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

[MajinCry]

Something looks wrong: the number of retired instructions seems way too low.

I've never used the program before, so I mighta gotten lost somewhere. Step by step instructions would help; make sure I provided the right info.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

What happens to the regular i3, i5 & i7's of the world then? Intel probably makes more money annually from their IGP equipped chips than two years worth of sales from the HEDT line.
You think it's realistic to expect a virtual monopoly to be so benevolent? This doesn't even take into account how AMD will accommodate the quad core IGP less chip, assuming they release one.

Yah, they make money from the mainstream chips than the HEDT cpus. Intel probably will just go on like nothing happened... That would likely be more profitable than to fight AMD in a price war.

I don't expect them to at all. I am just stating what would have happened, if they were being honest, and/or had real competition.

There will absolutely be a 4 core Zen without an IGPU.

They will accommodate them by putting in a power IGPU w/ HBM2. If you even care about the IGPU, then you wouldn't give intel a second look.

 

[itsmydamnation]

That's a nice story, but Intel likely won't drop prices, so I am not sure what you are going on about.

could have sworn you post was all about reducing pricing.................

Zen is targeting from 10ish watt TDP upto (rumors of 250watt TDP for DC APU). if intel react with pricing it will need to be across the board ( as Zen zen products in that market get released) .

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I don't think intel will drop prices. They will just rely on their superior marketing and brand loyalty.

 

[swilli89]

Its not 2003 anymore its not massive growth everywhere, markets are ranging from slow growth to full reverse. Add on top of that thax to bad bond returns and low interest rates many people have had to up their investment risk profiles and moved to shares, as a result these investors want higher dividends ( and they have been getting them)..

Here's the beauty of that statement. Please allow me to give an example. So I work for a Fortune 100 company that has many, many sub segments that all serve different markets in the energy sector.

The segment I find myself in is one that has less than 5% of the market that my segment serves. My industry is Oil&Gas. We all know whats going on in Oil&Gas right now, its been plummeting and shrinking (ESPECIALLY in North America due to the high cost of hydrocrabon extraction out of shale gas --- opposed to super easy accessible shallow oil fields in the mid east). Mid east can profit from $20 a barrel where here in the states no one is profitable at sub $50 barrel. We get that the total market is shrinking/staganant (for now).

HOWEVER.. this is important. We are 5% of the market, with a few of our competitors sitting at 20-30% of the market. So while the market shrinking it is actually hurting the big guys with all of their massive fixed costs and overhead costs, we are so lean and mean that we have been able to go out and win work from the big guys exactly due to the fact that our operating costs are lower. How does this pertain to AMD....

AMD is so small in the market that despite a stagnant overall market, their opporunity for growth is HUGE! They could quadruple in size and still only have a minority of the market. Its going to be tough for Intel to both. Intel will have to both cut margins and accept lower marketshare if they try to suppress AMD. It may very well be the case that Intel's strategy is to allow AMD to creep back up to 15-20% before they put a lot of resistance in terms of aggressive pricing and product rollouts. And that's what I've been saying on this board for almost a year. AMD doesn't need to beat Intel. They merely need to carve out a nice slice of the pie and hold steady to be a wildly successful company.

 

[.vodka]

Brand loyalty won't do much if day one reviews show Zen in a good light, and if pricing is right.

Basically every star has to be aligned for AMD to break intel's dominance on the market. Being AMD.. well... good luck

 

[itsmydamnation]

Brand loyalty won't do much if day one reviews show Zen in a good light, and if pricing is right.

Basically every star has to be aligned for AMD to break intel's dominance on the market. Being AMD.. well... good luck

no where near every start aligned for AMD in the K7 and K8 era, explain how now is different?

 

[.vodka]

no where near every start aligned for AMD in the K7 and K8 era, explain how now is different?

Not different at all. The product will do all the work, and so far it looks like it will just fine. What I meant is for AMD to break Intel's dominance long term, didn't phrase my post very well. I also meant for AMD to deliver a perfect product on day one... We all know how the GPU side of the business ends up having a quirk here and there that if were solved on day one reviews, the overall picture might have been very different.

At least we can now count on the ecosystem being different and Intel probably not doing the same anti competitive crap they did back in the K7 and K8 days... so that AMD can get some urgently needed marketshare and cash to keep going.

 

[jihe]

It's painfully clear you have no idea what you are talking about. AMD always had a far worse margin problem than a marketshare problem. The latter without the former is worthless. It is critical for AMD that they have to raise ASPs as high as they possible could with Zen. The notion that AMD has to sell great products but at bargain basement prices is disguised entitlement syndrome.

Eh, you do remember the price gouging that was a64 x2 right?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Brand loyalty won't do much if day one reviews show Zen in a good light, and if pricing is right.

Basically every star has to be aligned for AMD to break intel's dominance on the market. Being AMD.. well... good luck

Most people don't look at reviews or even benchmarks.

They don't need to take 50% of the marketshare from intel for Zen to be a success. 15-20% of that pie is fine.

 

[TheELF]

Intel will have to both cut margins and accept lower marketshare if they try to suppress AMD. It may very well be the case that Intel's strategy is to allow AMD to creep back up to 15-20% before they put a lot of resistance in terms of aggressive pricing and product rollouts. And that's what I've been saying on this board for almost a year. AMD doesn't need to beat Intel. They merely need to carve out a nice slice of the pie and hold steady to be a wildly successful company.

Intel doesn't want amd to disappear because they are afraid of monopoly laws.
If intel wanted they could have slapped a big ass IGPU on the g3258 sell it for ~$150 (even at loss) and destroy amds whole APU market,if they wanted they could have crammed 8 sandy cores on a die, price it the same as FX and killed the FX line,those would be relatively low cost things for intel to do and amd wouldn't be able to do anything about it,they would have ended up with no business at all.
Intel is happy with amd being at 10-15% of market share.

 

[zinfamous]

Here's the beauty of that statement. Please allow me to give an example. So I work for a Fortune 100 company that has many, many sub segments that all serve different markets in the energy sector.

The segment I find myself in is one that has less than 5% of the market that my segment serves. My industry is Oil&Gas. We all know whats going on in Oil&Gas right now, its been plummeting and shrinking (ESPECIALLY in North America due to the high cost of hydrocrabon extraction out of shale gas --- opposed to super easy accessible shallow oil fields in the mid east). Mid east can profit from $20 a barrel where here in the states no one is profitable at sub $50 barrel. We get that the total market is shrinking/staganant (for now).

HOWEVER.. this is important. We are 5% of the market, with a few of our competitors sitting at 20-30% of the market. So while the market shrinking it is actually hurting the big guys with all of their massive fixed costs and overhead costs, we are so lean and mean that we have been able to go out and win work from the big guys exactly due to the fact that our operating costs are lower. How does this pertain to AMD....

AMD is so small in the market that despite a stagnant overall market, their opporunity for growth is HUGE! They could quadruple in size and still only have a minority of the market. Its going to be tough for Intel to both. Intel will have to both cut margins and accept lower marketshare if they try to suppress AMD. It may very well be the case that Intel's strategy is to allow AMD to creep back up to 15-20% before they put a lot of resistance in terms of aggressive pricing and product rollouts. And that's what I've been saying on this board for almost a year. AMD doesn't need to beat Intel. They merely need to carve out a nice slice of the pie and hold steady to be a wildly successful company.

excellent post.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Intel doesn't want amd to disappear because they are afraid of monopoly laws.
If intel wanted they could have slapped a big ass IGPU on the g3258 sell it for ~$150 (even at loss) and destroy amds whole APU market,if they wanted they could have crammed 8 sandy cores on a die, price it the same as FX and killed the FX line,those would be relatively low cost things for intel to do and amd wouldn't be able to do anything about it,they would have ended up with no business at all.
Intel is happy with amd being at 10-15% of market share.

Yah, but those things would be blatant violations of monopoly law. It's in intel's best interest to let AMD succeed, but at some point they will start to fight back.

I suspect they will let AMD do w/e they want, and then they might start fighting back with Skylake-X.

 

[sirmo]

Eh, you do remember the price gouging that was a64 x2 right?

I remember buying an athlon 64 x2 for a fairly decent price. The gouging was on the gold sample high bin parts, but if you go back in the history you'll find a64 x2 were still priced better than Intel at the time.

I think we might see a similar thing this time. A black edition Ryzen top bin part 3.6Ghz+ base will probably cost a pretty penny. But the regular 3.4Ghz base will probably be pretty decently priced. Also I do hope all Ryzen chips are unlocked like the FX chips were.

 

[inf64]

Don't forget that if AMD bundles a good AIO WC setup with 3.6+Ghz Ryzen parts these would likely clock higher out of the box via the AutoOC feature and thus perform better than "regular" parts. I wish they would just release such 125W part and let it auto clock to almost 4Ghz. The out of the box performance would be pretty crazy, no need to OC it that much.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Don't forget that if AMD bundles a good AIO WC setup with 3.6+Ghz Ryzen parts these would likely clock higher out of the box via the AutoOC feature and thus perform better than "regular" parts. I wish they would just release such 125W part and let it auto clock to almost 4Ghz. The out of the box performance would be pretty crazy, no need to OC it that much.

Meh, they already made that wrath cooler. I think they would be better off just using that, and keep the price low.

 

[lifeblood]

AMD has to get the Turbo in at least 3.9-4Ghz range so that the ST part of the performance story follows the MT part. If they manage to do that , they will sell sh*t load of 500$ 8C parts by the end of 2017.

Is that possible? To get it to 3.9 or 4.0 with only 3 months before they hit their self imposed deadline? We know they reached 3.4 base. For those of you who understand the manufacturing part, how many months and respins does it normally take to improve performance that much? Admittedly we don't know what the boost clocks are today, we only know minimum base. Is it even reasonable to expect a CPU that can only reach 3.4 reliably on all cores, but be able to boost up to 3.9?

 

[raghu78]

Yah, but those things would be blatant violations of monopoly law. It's in intel's best interest to let AMD succeed, but at some point they will start to fight back.

I suspect they will let AMD do w/e they want, and then they might start fighting back with Skylake-X.

If AMD has a very competitive product in perf and perf/watt then they will start to take market share. Intel can choose to respond with price cuts and maybe reduce the loss of share. But they cannot avoid it altogether. btw Zen is not a single CPU. Its the start of a multi year CPU roadmap to regain market share in server, enthusiast desktop and notebook. Zen+ was already in development in parallel and is likely to soon tapeout for a 2018 launch. AMD is just getting started with Zen and the competition is only going to get more intense in 2018 and going forward.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Someone here already mentioned that there are a lot of people still running a 2500k or 3570k (that would be me) that are looking for the next worthwhile upgrade (6 core, perhaps). Those with a 2600k or 3770k would be in the market for an even more expensive CPU, say the 8 core variant.

Folks that have been sitting out of the market for awhile are wildcards. You would think that anyone looking to pay $800+ for a CPU would have picked up Haswell-E or Broadwell-E by now. Remaining buyers are probably on the fence between a 5820k and 6700k and don't necessarily 100% like all of what they see, but don't want to step up and pay the big bucks for the stronger LGA-2011 v3 chips.

They might pay a little more for Summit Ridge than they would a 6700k, but not THAT much more.

There are others out there that will spend more. The most expensive I bought was probably the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for about $350. Others surely bought CPU's closer to $1000. Maybe those days are over, but a quality product can demand a premium price.

AMD had to establish themselves as producers of quality products before they could sell the FX line for the big bucks. Remember when AMD was the top dog with the 1.4 GHz Tbird that beat every Pentium III ever released and (mostly) beat the brand spanking new Willamette Pentium 4s? That chip was still cheap as hell.

That would be fine. Let the early adopters pay a ton for it. Those who can wait can save a good amount by waiting a few months. AMD can always adjust prices. Better for them to start higher and drop if they aren't selling.

You would think the 9590 pricing debacle would have left a bad taste in their mouth . . .

I know who Francois Piednoel is, lol. He "rants" on all kinds of subjects, some unrelated to x86. He just doesn't think there is enough proof yet to prove the performance of Zen, but yeah I would imagine they are a bit worried about the competition as well.

That was some snippy nonsense going on there in Twitterland. It's kind of sad.

Running CodeAnalyzer on a preZen AMD chip would reveal the required details, and just where the older chips struggled in this benchmark.

Any volunteers

I'll volunteer with my A10-7870k @ 4.1 GHz ( I can select a higher clockspeed if you like). Please give me instructions to make sure I perform the tests exactly as per your request.

damn, you killed a polar bear and blame AMD?

Oh noes, who will sell me Coca Cola this winter?

A monster Zen APU could actually be a legit as hell thing. Full blown GPU/CPU with HBM on die. Holy crap what would that be like?

Snowy Owl? I've long held that a consumer version of Snowy Owl would be amazing.

They will undercut their competitors while still maintaining vastly improved margins than they have been in the past few years.

That was my thought on the matter. They need a combination of market share and revenue growth. Their current margins are pretty awful.

I will also add this . . . personally, I would be willing to pay $400-$500 for a top-bin Summit Ridge this January. I would balk at anything higher than $600. I'm sure a lot of other people would feel the same way . . .

 

[moonbogg]

If it cost more than $600 I'd just wait for Skylake-E as I originally planned. I know Skylake would be at least a little faster and if I'm spending the big money on a CPU then I'm getting the absolute best and I'll wait for it.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

If AMD has a very competitive product in perf and perf/watt then they will start to take market share. Intel can choose to respond with price cuts and maybe reduce the loss of share. But they cannot avoid it altogether. btw Zen is not a single CPU. Its the start of a multi year CPU roadmap to regain market share in server, enthusiast desktop and notebook. Zen+ was already in development in parallel and is likely to soon tapeout for a 2018 launch. AMD is just getting started with Zen and the competition is only going to get more intense in 2018 and going forward.

I didn't know Zen+ was that far along in development. That is quite interesting. I was worried that AMD might not have anything to follow Zen up with, and end up in the same place they were with Vishera, so that is good news.

If it cost more than $600 I'd just wait for Skylake-E as I originally planned. I know Skylake would be at least a little faster and if I'm spending the big money on a CPU then I'm getting the absolute best and I'll wait for it.

Skylake-e could be a beastly competitor. Skylakes IPC gain & the improved 14nm+ process used with Kabylake.

 

[sirmo]

I didn't know Zen+ was that far along in development. That is quite interesting. I was worried that AMD might not have anything to follow Zen up with, and end up in the same place they were with Vishera, so that is good news.



Skylake-e could be a beastly competitor. Skylakes IPC gain & the improved 14nm+ process used with Kabylake.

They likely had to table some features for Zen+. These processors are no longer processors but entire System On Chips. The amount of stuff they had to get done was no small task, plus from scratch on a brand new fab process. Also it's been how many years since they released a last AM3+/desktop chip? They've provided us with some 28nm disabled iGPU APUs.. but that's about it. They aren't even bothering with the desktop Bristol Ridge.

 

[R0H1T]

I don't think intel will drop prices. They will just rely on their superior marketing and brand loyalty.

Well the market, HEDT line, you're talking about doesn't rely much on marketing & this is why I mentioned ads because they're targeted (mainly) towards laptop & prebuilts i.e. less informed users. If a pro/gamer gets 6900K worth of performance in ryzen for ~800$ then he'd have to be a fool or Intel fan to go for the overpriced 6900K, so not much of a loss for AMD. Thus my point about not launching the SR7 at such prices where lowering them more, in case Intel responds with their price cuts, will only marginalize AMD's ability to further their future.

Best advertising is word of mouth, 4C 8T Ryzen CPU beating a Core i5 at the same or lower price is what AMD needs for people to start talking and recommending those CPUs.

They need a wowww effect, i hope they will deliver in Q1 with ZEN and not make the same mistake they did last year with Fury X/Nano.

This, agree with it totally but just to add to that the wow effect will have to come from performance & not the cheap(er) price tag. If they can't sell enough SR7's initially, even with performance IMO between 5960x & 6900K, for 700~800$ then they'll most likely not be able to tide the Intel crowd over to their side with a 600$ price tag either.

 

[BeepBeep2]

That was some snippy nonsense going on there in Twitterland. It's kind of sad.

Ehh, I know Francois, his social media accounts are not to be taken so seriously. He always errs on the side of AMD sux, but he has buddies working across the line. He posted later that he wishes nothing but the best for those working hard at AMD and knows competition keeps things spicy.

Though some here might also think I am super anti-AMD now, based on my posts and playing devil's advocate a bit, but I have a dead Phenom II X4 955 on my keychain and 11 out of the last 14 CPUs I owned were AMD.

 

[HurleyBird]

no where near every start aligned for AMD in the K7 and K8 era, explain how now is different?

Well, there was difficulty in expanding manufacturing capacity (not as much of an issue now that there are several fabs all on the same or very similar processes), in communicating the counter-intuitive situation that AMD's processors were faster despite a massive clock-speed disadvantage (not a problem today since frequency isn't even really brought up to consumers and they've been weaned off using it as a yardstick), and of course back in the day Intel was doing shady/illegal things that artificially held AMD back, which again isn't likely to be an issue because those tactics ended when they were exposed, and Intel just doesn't have the same kind of overwhelming clout anymore.

That said, I think the absolute best case scenario is Zen coming in as slightly better than Sky/Kabylake (which would really mean moderately better if AMD had access to Intel's process tech). AMD had a truly massive technological advantage during the K8 era which might not ever be the case again. The situations aren't exactly comparable.