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

[CatMerc]

It doesn't reflect game performance, process improvements, or power efficiency (showing at a fixed clock, not what the chips were able to run at). Just today I dug up the PC Games Hardware review showing the effect of background tasks on games. The FX models started lower than i3 to i7, but then they kept the game's performance levels with heavy BG tasks, while the Intel CPUs went down.


We did some OPN guessing back then.

Now I'd read it as 2D3151.. (3.15GHz base clock).

Could you provide a link to the pcgh test? I've actually been writing something and this would be exactly what I want.

 

[lolfail9001]

about real world performance

Unlikely, unless of course all the leaks were a fluke and it is much worse.

Could you provide a link to the pcgh test? I've actually been writing something and this would be exactly what I want.

I mean, that sounds like the most logical thing ever. FXs generally choke on a single thread in games , of course from putting load on the rest of CPU they stay flat.

 

[majord]

Ryzen looks like cheap Haswell-E, not anything even closely resembling 7700k.

Nothing wrong with just cheap Haswell-E in my book though.

So I guess that makes Broadwell-E expensive Haswell-E?

 

[lolfail9001]

So I guess that makes Broadwell-E expensive Haswell-E?

Overpriced Haswell-E, even even if i cannot deny that 6950X has some appeal in spite of price tag. I would prefer to see 1691v3 as unlocked publicly available SKU instead, though. The one and only time when Intel would have actually released enthusiast CPU not in spite.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Asus is good, but they typically have shit CSR (so I've read--personally, haven't had to deal with them, but YMMV).

I've been Gigabyte for my most recent 2-3 builds, though. Because I got a UD4 something back in 2009 as part of a Fry's bundle deal, and it was solid. Next mobo was solid, then the one after that.

Gigabyte has more coppers, or something. Anyway, I now tend to think of Gigabyte on the same tier as Asus, and also a bit cheaper, so that's where I'll by looking for Mobo. I'll look at MSI, too, as I had at least one good experience with them.

ASUS is my favorite, Gigabyte has been hit or miss to me. MSI is quality, too, and I like ASRock.

Lots of cool boards popping up for Ryzen from the major vendors.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So I guess that makes Broadwell-E expensive Haswell-E?

Sadly, yes. Intel raised prices for the 6 and 8 core Broadwell-E models, which kind of sucked.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

I have never seen anyone suggest the 6950x looked appealing. You could make a better gaming and workstation pc for less than the 6950x cost.

 

[Mockingbird]

Also this image from baidu topic lists 4Ghz Zen as scoring 165pts in R15 :

The Bulldozer disaster summed up in one graph.

 

[lolfail9001]

I have never seen anyone suggest the 6950x looked appealing. You could make a better gaming and workstation pc for less than the 6950x cost.

Not really, it is hard to find something that matches 6950X at 4.2Ghz in both well threaded workstation and gaming tasks. In the same time, of course. So, in this tight niche, it is actually a decent CPU. Of course at this point one may as well go for few pcs instead, and that is a valid option too.

The Bulldozer disaster summed up in one graph.

Yeah, it is almost disheartening to look at it.

 

[inf64]

Not really, it is hard to find something that matches 6950X at 4.2Ghz in both well threaded workstation and gaming tasks. In the same time, of course. So, in this tight niche, it is actually a decent CPU. Of course at this point one may as well go for few pcs instead, and that is a valid option too.

Yeah, it is almost disheartening to look at it.

6950x has the most atrocious perf/$ ratio of all intel CPUs. Heck it makes 6900K look good actually. 57% higher price for 25% more cores and roughly the same OC with a much higher power draw.

 

[lolfail9001]

6950x has the most atrocious perf/$ ratio of all intel CPUs

That spot is reserved for non-ebay single socket E5-2699v4. 6950X looks like a bargain in comparison.

 

[Arachnotronic]

6950x has the most atrocious perf/$ ratio of all intel CPUs. Heck it makes 6900K look good actually. 57% higher price for 25% more cores and roughly the same OC with a much higher power draw.

6900K is a terrible value and it doesn't have the "halo" effect of being the top SKU/having 10 cores.

Just a bad, overpriced SKU from Intel.

 

[inf64]

6900K is a terrible value and it doesn't have the "halo" effect of being the top SKU/having 10 cores.

Just a bad, overpriced SKU from Intel.

I don't know if you think that sarcasm was a win or fail but 6900K will certainly look very bad in 2 weeks

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't know if you think that sarcasm was a win or fail but 6900K will certainly look very bad in 2 weeks

No, I genuinely think the 6900K was a bad SKU due to its price.

 

[inf64]

No, I genuinely think the 6900K was a bad SKU due to its price.

Oh I see, my bad then . The only CPUs that seem OK are lower priced 6C BDW-E.

 

[blublub]

Nehalem IPC with Athlon XP clocks.

Oh. From his more recent posting I remember he said SB IPC - so he must have changed his mind at some point.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I like what AMD have done, this is their Netburst to Conroe jump, just with more technology and experience to use. It makes the entire Haswell/Haswell E family obselete which is quite impressive.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Juanrga's epic predictions:

Sandy or Sub Sandy IPC - fail
No 6 core guaranteed - fail
Clockspeeds will not pass 3ghz - fail

Soon he is about to lose his overclocking predictions.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Oh I see, my bad then . The only CPUs that seem OK are lower priced 6C BDW-E.

6C BDW-E with 28 PCIe lanes is reasonably priced. 6850K is, well that's a lot of money for 12 extra PCIe lanes especially since multi-GPU is going to go the way of the dodo. 6900K is just a shameless money grab and you don't even get the bragging rights because it's the 2nd-tier SKU. 6950X is ridiculously priced, but it's at least a 10 core chip with an unlocked multiplier and after overclocking it to 4-4.2GHz, it's a multithreaded monster with reasonable per core performance.

Yeah I'm not really that happy with the current HEDT stack from Intel, hope they do better with SKL-X.

If 6950X was at the typical $999, 6900K at $699, 6850K at $499, and 6800K at $399, then that would be a much more compelling stack, and Intel would still get really nice margins. If they have to have a $1700 CPU, they could have unlocked the Xeon E5 2687 v4 and called it a day.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

No, I genuinely think the 6900K was a bad SKU due to its price.

Yah, that is what you get with monopolies.

There used to be people here that would literally defend intel's monopoly and even claim it was s a good thing. Bashed AMD like it was their job...

 

[Grooveriding]

There are really people expecting KL/SL IPC from AMD with this first gen core?

Honestly, in a single generational bump some of you would be upset and call AMD a failure if they didn't deliver SL/KL IPC?

AMD aimed for 40% IPC over XV and somewhat said they surpassed their goal.

Their IPC being IB/HW would really be a failure in the eyes of some of you?

Look at the expected prices. The bang for the buck is what you should be focusing on, not anything like getting the performance crown. IMO, myself, going from a 860k to an 4c/8t with X or 6c/12t nonX is better than Intel would give me for the money that I would want to spend when it comes to bang/buck. Stop overhyping peoples expectations already.

But BTW, I hope AMD pounds Intel into the sand in everything under the sun. But although I don't expect it to be, I hope it is true.

I haven't followed anything rumour wise on these chips. If they release an 8 core chip that has performance around a 5960x/6900k for $500-$600, then they've delivered in my book.

I wouldn't expect IPC as good as Intel's latest and greatest. But delivering twice the cores Intel does, at HW/BW IPC, for half the price Intel charges at that tier would be a big deal.

I'll believe it when I see it in reviews though. Not getting hyped. I'll give them some money though if they can bring that octocore performance back out of the $1000+ bracket.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Is GeekBench now a relevant benchmark? What!?

Um . . . yeah, about that . . .

The INTERNET STRONGMAN es our inverse John Freue. Every time he says IPC is lower than expected, IPC goes up. He should keep posting some more

Then by all means, let him keep posting.

I don't know what WCCFTech is smoking, I just did the SSE test on my 6600K @ 4.2GHz, and got 474 points.
Apparently I have a magical CPU that gets 5.2x the perfomance of a CPU with half its cores

Maybe you need your own Internet hype train?

Sorry but I had to adblock OrangeKrush's new avatar...couldn't handle it.

Was like seeing a black widow hanging from my monitor. Couldn't even read his posts ; ;

Seeing REDACTED will do that to you. Humans can not bask in that much majesty without disruption of their basic bodily functions. Get some Depends as well, they'll help with the other problems.

Based on my own experience, Windows 7 performs slightly better than Windows 10 (even on Ryzen).
Even with most of the bloatware disabled.

Huh. I actually had problems with Win7 performance with Kaveri. I know I got speed increases in AMD Linpack as of Win10 9926 or so.

Possible, but they love to get rid of stuff, so it could be filled with electrolytic capacitors matryoshka doll style.

So nice of them to hide extra capacitors in there. It's like a bonus!

Anyone remember the MSI 970A G43/G46 boards? They had heatsinks and LOADS of FETs and the board was rated as being 125W but they used horribly cheap FETs and the board could only handle max 95W and lots of people smoked their boards CPU and all simply by putting in 8 core FX CPUs and overclocking them!

Those weren't the only boards like that. My 790FX-GD70 was famous for burning itself out when trying to run Thuban at too-high voltages/clockspeeds. Otherwise it was a great board (well okay I had QC problems with mine, but RMA went reasonably well).

In any case it is probably a good thing that I never got around to putting a Thuban in that board. I never did get the BIOS version on there that I wanted anyway . . .

If 6950X was at the typical $999, 6900K at $699, 6850K at $499, and 6800K at $399, then that would be a much more compelling stack, and Intel would still get really nice margins.

If Intel is going to do anything to react to Ryzen, I would think prices like that might be the place to start. Though that will certainly restrict what they can charge for LGA2066 chips.

 

[krumme]

Changing prices like that for Intel doesnt make a difference for enthusiast or mainstream consumers. They would still be far worse value. Just less so. I would keep prices and sell far less because the core customers is the ones needing computing for heavy avx2 loads or severe mem bandwith situations. So its a professional market anyway.

The Intel hedt line needs to be where it is and skl e will enforce that and then they need to bring some new consumer stuff. Dont know if we are attractive for them anyway. Have my doubts. Zen is here. Margins for that market is difficult to sustain.

 

[DrMrLordX]

You may have a point. It's just not clear what Intel is supposed to do, given that their entire consumer CPU stack is likely set in stone until Q1 2018 or so.

Unless they do as Arachnotronic suggests, take a Xeon model, unlock it, and sell it on HEDT just to up the ante. Cooling such a monstrosity could be an issue once overclocked.

 

[krumme]

Long term its its a bit difficult. Intel imo needs to differentiate their cpu core in different arch for consumer and heavy computing prof.
Atom is nice on serverside for some things but vs a low cost 7nm small variant zen its hopeless and will have to fight that and samsung/qcom trying to enter that market.
You can have a strategy that says you go from 5 to 100w for quad but only with a fp light core like zen. With avx2 you stretch the cpu arch to much and atom is more likely to fall into some arm low margin stuff.
Intel needs to stand on the business market with a portfolio that is optimal for it. They cant continue like they used to. Amd can produce hundreds m of zen and use infinity fabric to tailor make it. Its far more dangerous for Intel imo than 2004 situation. The scalability factor. I can guarantee thats a challenge bk understands with his background.