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

[Arachnotronic]

^ Yup. Kabylake, my a**. More like a new stepping Skylake. Or rather, Skylake with a new firmware.

That is a false characterization of KBL relative to SKL.

 

[bjt2]

Kaby Lake is awesome. I have a couple of 7700Ks here and even the "bad" one clocks better than the best 6700K I ever had (4.9GHz).

The good one does 5GHz with 4.7GHz uncore, no AVX negative offset.

Kaby Lake is good stuff, but if Intel is pushed to put out faster CPUs (higher stock clocks, higher core count CPUs, etc.), then I am a happy camper. When Intel is pushed to bring out their best, they can deliver some seriously awesome stuff.

What is the default uncore clock on kbl?

 

[jpiniero]

Maybe what AMD should do instead is offer bundle discounts with Polaris GPUs, which kind of makes sense since you will need a GPU anyway. I could see there being some interest in the lowest bin 4C4T + chipsetless board + 460 bundle if it was a decent price.

 

[CentroX]

Competition is good, but it isn't good if Intel puts away AMD before they even got to the market.

I am looking for long term competition, so personally I hope that Intel wont react to Ryzen for now.

 

[Arachnotronic]

duplicate.

 

[Arachnotronic]

duplicate.

 

[Doom2pro]

^ Yup. Kabylake, my a**. More like a new stepping Skylake. Or rather, Skylake with a new firmware.

Whatever it is, it absolutely has to be the best Intel can release on short notice... Whatever that is, let the collective minds speculate it to death.

Ryzen will be here in a Month and Intel will have a response shortly after, all I can say is, big win for the consumers inbound, no doubt about that!

 

[Doom2pro]

duplicate.

OMG it's not just me... :\

 

[Doom2pro]

Thankfully anandtech is back... Can't imagine a day without it.

 

[inf64]

AMD has referred to Summit Ridge as targeting the high end desktop market.

I have no knowledge of AMD's pricing plans, but the implicit assumption that AMD is going to offer 6900K features/performance for 7700K pricing appears unfounded in light of the company's previous behavior (see: FX 9590 pricing at launch).

Top 16T part will definitively not going to be priced at 7700K level. My guess is that top of the line 16T SKU will be between 550 and 700$.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The 9590 didn't stay $900+ for long. You can get one now for less than $200. Do you think they'll repeat that mistake?

 

[jpiniero]

The 9590 didn't stay $900+ for long.

A year? It was OEM only so we don't really know what they charged.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Launch price for the 9590 was $920:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31127...-info-spotted-seems-a-bit-too-high/index.html

Many system builders began dumping stock in August 2013 at prices below $400:

https://reviewbros.com/2013/08/21/did-amds-5-ghz-cpu-just-get-a-500-price-cut/

So, basically two months.

AMD has something better than the FX-9590 on its hands this time around, sure, but . . .

 

[CentroX]

AMD has shown before that they dont know pricing. The Fury X was overpriced with $200 too much.

 

[sm625]

That is a false characterization of KBL relative to SKL.

Howso? There have been stepping changes in the past that resulted in higher IPC gains than SKL to KBL.

 

[scannall]

I'm not sure why so many of you think Intel will cut prices. Even if Ryzen is a hit, it would cost more to get into a price war with them, than to ignore AMD entirely. They won't cut their margins. Ever. They may fiddle with SKU's or push clock rate some. But investors would revolt if the bottom line goes down. Intel doesn't care if AMD picks up a few points consumer market share. In their cash cow server business, a little kickback here, a little bribe/threat there and it's business as usual.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Competition is good, but it isn't good if Intel puts away AMD before they even got to the market.

I am looking for long term competition, so personally I hope that Intel wont react to Ryzen for now.

I don't know why you are so worried, AMD's advantage as such with Ryzen will be that they are offering more cores than higher or same priced Intel equivalents. It is too late for Intel to come out with a 6 core product just because Intel were supposedly "shocked" a few weeks ago. I don't see how even if Intel were to raise the clockspeeds of every model it has by 200Mhz(which is not what I am predicting), that changes things much.

Ryzen looks set to have at least 6 or more months of a clear run to stand or fall on its own merits.

 

[krumme]

AMD has shown before that they dont know pricing. The Fury X was overpriced with $200 too much.

Yep. They dont know how to build a build a brand. So therefore their pricing is pain. They mix so much basic business understanding its surreal at times. Beeing cash constrained just makes it a bit worse but its a bad excuse.

And its not about the products. Under Sanders there was a far better business flair even when the ip or tech was inferior.

If we get this typical amd price colapse its business as usual. Do i need to explain why such practice is hurting your business like crazy? There is 10 good reasons. One that is perhaps most popular these times is that you hurt your most loyal customers. How to kill your best ambasador. Amd does that each quarter. Kill whatever is left. Then kill all the regulars and oem afterwards with insecure and unpredictable pricing. The few that is left is looking for the sale. Always. Brand value down the drain.

Textbook of how not to do it. Hopefully Lisa is slowly getting it all back on track because the cfo is just an advanced bookkeeper.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'm not sure why so many of you think Intel will cut prices. Even if Ryzen is a hit, it would cost more to get into a price war with them, than to ignore AMD entirely. They won't cut their margins. Ever. They may fiddle with SKU's or push clock rate some. But investors would revolt if the bottom line goes down. Intel doesn't care if AMD picks up a few points consumer market share. In their cash cow server business, a little kickback here, a little bribe/threat there and it's business as usual.

Losing a few points of market share would hurt the bottom line because loss of revenue hurts profits.

If previously I sold $100,000 worth of goods at 60% gross profit margin and it cost me $30,000 to develop and market the goods, then my gross profit margin would be $60,000 and my net profit would be $30,000 (net profit margin of 30%)

If I then sell $90,000 worth of goods at 60% gross profit margin, and it cost me $30,000 to develop and market the goods (these costs are usually pretty independent of volume, but not entirely as there can be some profit-dependent operating expenses), then my net profit is just $24,000 (26.67%) on gross profit of $54,000 (60%).

My gross profit margin percentage in this case did not go down, but my total profit -- and thus net profit margin, the number that actually matters -- did. Investors would not be happy to see Intel just "give away" a "few points of consumer market share" because it would negatively impact their total profit. Intel is even more complex because its gross profit margin depends on factory utilization rates, so losing volumes not only would lose them revenue, but lead to higher cost per wafer, negatively impacting gross profit margin.

With that said, let's get back to the idea of Intel's potential response. Cutting prices does negatively impact revenue because even if you still "get the sale," you sold for lower than you otherwise could have. Your gross profit margin goes down too because gross profit margin is defined as (Revenue - Cost of Good Sold)/Revenue.

This is generally an option of "last resort" when you've got nothing better to respond with.

The better way to respond is to "disguise" the price cut by introducing better products at the previous price points and pushing the older/slower products (or newly branded equivalents) to lower price points. So if your product isn't selling well at $350, you reduce its price to a price point that the market will bear and then you bring out a better product at that $350 price point.

Think of what Intel did with the Kaby Lake Pentium chips. Instead of cutting prices on last year's Core i3, they just put hyperthreading on the Pentium chips to improve their value proposition. The i3 chips got speed boosts as well as an unlocked variant at the previous price points.

 

[KTE]

I will put some things into perspective. 3.4/3.7 GHz, 8 core/16 Thread CPU from AMD costs 399$, and offers slightly higher performance than 6900K, that costs 1099$. What is Intel's answer, in your opinion?

Skylake-X? Kaby Lake Price cuts? Nothing looks competitive in that situation, with AMD. Who has in the end K2 to climb?

This is a wishful expectation, and an extremely unlikely one on many fronts.

A reasonable expectation is top 8/16 from AMD costing $599 offers 7-10% lower performance than 6900K.

Intel Risk Mitigation:
Drop 6900K to $699.
Launch higher model for $1k.
Drop 7700K and launch 7800K at $350.
Hasten roll-out of KL-X.

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)

 

[Arachnotronic]

I will put some things into perspective. 3.4/3.7 GHz, 8 core/16 Thread CPU from AMD costs 399$, and offers slightly higher performance than 6900K, that costs 1099$. What is Intel's answer, in your opinion?

Skylake-X? Kaby Lake Price cuts? Nothing looks competitive in that situation, with AMD. Who has in the end K2 to climb?

I don't think your scenario is likely (why would AMD charge so little for such a part?), but let's suppose that it plays out. To respond to this, if I were in Intel's position, I'd do the following:

1. Take the Xeon E5 2687v4, a 12 core/24 thread part, unlock the multiplier, disable the QPI links, and sell that in the consumer market as a $999 extreme edition -- Core i7 6970X.
2. Reduce the price of 6950X to $799, possibly with base/boost frequency improvements (+200MHz or so).
3. Keep the 6900K around, but boost the clock frequencies (base/turbo), and rebrand it the 6930K. This becomes a $479 part.
4. Disable 12 PCIe lanes on the 6900K and rebrand it the 6870K. Sell it for $389.
5. Remove the 6850K from the lineup, and sell the 6800K for $329. 7700K would get a price cut to $319 in this case.

This would be a "stopgap" lineup in case of the (very unlikely) scenario that you described above. Then, when Skylake-X comes in, it can occupy those same price points but offer better IPC/clocks/features, helping to strengthen the value proposition of Intel's lineup. Skylake-X LCC die could also have 12 cores natively, so cost structure for Intel would improve on the top end part (which would in the hypothetical Broadwell scenario be handled by a big expensive MCC die).

 

[Glo.]

This is a wishful expectation, and an extremely unlikely one on many fronts.

A reasonable expectation is top 8/16 from AMD costing $599 offers 7-10% lower performance than 6900K.

Intel Risk Mitigation:
Drop 6900K to $699.
Launch higher model for $1k.
Drop 7700K and launch 7800K at $350.
Hasten roll-out of KL-X.

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)

Why would 3.6/4.0 Part from AMD offer 7% lower performance than 6900K, if 3.45 GHz 8 core/16 thread offers 3% higher performance than 6900K?

I don't think your scenario is likely (why would AMD charge so little for such a part?), but let's suppose that it plays out. To respond to this, if I were in Intel's position, I'd do the following:

1. Take the Xeon E5 2687v4, a 12 core/24 thread part, unlock the multiplier, disable the QPI links, and sell that in the consumer market as a $999 extreme edition -- Core i7 6970X.
2. Reduce the price of 6950X to $799, possibly with base/boost frequency improvements (+200MHz or so).
3. Keep the 6900K around, but boost the clock frequencies (base/turbo), and rebrand it the 6930K. This becomes a $479 part.
4. Disable 12 PCIe lanes on the 6900K and rebrand it the 6870K. Sell it for $389.
5. Remove the 6850K from the lineup, and sell the 6800K for $329. 7700K would get a price cut to $319 in this case.

This would be a "stopgap" lineup in case of the (very unlikely) scenario that you described above. Then, when Skylake-X comes in, it can occupy those same price points but offer better IPC/clocks/features, helping to strengthen the value proposition of Intel's lineup. Skylake-X LCC die could also have 12 cores natively, so cost structure for Intel would improve on the top end part (which would in the hypothetical Broadwell scenario be handled by a big expensive MCC die).

If 8C/16T with 3.4 GHz/3.7 GHz costs 399$, there is no chance that 6C/12T will cost more than 300$. And that part will have higher core clocks than 3.6 GHz.

Guys, look at bigger picture, not only what Intel offers, and might offer, but what AMD might offer. And AMD wants to offer unmatched performance/dollar value.

 

[Abwx]

This is a wishful expectation, and an extremely unlikely one on many fronts.

A reasonable expectation is top 8/16 from AMD costing $599 offers 7-10% lower performance than 6900K.

Intel Risk Mitigation:
Drop 6900K to $699.
Launch higher model for $1k.

Higher model at 10nm..?. or at 250W TDP..?

The silicon is already at its limits, so much about wishfull thoughts...


Besides Canard PC gave an info that was much posted by not put in context even there was an obvious one..
According to their separate tests a Zen core has 35% better throughput/Hz than a Piledriver module in a FX8370, wich mean that a die harvested 4GHz 4C/8T Ryzen will have 35% better perfs than a FX8350/70...

There is a FX8370 in their test, it is at 105.2 in the computing tests, an equally clocked 4C/8T Ryzen will be right at 142, that s moreover relevant due to the fact that the FX use 8 threads and that there s less scaling eventual issues due to early silicon that could influence the 8C sample perfs, among other RAM bandwith :

 

[Dave2150]

^ Yup. Kabylake, my a**. More like a new stepping Skylake. Or rather, Skylake with a new firmware.

Agreed. Kabylake should have just been a new stepping, or at best the 'Devils Canyon' of the Skylake generation (6790K for example).

 

[ultima_trev]

Why would 3.6/4.0 Part from AMD offer 7% lower performance than 6900K, if 3.45 GHz 8 core/16 thread offers 3% higher performance than 6900K?

Except that a 3.4 GHz Zen doesn't beat an i7 6900K, people are only thinking it does because of a couple of cherry picked benchmarks displayed at New Horizon.

Canard PC's leaks, most likely the closest representative of real world performance thus far, shows Zen IPC at roughly 5-6% behind Broadwell-E. Surely further optimization will help (as we are talking engineering samples) but I wouldn't realistically expect more than 5-10% over what Canard PC displayed considering they would have only several months to improve upon that.

I've always loved AMD but I swear the fanboy hype surrounding this release is just atrocious, far more than the hype surrounding Polaris or Fiji.