Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[Magic Hate Ball]

Dang MicroCenter hasnt played that kind of game in the past... disappointing

But I think they're still offering a $30 discount for buying a chip with a motherboard... so there's that!

 

[Atari2600]

That reminds me, given Ryzen is +52% IPC, what Intel IPC does that actually put it at? Haswell? Skylake? Something else?

"~" SandyBridge

 

[bjt2]

So IPC is slower than Broadwell in Cinebench R15.

Core i7 6900K ST score 162cb at 3.7GHz (max ST clock)
Ryzen R7 1800X score 162cb at 4.1GHz XFR (Max ST clock)

No this is the score with turbo core 3.0 (4GHz). There are some review with TC3.0 disabled that have lower ST...

 

[beginner99]

That is an excellent example of more than 4 cores being useful for even an 'average' user. I know my i5 2500k (lol I know.) can't really handle streaming SC2 at 1080p very well, and obviously a 7700k would be much better - but streaming is a core heavy task. Seeing it perform better on a Ryzen would definitely be a plus for me.

Can't you use the GPU for streaming, I mean at least the encoding part? i mean would just be like recording using the GPU?

So nothing really new. Leaks were correct with price and performance. What's still missing is real game benches and especially OC potential and the difference between the 1700x and 1800x. And since I'm not US, the biggest missing puzzle will be local pricing (always higher than US). The 7700k is roughly $390 here currently. So roughly 15% more. That would but a 1800x at $575. Almost $200 more than a 7700k. Hm...

 

[AtenRa]

Ok it has almost the same IPC as Broadwell,

Now having a glimpse in to the Reviews and people will compare in Games the Core i7 7700K with 4.5GHz Turbo at $350 against the R7 1700 with 3.7GHz turbo at $329 and most of them will get disappointed (many will call it a big fail, BD 2.0 etc).

 

[Opcode]

So IPC is slower than Broadwell in Cinebench R15.

Core i7 6900K ST score 162cb at 3.7GHz (max ST clock)
Ryzen R7 1800X score 162cb at 4.1GHz XFR (Max ST clock)

Below Broadwell, above Haswell if the 1800X is in fact turboing to 4.1 GHz in single thread with XFR versus the i7-6900k that turbos to 4.0 GHz with Turbo Boost 3.0 Max technology. More interestingly AMD seems to be giving the i7-6900k benefit of the doubt. As Anandtech benchmarking shows that the i7-6900k only scores about 153 in Cinebench R15 single thread. If that's the case and the 1800X is in fact doing 162 then its IPC would be better than Broadwell. We just need independent reviews to validate.

 

[Despoiler]

Can't you use the GPU for streaming, I mean at least the encoding part? i mean would just be like recording using the GPU?

You can use your GPU for streaming, but the quality isn't as good as using your CPU. A lot of professional streamers use their CPU. That's why it's relevant.

 

[nathanddrews]

But I think they're still offering a $30 discount for buying a chip with a motherboard... so there's that!

I just checked and my Microcenter doesn't even have any AM4 boards in stock and no mention of a bundle deal.

 

[nathanddrews]

Only 24 PCIe lanes? Plenty for most users, but not quite as good as Intel HEDT.

 

[Actaeon]

Anyone else still on Sandy Bridge that is thinking of upgrading to a Ryzen 1800X or 1700X? Mine is at 4.5Ghz and I haven't seen great reasons to upgrade before Ryzen. 4 more cores, upgrade from 1600mhz DDR3 to whatever DDR4. Also more bandwidth via PCI 3.0 16x for my 980 Ti SLI setup.

Just concerned that with my Sandy Bridge @ 4.5ghz, Ryzen @ 4.0ghz is still slower per core. Use is primarily gaming, so work per core is probably more important than the total number of cores.

 

[The Stilt]

Only 24 PCIe lanes? Plenty for most users, but not quite as good as Intel HEDT.

32 Gen. 3 lanes in total.

 

[lolfail9001]

32 Gen. 3 lanes in total.

I am still confused why so-called chipset provides Gen 2 lanes, though.

The two CCX's should take 2.8 billion transistors together. Where the hell are the other 2 billion?

Well, the first red flag was when we have seen first glimpse of die shot, Zen CCXs took way too little space on that. Then we officially got confirmation that they take less than half the die. If anything, CCXs are actually even denser than uncore part of die.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Well, the first red flag was when we have seen first glimpse of die shot, Zen CCXs took way too little space on that. Then we officially got confirmation that they take less than half the die. If anything, CCXs are actually even denser than uncore part of die.

There's all that SoC / Memory controller / Infinity Fabric / etc stuff as well besides just the cores + cache.

 

[thepaleobiker]

....... so-called chipset........

Had a good chuckle reading that line!

 

[formulav8]

Ok it has almost the same IPC as Broadwell,

Now having a glimpse in to the Reviews and people will compare in Games the Core i7 7700K with 4.5GHz Turbo at $350 against the R7 1700 with 3.7GHz turbo at $329 and most of them will get disappointed (many will call it a big fail, BD 2.0 etc).

You can kinda get the hint that Ryzen will be a bit slower than Intel in games. AMD gave no actual game benches. They showed Ryzen playing a game with 2x RX480 in CF next to a similarly equipped Intel rig and both running @ 4k and she would only say that the game (BF1 I think) is running roughly 77fps on both pcs.

For sure I would think if AMD would overtake Intel in games they would have said things differently.

But honestly, Ryzen should have absolutely no problems playing any game out there. But yeah, since AMD may not be as good at gaming than Intel, there will be persons ridiculing AMD.

 

[Kenmitch]

Very nice results! The alleged impossible things sometimes are achievable! Looking forward to official reviews with shipping silicon.

Competitive performance with a very competitive price point.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

You can kinda get the hint that Ryzen will be a bit slower than Intel in games. AMD gave no actual game benches. They showed Ryzen playing a game with 2x RX480 in CF next to a similarly equipped Intel rig and both running @ 4k and she would only say that the game (BF1 I think) is running roughly 77fps on both pcs.

For sure I would think if AMD would overtake Intel in games they would have said things differently.

Eh, that's not what Linus was seeing when he inspected a BF1 demo comparison (hands on):
https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I?t=8m30s
or here @ 8:30ish

6800K 3.4ghz base 3.6ghz turbo
1700 (NON-X) 3.0ghz base 3.7ghz turbo

 

[Atari2600]

You can kinda get the hint that Ryzen will be a bit slower than Intel in games.

Its going to be interesting to see if its actually to a noticeable degree in the real world.

i.e. If every game at 1080 and over is actually GPU limited, then does it matter if Ryzen is a touch slower when you drop the resolution to 480?

 

[Glo.]

Eh, that's not what Linus was seeing when he inspected a BF1 demo comparison (hands on):
https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I?t=8m30s
or here @ 8:30ish

6800K 3.4ghz base 3.6ghz turbo
1700 (NON-X) 3.0ghz base 3.7ghz turbo

Its what he have said, but when you will look at the name of the CPU: its 8C/16T 3.6/4.0 chip.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Its what he have said, but when you will look at the name of the CPU: its 8C/16T 3.6/4.0 chip.

Hmm yes, I see it sitting at 3.6 idle too. That's silly of him.

 

[Majcric]

Right now intel will probably be fine with its quads and single-threaded performance at least from a gaming standpoint. But the question is will the next-gen consoles adopt these new Ryzen chips 6/8 cores, thus making quads eventually fall behind when it comes to gaming.

 

[Dresdenboy]

She did say results would be better with a better cooler, which might mean XFR wasn't actually boosting it in this case (though I doubt it).

This does imply AMD's SMT implementation is superior like rumored.

I'm wondering about Zen+'s implementation, since we're seeing the less evolved, partly simplified SMT variant right now.

 

[CentroX]

Below Broadwell, above Haswell if the 1800X is in fact turboing to 4.1 GHz in single thread with XFR versus the i7-6900k that turbos to 4.0 GHz with Turbo Boost 3.0 Max technology. More interestingly AMD seems to be giving the i7-6900k benefit of the doubt. As Anandtech benchmarking shows that the i7-6900k only scores about 153 in Cinebench R15 single thread. If that's the case and the 1800X is in fact doing 162 then its IPC would be better than Broadwell. We just need independent reviews to validate.

my Ivy Bridge-E at 4.0 ghz is doing 133 in cb. that means ryzen at 4ghz is ~20% better IPC then ivy-bridge E.

4820K @ 4ghz = 133 single threaded
1800X @ 4ghz = 162 single threaded.

if we factor in 7700K at 4 ghz it should do roughly ~180 single threaded

 

[Atari2600]

But the question is will the next-gen consoles adopt these new Ryzen chips 6/8 cores, thus making quads eventually fall behind when it comes to gaming.

Erm, surely the existing consoles having 8 lower powered jaguar cores would tend to force developers toward multi-threading even more than 8 Zen cores?

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

my Ivy Bridge-E at 4.0 ghz is doing 133 in cb. that means ryzen at 4ghz is ~20% better IPC then ivy-bridge E.

When I get home tonight I'll have to clock my 4770K down to 4.0ghz and see what that ST score is like.

I'm just happy to throw AMD some money for keeping my hobby's market alive.