Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[JoeRambo]

Memory Latency does seem to be a problem, Ryzen 7 1800X with DDR4 3200 CL16
L2, L3 and Mem all 2x worse than Skylake
EDIT: on the other hand L2, L3 bandwith is 2x higher (and memory BW a bit better)

It is reporting info for all cores summed, so you need to divide by core counts to arrive to "per core" bw for L1/L2 caches. AMD stuff is inline with what they reported and what was leaked and is great for company with a history of weak caches.
Memory latency hurts the eyes tho, even accounting for extra 10ns for slower L3, 73ns is massive compared to ~50ns for Intel.

 

[qookap]

sigh...the result will shown this month...stop being a little fanboy.
I still using Xeon for working and i7 for gaming. why should i buy a new CPU to replace them?

I guess some guys never running really project or simulation, a high latency for that? is that a joke?
if you need multi-thread just buy some old x79. cheaper to get 24c48t@3GHz

most multi-thread process just need more core rather than high frequency.

you only need 4c8t for gaming in 2016-2017(maybe 2018 or 2020?)

btw..intel should lower the price...

 

[CatMerc]

No joke. It takes a special kind of marketing failure to make someone not be excited about a feature which brings 50% higher average performance with doubled minimum frame-rates.

The only question is: will games have to add support for it... or is it automatic?

They could have spent the entire hour just talking about HBC and it would have been more interesting.

I think it's hardware based and controlled by drivers, no involvement from game devs.

 

[zinfamous]

sigh...the result will shown this month...stop being a little fanboy.
I still using Xeon for working and i7 for gaming. why should i buy a new CPU to replace them?

I guess some guys never running really project or simulation, a high latency for that? is that a joke?
if you need multi-thread just buy some old x79. cheaper to get 24c48t@3GHz

most multi-thread process just need more core rather than high frequency.

you only need 4c8t for gaming in 2016-2017(maybe 2018 or 2020?)

btw..intel should lower the price...

with all due respect, if you think that 4c/8t (already hitting it's ST "limit" ~today) will be sufficient for gaming in 2018 and beyond, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Tup3x]

this. 1600X until Zen++ or so.

I though about doing something like this too but I think I'll just wait for Zen+ before making the switch. My 3770K @ 4,4 GHz is still doing quite well so I can wait.

 

[dzoni2k2]

No joke. It takes a special kind of marketing failure to make someone not be excited about a feature which brings 50% higher average performance with doubled minimum frame-rates.

The only question is: will games have to add support for it... or is it automatic?

They could have spent the entire hour just talking about HBC and it would have been more interesting.

Obviously if you limit VRAM size to 2GB (as they did in the demo) HBC looks like an awesome thing. Honestly though, most games are not VRAM limited at the more usual 4GB and even less so at todays standard 8GB.

It does open a few possibilities though. GPUs with no need for more than 4-8GB. So less HBM stacks, smaller interposer, some slight power consumption savings, cheaper.

I think HBC will be much more useful in PRO workloads, where datasets are much larger.

 

[majord]

I just wanna know how they got BF4 to run in DX12

 

[tamz_msc]

I just wanna know how they got BF4 to run in DX12

LOL nice spot - hopefully just a typo. Could point to them being incompetent at running gaming benchmarks though.

 

[CentroX]

So it will disappointing benchmarks tomorrow? I will still hold on to my 1800X order.

 

[.vodka]

So it will disappointing benchmarks tomorrow? I will still hold on to my 1800X order.

What are you even talking about?

How is anything that's been shown so far disappointing, including leaked benchmarks?


Ryzen games as well as Broadwell-E, sometimes like Skylake. Has roughly the same single threaded performance as Broadwell-E, equals or destroys it in multi threaded performance, and if the power numbers going around are true, does so while consuming LESS... better performance/watt. Isn't that the metric that's all the rage these days?

The icing on the cake? Platform overall costs less, and the processors themselves cost less, a LOT less for what they offer.

How is any of that disappointing? People were expecting Sandy Bridge IPC/ST performance and Ivy Bridge MT performance when Zen was revealed, it's leapfrogged those two designs by far, and it's left Haswell behind. It's exceeded expectations BY FAR.


Are the goalposts shifting again? Why does the bar keep arbitrarily rising every time it's shown Zen can do better than it was originally expected?

I don't get these people who keep pushing this "ryzen is disappointing crap" narrative.

 

[qookap]

I just wanna know how they got BF4 to run in DX12

It's PPT technology you little dumb...with this high tech we can run BF9 with DX 22.
A Mad Device is the future, you got the future but now?
Everything is fine just like no man's sky fans

so..where is my vp9 with rx 400 graphics? i'm waiting a long long time.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No, you just have to understand what you are looking at.

OK, what are we looking at? Essentially equal performance in a test designed by AMD. Still awaiting independent tests.

 

[Shivansps]

So here is where the excuses start?

I can understand whats happening at 1700 vs 7700K, but there is no reason of why 6800K should be faster than a 1700X... and that was at 1440P.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

OK, what are we looking at? Essentially equal performance in a test designed by AMD. Still awaiting independent tests.

If we wanted to see core skewed tested we'd include Deus EX, F1 2016, Shadow Warriors 2, BF1 DX11 (actually runs better on more cores than DX12 right now), and Overwatch. None of those are on that slide so they're not going nuts on the benchmarks.

And those I picked according to the Computerbase.de core count review from a few days ago. Except Overwatch, that's just my personal experience.

 

[cytg111]

this. 1600X until Zen++ or so.

My reasoning as well which is why my current 4770 keeps its day job (and night job) until Zen++ - or whatever settles as the best option at that time.

 

[imported_jjj]

So it will disappointing benchmarks tomorrow? I will still hold on to my 1800X order.

Depends what you expect.If you expect Broadwell-E IPC then sure. Some got carried away and are expecting more than they should considering the data we have seen. And some syntethic benchmarks will not quite like Ryzen.

 

[dzoni2k2]

So here is where the excuses start?

I can understand whats happening at 1700 vs 7700K, but there is no reason of why 6800K should be faster than a 1700X... and that was at 1440P.

What excuses? Ryzen is far better than most people expected. Were you expecting Ryzen to beat Intels latest and greatest in ST performance?

 

[leoneazzurro]

What are you even talking about?

How is anything that's been shown so far disappointing?


Ryzen games as well as Broadwell-E, sometimes like Skylake. Has roughly the same single threaded performance as Broadwell-E, equals or destroys it in multi threaded performance, and if the power numbers going around are true, does so while consuming LESS... better performance/watt. Isnt't that the metric that's all the rage these days? The icing on the cake? Platform overall costs less, and the processors themselves cost less.

How is any of that disappointing?


Are the goalposts shifting again?

In fact is quite the opposite of disappointing. It was clear from the beginning that poorly threaded applications would have run better on higher frequencies quad cores.
But, new titles are showing a different behavior, as the computerbase analysis showed.
Moreover, it is important to remark that the vast majority of the benches use scripts and single player built-in demos which are not ery taxing for the CPU.
But in multiplayer games like BF1, when you are in a map with a large number of players, most of quad cores choke with CPU load on all cores at 100%.
In thise cases, having a CPU with more cores, if the application is well designedm can only help to achieve better results.
It would be interesting to have a comparison in that sense.

 

[Shivansps]

What excuses? Ryzen is far better than most people expected. Were you expecting Ryzen to beat Intels latest and greatest in ST performance?

Who said anything about ST performance? 1700X should be beating a 6800K at games, no more excuses.

 

[Insomniator]

First off I don't think Ryzen is disappointing, but I can see why people would --

First, no one cares about broadwell/HEDT -- this is mostly a gaming focused board. The fact that Ryzen can beat a 3.4ghz 6800k is meaningless. I bet 99% of people here have never owned a HEDT system.

Second, people have already been disappointed and roasting intel for years with the small performance increases since Sandy. Took 5-6 years to a get what, 25% single core performance increase from SB to KL? Now Ryzen comes along and is still one-two generations behind what was already 'slow' single core progress from intel.

Ryzen is great that its pushing the 6 and 8 core envelope with good performance and power use this time instead of the disaster that was BD. BD was so bad that it gave intel an excuse not to release more cores for mainstream. Ryzen is NOT however the greatest chip of all time blowing the doors off everything, in everything, like some people probably assumed after a 5 year hiatus by AMD.

 

[USER8000]

Its only disappointing for people emotionally invested in Intel as a brand since even Intel will have to drop prices and this is a win-win for anyone wanting to buy either an AMD or Intel CPU in the coming months. These are results for 8 core SOCs with only a 65W~95W TDP including the chipset on first generation 14NM which has never been used for large X86 CPUs.

On UK forums,nobody was even looking at those results which were leaked with "AMD is finished" crap - if anything everybody is quite enthusiastic AMD has even managed to get close to Broadwell level IPC.

This bodes very well for the quad core Ryzen CPUs and even the APUs too.

 

[dzoni2k2]

Who said anything about ST performance? 1700X should be beating a 6800K at games, no more excuses.

If the game/app scales beyond 6 cores. How many games AMD chose in that slide do that?

 

[Burpo]

unseenmorbidity said: ↑
Why I am getting 1600x. Upgrade to an improved 8 core later.

Yeah to me that's always been the value leader, and my choice from AMD. 6800k performance for $250..

I'm down.. Time to sell some X58 gear

 

[USER8000]

If the game/app scales beyond 6 cores. How many games AMD chose in that slide do that?

Beware of false concern - don't feed it as it is being done on purpose to flame the thread. It was the same with the Canard PC results - some here were doing exactly the same when they showed near Broadwell IPC,and tried to frame it as the games were using all use 8 cores. As I showed most of them never used more than 4 cores and did not scale with SMT.

These results seem inline with the Canard PC leak.

Edit to post.

They seem desperate to keep Intel pricing high as possible so they want to frame all results as negative - wait until the reviews drop tomorrow,they will make sure every negative nugget of info is made as big as possible so they can hopefully make sure the pricing of Intel CPUs is kept as high as possible.

 

[dzoni2k2]

Edit to post.

They seem desperate to keep Intel pricing high as possible so they want to frame all results as negative - wait until the reviews drop tomorrow,they will make sure every negative nugget of info is made as big as possible so they can hopefully make sure the pricing of Intel CPUs is kept as high as possible.

Kinda boggles my mind why anyone would be an Intel fanboy. Fanboy of what exactly, extortion pricing? For what reason? Are they jealous that 8 cores are becoming mainstream and not just for elite few?