting Ryzen to obliterate the i7 6900K (or i7 7700K if we're talking strictly singe threaded performance) isn't quite realistic. Current leaks show it performs closer to the i7 5960X over all, which is still a fantastic achievement considering they went from IPC in the realm of Conroe to the realm of Haswell. Even more fantastic when considering the price.

 

[lolfail9001]

That should do it ... every single i7 6900k using PT9.0 and running a TURBO speed of 3500~3700... against the two Ryzen ES samples running locked at their base clocks (granted, that is partly an assumption based on their scaling and other scores...).

The 38/34 sample was running with turbo enabled and 3.55Ghz ACT. Comparison between that and 3.6Ghz sample heavily hints at that. But, please, do not assume that 6900k was running 3.7 in multithreaded tests out of thin air. Single core boost is that, ACT on stock 6900k is 3.5Ghz.
Anyways, let's see, i'll grant you that sample size is fairly solid now.

Sorting: Basically a tie

Uhm, it is a tie on half of 6900k and a sweep on the other half. Fairly confusing state of things. Granted, it [relationship between 2 groups] matches the 3.7/3.5 relationship, so i'll give you a tie.

CPU Single Thread: 3.4Ghz Ryzen matches 3.5Ghz 6900k... (F3 Ryzen had a problem here... obviously resolved in F4)

Uhm, i see a 3.8Ghz Ryzen matching what looks to be 3.7Ghz 6900k here. F3 sample performs as it should if it had 3.6Ghz base clock only. Problem, indeed.

Floating point: Ryzen wins (3.6Ghz Ryzen >= 3.7Ghz 6900k)

You did convince me on this one.

Well, that basically makes it jump from clearly losing to Broadwell to being close to it to clearly stomping it. Damn.

We can't assume Ryzen's turbo was disabled in those Passmark baselines because of gossip on /r/Amd or WCCFTech.

F3 Ryzen's turbo was almost certainly disabled, because it scores consistently higher than F4 sample and the difference is small enough to suggest that F4 sample actually has turbo enabled and scores at 3.55 ACT, in line with previous Ryzen samples.

Current leaks show it performs closer to the i7 5960X over all, which is still a fantastic acheivement considering they went from IPC in the realm of Conroe to the realm of Haswell. Even more fantastic when considering the price.

Yup.

 

[3DVagabond]

We can't assume Ryzen's turbo was disabled in those Passmark baselines because of gossip on /r/Amd or WCCFTech. Even if it was, we're still talking an average baseline of ~15300 overall (~2040 single thread) for Ryzen versus ~17600 (~2150 single thread) for i7 6900K. That 400 MHz boost (with some low CAS DDR4-3200 memory) might help it even the playing field but I doubt will result in victory outside the margin of error.


Expecting Ryzen to obliterate the i7 6900K (or i7 7700K if we're talking strictly singe threaded performance) isn't quite realistic. Current leaks show it performs closer to the i7 5960X over all, which is still a fantastic achievement considering they went from IPC in the realm of Conroe to the realm of Haswell. Even more fantastic when considering the price.

I don't understand why now Ryzen has to flat out beat Intel's best. Hell if it's even in the same neighborhood and <1/2 the price why wouldn't 8/10 people buy it? We're talking 1700X for about 1/3 the price of a 6900K. And close to, or the same +/- performance. This is in one big sweeping move. Who in the hell can say they saw this coming? Yet people are disappointed? False disappointment, I'll bet.