Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[MajinCry]

Your claim of FXAA being faster than no AA is also false, at least in OpenGL.

Barring certain techniques like Geometry Instancing, Deferred shading, etc., running a pixel shader will never speed up the execution of a program. To clarify:

FXAA Enabled: Take final output buffer, apply blurring to neighbouring pixels, output buffer, ~fin~
FXAA DIsabled: ~fin~

 

[jpiniero]

Has this been posted yet? Sandra score for 1800X, MM gets 461.13; 6900K (average of scores) gets 661.90. Note this is AVX/AVX2/AVX-512 aware.

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e3d4ecdbeddcfa88b585a3c6a39eae88fbc6f6&l=en

 

[.vodka]

Only 200 points difference? I thought the breach between them would be much bigger, you know, with the 6900k having the full fat AVX/2 hardware and corresponding capabilities to support that

Interesting...

 

[formulav8]

At this rate there will be a BIOS update a day before review embargo.

There are always teething issues with a brand new design. Intel had problems too, they had to do a recall when they released SNB.

Hopefully by the time the R5's are released in a month or 2 things will have quieted down,

 

[Asterox]

Cinebench is a meaningful benchmark, even AMD agrees with it. So much for the nonsense theory that it favored Intel.

Cinebench is not meaningful or useless benchmark. Cinebench is 3D rendering tool( based on MAXON's award-winning animation software Cinema 4D), similar to very popular and free Blender.

Cinebench it is still pulls a bit more on Intel side, but now AMD has/offers a more powerfol Multithreding CPU for less money.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Can we please keep the video card astroturfing crap out of a CPU discussion thread?

 

[IEC]

Yeah that garbage belongs in /r/AyyMD, not in a technical forum.

 

[french toast]

Your correct of course, admit it you laughed a tad though Didn't you?

 

[looncraz]

Why? Until this post, from you(thus gaining weight, its a compliment), I assumed that this is a framework allready in place given that current CPU architectures features differentiated turbos for individual cores?
This is not so?

The CPU has been doing the work, responding to load on a given core, and recognizing when one core is loaded and the others are not, then boosting the clock on the loaded core.

What we need now is a way to choose which cores can overclock the most and create a few highly clocked cores and a few lowly clocked cores (akin to big.LITTLE architecture, except only using frequency).

I'll just use a six-core as an example:

Core #: Max turbo clock setting, for maximized performance

Core 0: 3.0Ghz
Core 1: 3.0Ghz
Core 2: 5.0Ghz <- favor heavy tasks here
Core 3: 3.0Ghz
Core 4: 5.0Ghz <- favor heavy tasks here
Core 5: 3.0Ghz

 

[looncraz]

It is basically the same amount of functioning transistors as 1070 for way lower performance.

In a way, if both AMD and Intel do not lie about transistor counts, Ryzen is the same story.
In fact, even if they lie, and Intel has twice the transistor amount than what they report (or AMD has half the amount they report), Ryzen is still the same story of more transistors for similar performance.

nVidia achieved higher frequencies, that's all. AMD, too, can play that game (stay tuned) and has MUCH more experience with high clock speeds... on 14nm LPP

Intel and AMD count FinFet transistors differently. Seemingly, AMD includes every fin while Intel only counts functional groups (which may consist of two or three fins).

AMD is well ahead in density and performance per area on the CPU front.

 

[looncraz]

Cinebench is a meaningful benchmark, even AMD agrees with it. So much for the nonsense theory that it favored Intel.

The only reason it doesn't favor Intel as much this time around is because AMD specifically designed Ryzen to behave more like Intel CPUs from the software's perspective.

The same optimizations should generally apply to both companies' CPUs, with only a few exceptions (specifically integer and memory situations).

 

[looncraz]

When i get ny 1800X, do i need to reinstall win10? I rather not. But i know there can be issues switching brand and chipset.

Maybe, maybe not.

I hope not, because I have kept this installation going for years now (Windows 7 -> Windows 10) and have customized it to death to make it less like what Microsoft wants me to use.

1. Backup your entire system
2. Uninstall every driver and application that pertains to your motherboard or CPU.
... chipset drivers, turbo apps, motherboard monitoring apps, even networking drivers.
3. If possible, make another backup to another, bootable, drive at this point.
4. Give it a whirl!


__

PS: Sorry for the spam, I couldn't get multi-quote working...

 

[tamz_msc]

The CPU has been doing the work, responding to load on a given core, and recognizing when one core is loaded and the others are not, then boosting the clock on the loaded core.

What we need now is a way to choose which cores can overclock the most and create a few highly clocked cores and a few lowly clocked cores (akin to big.LITTLE architecture, except only using frequency).

I'll just use a six-core as an example:

Core #: Max turbo clock setting, for maximized performance

Core 0: 3.0Ghz
Core 1: 3.0Ghz
Core 2: 5.0Ghz <- favor heavy tasks here
Core 3: 3.0Ghz
Core 4: 5.0Ghz <- favor heavy tasks here
Core 5: 3.0Ghz

I don't know but the OS has to play a part in this. For example, in Linux, I've found that when you have a few applications running, mostly doing light to moderate tasks - like for example watching a video while say editing a large LaTeX document, compiling the tex file from time to time shows all sorts of random behavior in the logical core utilization on an i7 3770. At any time any random core will show maximum utilization. On Windows it's mostly the first 2 cores that do the heavy lifting.

So my point is, if you are using the OC utility to boost two cores, then the OS must also know how set core affinity for the task it is currently executing, without user intervention of course.

 

[lolfail9001]

nVidia achieved higher frequencies, that's all. AMD, too, can play that game (stay tuned) and has MUCH more experience with high clock speeds... on 14nm LPP

AMD can play that game? None seen yet. Including CPUs

AMD is well ahead in density and performance per area on the CPU front.

I mean, if Intel counts groups of 2-3 fins as 1 transistor then Intel is well ahead in density, though at a second glance looks like the size of Zeppelin is 44*4+5.5*2=176+11=187mm^2. That would make it about as dense as Intel's die then. Though i would argue that Kaby beats Ryzen in perf/area

 

[french toast]

AMD can play that game? None seen yet. Including CPUs

I mean, if Intel counts groups of 2-3 fins as 1 transistor then Intel is well ahead in density, though at a second glance looks like the size of Zeppelin is 44*4+5.5*2=176+11=187mm^2. That would make it about as dense as Intel's die then. Though i would argue that Kaby beats Ryzen in perf/area

If both cpus were designed on the same process would you be saying that? Zen clearly is higher perf/mm2 + perf/watt design, IF both fabbed using same process .

 

[tamz_msc]

Rhetorical question:
Consider the ISSCC table comparing the Zen and Skylake cores. Suppose I don't know any of the low level details. Then from a purely high-level perspective, ignoring the details like the 256bit load/store, 512kb L2 and the differences in the cache density, would it be wrong to say that the Zen and Skylake cores are very similar?

 

[french toast]

You have ended that discussion before you even started it!

Rhetorical question;
Noun; A question asked in order to create dramatic effect or to make a point rather than get an answer.

 

[tamz_msc]

You have ended that discussion before you even started it!

Rhetorical question;
Noun; A question asked in order to create dramatic effect or to make a point rather than get an answer.

Yes indeed, that is precisely what I think, feel free to chime in. On the GPU front, architectures are getting similar. No reason why it can't happen in the case of CPUs as well.

 

[formulav8]

Microcenter doing some strong price cuts on Intel CPU's.

 

[french toast]

Yes indeed, that is precisely what I think, feel free to chime in. On the GPU front, architectures are getting similar. No reason why it can't happen in the case of CPUs as well.

Sounded like a genuine question that expected an answer, but yes i agree from a high level, although there are some unique differences with regards to SMT i think, execution resource balance, someone like dresdenboy/bjt2 et al would know more than me on this subject.

 

[Shlong]

When i get ny 1800X, do i need to reinstall win10? I rather not. But i know there can be issues switching brand and chipset.

With Windows 7 you would probably get the blue screen of death but Windows 10 is much improved in detecting new chipsets and such, so it should just install new drivers and work.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

With Windows 7 you would probably get the blue screen of death but Windows 10 is much improved in detecting new chipsets and such, so it should just install new drivers and work.

Nope. I've switch my test SSD Windows7 install over dozens of systems/chipsets without issues - Intel, AMD, VIA, consumer/HEDT/server.
The worse that has happened is the "boot device inaccessible" message, easily fixed by booting into safe mode and tweaking the AHCI / IDE registry values.

 

[Shlong]

Nope. I've switch my test SSD Windows7 install over dozens of systems/chipsets without issues - Intel, AMD, VIA, consumer/HEDT/server.
The worse that has happened is the "boot device inaccessible" message, easily fixed by booting into safe mode and tweaking the AHCI / IDE registry values.

Interesting, in Windows 7 I would get blue screens just from switching bios setting of IDE mode into AHCI without first tweaking registry values.

 

[looncraz]

AMD can play that game? None seen yet. Including CPUs

I mean, if Intel counts groups of 2-3 fins as 1 transistor then Intel is well ahead in density, though at a second glance looks like the size of Zeppelin is 44*4+5.5*2=176+11=187mm^2. That would make it about as dense as Intel's die then. Though i would argue that Kaby beats Ryzen in perf/area

Yes, AMD can play that game. GCN was not a high-clocking design. NCU, however... 12.5TFLOPS with its disclosed architecture requires > 1.5Ghz.

Intel *IS* ahead when it comes to PROCESS density. They are NOT ahead when it comes to design density (well, some of their functional blocks are... it's a give and take situation).

 

[Topweasel]

Interesting, in Windows 7 I would get blue screens just from switching bios setting of IDE mode into AHCI without first tweaking registry values.

Yeah but I have had no problems switching from AHCI to Raid and back. I thinks it's because IDE is a completely independent controller option that isn't compatible with the more advanced options. But yeah the days of installing an even slightly new chooser BSODing left with 7. Now I haven't done full chooser swaps but I believe that anything AHCI will work with default Windows drivers and load up fine.