• 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 250 - 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.

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
Ryzen doesn't need to beat Intel, however we have people insisting that it will even if the leaks have shown IPC on par with Haswell.

I personally did not expect Ryzen to achieve Haswell IPC, was expecting something closer to Sandy or Ivy. But yes, the results so far I find most impressive and am looking forward to a 1700X build.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
We can't assume Ryzen's turbo was disabled in those Passmark baselines because of gossip on /r/Amd or WCCFTech.
It's also the logical conclusion from the totality of the leak we've had to date and the internal consistency of performance being presented. If turbo is running, it's running higher in multi-threaded workloads than in single threaded workloads... which is illogical.

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.
Adjust for the fact that you are comparing a 3.4Ghz CPU to a 3.7Ghz CPU...

The 3.4Ghz F4 Ryzen is actually slightly faster than the two 3.5Ghz turbo 6900k samples in the CPUMark database on the single thread test. If turbo was active... then there's a chance that the 6900k wins by as much as the Ryzen appears to win... which is by very little (when ~150Mhz makes you a winner... you're tied, simple as that... unless it's a world record :p).

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, for one, don't expect it to obliterate the 6900k. I expect it to not overclock as well, perform worse in bandwidth-heavy applications, and be within 10% of its general performance in most applications (either faster or slower, who cares? it's 10%...). But I also expect it to cost less than half as much.

I was asked by someone just about six weeks ago if I thought Ryzen would beat the 6900k - I said "absolutely not, but it won't be much more than 20% behind."

This was my upper-bound on likely performance Zen would provide one year ago... relative to Sandy Bridge:
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,140
797
136
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.
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with a 4 year old tech.

Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.
 
Last edited:

richierich1212

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2002
2,741
357
126
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with 4 year old tech.
Intel released Haswell-E 2.5 years ago. With AMD's R&D budget and how far behind they were it's very surprising to most of us that they have even gotten this far to being competitive again. It's a good thing.
 

blublub

Member
Jul 19, 2016
135
61
101
I'm happy with 3.8-4 on all cores.

8 cores at 3.8 makes me pretty happy.. to be fair.
In general I would agree (prior to the horizon event) but after being told baseline is 3.6ghz I kinda expected a 4.2ghz OC on all 8 cores with water-cooling and much higher TDP.
But still I will be happy with my 1800x :)
 

looncraz

Senior member
Sep 12, 2011
718
1,642
136
Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.
6900k is its natural competitor specification-wise and performance wise. Intel doesn't have other 8-cores for comparison...

Just like the 6-core Ryzen's natural competitor is the 6850k.

Cash-wise, the 8-core Ryzen competes with the 6850k... and utterly trashes it in MT while being rather close in ST... making the choice pretty clear... and THAT is the audience AMD is really after.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,906
1,527
136
Comparing cpu should be doone at same price and/or tdp.

The crazy thing about zen is that it seems to have higher efficiency for many loads vs bwe. With this perf class, Its bar none the most important metric going forward. The 32c 180w tdp will be scaring. Desktop is of minor importance - it simply looks like a gigantic homerun for the integer heavy servermarket. Looking forward to the efficiency bm!
 

blublub

Member
Jul 19, 2016
135
61
101
My source is internal and knows his stuff, he is trustworthy and he says that Ryzen is a beast but a beast that will not be good for high frequency, it is a low frequency high performance silicon uarch
I would have agreed if frequency was pegged at 3-3.2ghz still (like the ES at first).
But 8c with 3.6ghz isn't exactly "low frequency" either (not is it high)...So kinda in the middle :)

But your explanation kinda fits for the 4c parts as most expected those to easily break 4ghz and it seems they won't because AMD will use the high binning for 8c models
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeKhrush

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,556
2,540
126
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with a 4 year old tech.

Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.
Take 4C 8T Ryzen at half the price of 7700K or 6C 12T Ryzen at $70-100 less than 7700K and then you will see how good it is, no need to compare the 8-Core SKUs at all ;)
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,556
2,540
126
I would have agreed if frequency was pegged at 3-3.2ghz still (like the ES at first).
But 8c with 3.6ghz isn't exactly "low frequency" either (not is it high)...So kinda in the middle :)

But your explanation kinda fits for the 4c parts as most expected those to easily break 4ghz and it seems they won't because AMD will use the high binning for 8c models
At default the 4C SKUs are only at 65W TDP, raise it to 95W TDP and they can easily reach 4GHz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
Good to know, I have a 360mm WC.

What did you mean by ridiculously complicated?
Shouldn't XFR take it at least to 4ghz?
What he means is that a lot of voltage is required for next to no tangible gains. XFR is not guaranteed, it is thermal limited and it needs high end cooling to even push XFR frequency. It is like overclocking a Thuban all over
 

ultima_trev

Member
Nov 4, 2015
148
66
66
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with a 4 year old tech.

Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.
So it took AMD 2 years to gain 40-50% IPC over Excavator... Then it took Intel 4 years to get 10% IPC over Haswell with much, MUCH more resources at its disposal.

Troll, be gone with ye!
 

IllogicalGlory

Senior member
Mar 8, 2013
932
337
136
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with a 4 year old tech.

Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.
More of the "x-year old tech" spin. Intel has barely managed to beat that same tech by more than 10% themselves. I'm using that 4-year old tech and it's right there with Skylake.

Caught up with Haswell is near equivalent to caught up with Intel's latest and greatest, and you even admit that in your post. All you've got is irrelevant age metrics to make your points, whatever talking point makes Ryzen look the worst, you cling to, well beyond the point of it actually mattering, and then you chastise others for using comparisons that make Intel look bad "unfairly" (given the performance leaks, and given the prices, Ryzen is absolutely impressive at every market segment) and fantasize about a Ryzen that's 50% as fast a 6900K, which it isn't, it's much closer to 95-100% as fast.

AMD having a great processor that's competitive with Intel isn't going to hurt you, and neither will accepting you were wrong when you and so many others said it would be Bulldozer 2.0. Soon, you'll be able to pick up an 8-core processor with 4GHz+ (when overclocked, for the lower SKUs) clocks and Haswell IPC for $300-$500. Sounds pretty awesome if you ask me, but if you'd rather it be $1000...
 

dfk7677

Member
Sep 6, 2007
64
21
81
Guys you shouldn't be using BF1 as a benchmark for the 8C/16T Ryzen. Reason is that this CPU is not going to reach 100% even at 200FPS (which is the cap for BF1). Same for 6900K.

The demo we saw at the New Horizon Event was clearly bottlenecked by the GPU running Ultra@4K. I am guessing the CPUs worked at around 15% in that demo, as it was the singleplayer. Multiplayer may have had up to ~20%.

BF1 is an incredible benchmark for multithreading, as it makes great use of SMT, but it cannot be used for such powerful CPUs due to its framerate cap.
 

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
360
332
136
Simple because if is Haswell IPC, Haswell is 4 years old already, just because Intel dint provide a considerable improvement since them, does not mean i should start a party because they are catching up with a 4 year old tech.

Also comparing Rysen to a ridicusly overpriced 6900K is just a easy way to make it look good, it does not even need to match it. It can perform 50% less and it will still look good.

It's a shame (for your argument) that microprocessor design is not merely an IPC pissing contest.

Clock speed Envelope (determining the range of products the uarch will be successfully target), Performance/watt, performance/mm, are all critical metrics to combine with IPC in order to compare uArch's.. and that's assuming they're manufactured on the same process - which they aren't (at which AMD is at a disadvantage)

If you do want to play IPC pissing contest games though, then perhaps one can look at the low-power x86 core world and conclude Intel only just caught up with 4 year old AMD tech with Goldmont, and call it even?
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
14,288
4,334
136
AFAIK we've got a 250-page thread of spin with nothing more than a set of benchmarks from AMD that can't yet be verified by the review sites and anyone who chooses to. If I'm correct, no amount of guesswork, wishful thinking, logic and rationalisation changes that. "Leaks" aren't verifiable either so they have even less credibility than AMD's own benchmarks.

I sincerely hope that AMD has produced a viable set of competitors to Intel's current range (as it would shake up the market), even if it wasn't at all price points, however until we have some publicly verifiable benchmarks, speculation is simply a waste of time, and criticising speculation that doesn't agree with your own opinions an even bigger waste of time.
 

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
I think I speak for many here when I say that the excessive "intel master race" cynicism that is polluting this thread is becoming excessively annoying. People posting here are ones with legitimate interest in what AMD are trying to achieve and quite frankly we don't really care about how superior Intel is in the context of this thread, I think most of us can do the math on our own.

You can continue using your Intel products and nobody would really care, but please stop trying to "F-" everyone elses day with more Intel Master Race circlejerks.
 

Dresdenboy

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,730
554
136
citavia.blog.de
I had a friend who is working on AMD. He briefed me that "We'll have 5 SKU's at launch, and prices won't be disruptingly cheap" on January 2017.(BTW this guy is reporting directly to Papermaster) But today we have full product stack at launch, and disruptingly cheap prices. So AMD is a weird company.
Now Mark just has to find the one who has been briefed with "5 SKUs/not cheap", while the others with information like "4 SKUs/cheap", "6 SKUs/not cheap", etc. are fine. You were friends in the past, you say? ;)
 

OrangeKhrush

Senior member
Feb 11, 2017
220
343
96
AFAIK we've got a 250-page thread of spin with nothing more than a set of benchmarks from AMD that can't yet be verified by the review sites and anyone who chooses to. If I'm correct, no amount of guesswork, wishful thinking, logic and rationalisation changes that. "Leaks" aren't verifiable either so they have even less credibility than AMD's own benchmarks.

I sincerely hope that AMD has produced a viable set of competitors to Intel's current range (as it would shake up the market), even if it wasn't at all price points, however until we have some publicly verifiable benchmarks, speculation is simply a waste of time, and criticising speculation that doesn't agree with your own opinions an even bigger waste of time.
I agree with most of this, though validation is impossible due to NDA, but given proximity to launch and the leaks are from more credible sources than 4 months ago as an example, there is a lot of plausibility to latest leaks. I asked about them but unlike in the past dismissed as fake, the latest two (won't say which) were not dismissed.

But for the rest it is speculation and the hostility is stupid.
 

NeoLuxembourg

Senior member
Oct 10, 2013
752
206
116
... speculation is simply a waste of time ...
Why would somebody that thinks like that even post here? I mean, Ryzen is not released yet ... what where you expecting in this thread?

"Let's stop those speculations and wait for reviews" ... How about NO?

/rant
 

Dresdenboy

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,730
554
136
citavia.blog.de
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...
First let's consider the roofline model and where the stock i7-2600K performance and IMC bandwidth might be positioned:


And then have a look at itsmydamnation's DRAM latency tests on an overclocket i7-3770K (and imagine it's rooflines above):
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,722
1,115
136
We're talking 1700X for about 1/3 the price of a 6900K
The problem is which market is the target. 8 cores are useless in games and yeah the 6900k is not a gaming CPU. So if you want to built a workstation and benefit from 8 cores for lots of workloads, your point makes sense. For mainstream and gaming, not so much.

I'm concerned why the 4 and 6 cores have lower clocks than the 1800x for example. Is it binning or market segmentation? Does the 6-core OC worse than the 8-core (due to binning)? That would be terrible because then I need the more expensive 8-core to get as close to a 7700k in ST as possible. If I loose more than 10% In ST 1600x vs 7700k OCed the 7700k is the clear winner (at same price).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY