• 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 202 - 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.
vissarix said:
Amd showed a blend test without numbers or anything just said they finished the test about the same time...such a reliable benchmark..
Click to expand...

Need to wake up from whatever bubble you are in 🙂

Intel's blender test results were replicated by third-party reviewers using the parameters provided by AMD.
 
Glo. said:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

According to this: 6900K 17000 pts in PassMark. 5960X 15.4K pts. in PassMark. Ryzen Sample: 15000 pts.

But yes, you have to value also difference in memory performance. Both Intel CPUs are quad channel, Ryzen Sample is dual channel and has slow memory in the platform.
Click to expand...

are you referring to https://s28.postimg.org/fp76snv3h/MWSnap_2017_02_10_21_18_27.jpg

It shows a Pentium beating out a SL at lower blocks.. enough said 🙂
These benchmarks needs to be carried out by the same reviewer for a proper comparision, otherwise you will get to a case where 7700k at 5G having the same ST performance as a 5820K at 4.8G

<redacted "benchmarks without a source">
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vissarix said:
Who told you that Ryzen can beat the i7 6900k?
Amd showed a blend test without numbers or anything just said they finished the test about the same time...such a reliable benchmark..

everything outside Amd own benchmarks points Ryzen underperforming badly...Canard benchmarks, sandra sisoftware benchmarks etc
Click to expand...

e-tards should be your show title on comedy central

Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glo. said:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

According to this: 6900K 17000 pts in PassMark. 5960X 15.4K pts. in PassMark. Ryzen Sample: 15000 pts.

But yes, you have to value also difference in memory performance. Both Intel CPUs are quad channel, Ryzen Sample is dual channel and has slow memory in the platform.
Click to expand...
which will have even much less than marginal impact on real world performance, let's all not forget that when we compare total passmark scores 😛
 
<redacted "benchmarks without a source"
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

Holy sh** o_0

This looks very impressive, especially when we keep in mind that some of these other "baselines" were running at or close to ~ 5ghz while the engineering sample Ryzen was at ~ 3.4-3.8ghz with slow memory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blublub said:
Can't be real. Wen know Ryzen can beat 6900k in MT.
So to loose this badly in St but beat in MT, AMDs SMT implementation must be so much superior than Intel's that it just impossible.
Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that higher SMT yield (that is, % extra performance SMT vs No SMT) doesn't actually indicate a 'superior implementation' by default. More typically indicates the design is more throughput orientated.
 
lobz said:
sm625, after so many years of reading, I had to register to write this down, how incredibly epic of a fail this was, what you've done with these benchmarks.
according to all the numbers you've provided - against all your intentions - Ryzen is one of the greatest achievements of AMD to date, being financially constrained, on an inferior process with smaller cores, well.... WOW at these scores!!! Yep, even if it's actually @ 3.8
Click to expand...

You are the greatest lurker of all times!

consider that AMD was operating at less than 1/10th the R&D budget of Intel--and that includes their RTG sector, if I'm not mistaken. Granted, one can honestly consider the work on BD/PD as sort of the foundation of Zen.
 
LMAO at the people going on full damage controll...why be worried guys? Ryzen is a clear success..at 3.8ghz it has almost the same ST of an i3 4160 running at 3.6ghz..
 
Capture.png


I have taken the liberty to normalize the passmark results. the ST, FP and INT results puts ryzen (assuming 3.8G) JUST south of SL/KL. but the PN and Physics does not add up. Even there is too much variance among intel CPUs (??) illustrating the need to the benches to be done by the same reviewer.

EDIT: ignoring the variance in PN and Physics, given that the ST/FP/INT performance of ryzen is virtually identical, it can say that SMT in AMD is not too awesome in physics and PN. I donot think passmark uses AVX2.
 
Last edited:
lolfail9001 said:
Holy cow, that is bad bad bad in writes and latency department.

I am convinced single threaded passmark was certainly running at 3.8Ghz. Do not know about multi threaded tests though, but it should be enough to establish that rest of tests were not running on higher clock than that.
Click to expand...

Where is your absolute proof,😉 be realistic you or we dont now any accurate details.

This is ES Zen CPU, Turbocore is most likely not working the right way, therefore excluded from normal use.😎

Passmark Single Core

- i7 2600K=TurboCore up to 3.8ghz, score 1920

- ES Zen for now logically stick up for 3.4ghz, Score 2046
 
I recall something about The Stilt stating that the turbo of Ryzen is fully controlled by SMU and the "outside" only sees the base clock, which prevents stuff like motherboard forcing max turbo for all cores.

So with that, maybe it is possible that the turbo above 3,4 GHz was actually used by those Passmark benches, even though the program didn't detect it for the above reason.

Edit: this sample is 1700X anyway, 1800X should still be some 5-6% faster.
 
Last edited:
lobz said:
you have no idea if it was 3.8 or turbo-disabled 3.4
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you could tell if XFR was enabled.

I looked at the Sandra result and compared it to a random 6900K score that seemed like it had turbo disabled (3.2 ghz):

MM Integer: 718 vs 525 for the Ryzen "38_34"
MM Long Int: 211 vs 159
MM Quad Int: 3299 vs 3589
MM Single Float: 654 vs 522
MM Double Float: 374 vs 300
MM Quad Float: 13352 vs 13271

Not sure what to make of it beyond perhaps some have AVX(2) optimizations and some don't.
 
Can anyone with BCLK overclocked Skylake chime in? BCLK OC bios should make AVX on Skylake work at same speed as Ryzen theoretically does (never switch into 256 bit mode, that is), so it could help to verify that PN/Physics test are actually AVX based and there's nothing else fishy going on with them.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Can anyone with BCLK overclocked Skylake chime in? BCLK OC bios should make AVX on Skylake work at same speed as Ryzen theoretically does (never switch into 256 bit mode, that is), so it could help to verify that PN/Physics test are actually AVX based and there's nothing else fishy going on with them.
Click to expand...

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html

Physics Test
The Physics Test uses the Bullet Physics Engine to perform a benchmark of how fast the CPU can simulate the physics interactions. The test repeats the first several seconds of the simulation as many times as possible within the test duration.
Click to expand...

I believe the Bullet Physics Engine uses AVX2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top