Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[bakyt115]

http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=288871&postcount=113
http://www.agner.org/optimize/microarchitecture.pdf

http://www.agner.org/optimize/

Agner Fog has updated his optimization guide with AMD Ryzen test results.

 

[bakyt115]

http://www.cpuid.com/news/51-cpu-z-1-79-new-benchmark-new-scores.html

ryzen score cut

 

[Tup3x]

Looks like at least one OEM/boutique builders is preparing to sell Ryzen rigs:

For once, AMD marketing did a good job with that chart.

https://twitter.com/iBUYPOWER/status/857741376770850818

Didn't know that GTX 1070 6GB exists though...

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

http://www.cpuid.com/news/51-cpu-z-1-79-new-benchmark-new-scores.html

ryzen score cut

Getting 462 single thread, 4975 multi thread on the new benchmark with my 4ghz Ryzen 7.

EDIT: Also, it seems to report my Core Voltage at exactly 2x what it really is.

 

[Crumpet]

http://www.cpuid.com/news/51-cpu-z-1-79-new-benchmark-new-scores.html

ryzen score cut

Now i'm extremely tinfoil hat... But that seems dodgy to me

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Now i'm extremely tinfoil hat... But that seems dodgy to me

The results for Ryzen were absurdly inflated at launch, and really nothing else reflected it. It seemed to have Skylake-esque IPC and insane SMT scaling. The new scores look a lot more accurate.

I remember hearing that the benchmark wasn't properly designed to run on CPUs with as much L2 cache as Ryzen.

 

[krumme]

Now i'm extremely tinfoil hat... But that seems dodgy to me

Well the "the code we had before was not representive of real world load at all so we made a new one" doesnt seem so convincing. Lol.

Well its the disadvantage of being the small guy. And that why i was able to forecast intel disaster is mobile a year before baytrail. Fighting amd is damn different than eg samsung. Look how samsung handle the benchmark fight with intel. They were just 5 times more dirty. They got their own medicine.

 

[krumme]

The results for Ryzen were absurdly inflated at launch, and really nothing else reflected it. It seemed to have Skylake-esque IPC and insane SMT scaling. The new scores look a lot more accurate.

I remember hearing that the benchmark wasn't properly designed to run on CPUs with as much L2 cache as Ryzen.

Nobody used the results as valid anyway. It just comes off a bit pathetic. The l2 is eg bigger.
We will probably see the same for cb next revision.
Nobody expected the 1800x to beat a 6900 here. It did. Certainly the bm suite must be wrong. /s

 

[inf64]

The results for Ryzen were absurdly inflated at launch, and really nothing else reflected it. It seemed to have Skylake-esque IPC and insane SMT scaling. The new scores look a lot more accurate.

I remember hearing that the benchmark wasn't properly designed to run on CPUs with as much L2 cache as Ryzen.

It would be interesting to see whether they cut SKL-X score since it will also have much larger L2 .

 

[coercitiv]

We will probably see the same for cb next revision.
Nobody expected the 1800x to beat a 6900 here. It did. Certainly the bm suite must be wrong. /s

What, they're gonna say the bm rendering engine is not representative of real world rendering engines? /s

 

[AtenRa]

Has this been posted before ??

https://twitter.com/Dresdenboy/stat...pic/638548-amd-zen-am4-socket-part-2/page-321

 

[IllogicalGlory]

It would be interesting to see whether they cut SKL-X score since it will also have much larger L2 .

It looks like they've overhauled the benchmark in anticipation of SKL-X as well as Ryzen.

I don't know, what good is a benchmark if it's a huge outlier? The 1800X crushed the 6950X by 19% before this, and I don't see how anyone can argue that's a reasonable result. Obviously there was an incompatibility.

Anyway it wasn't the L2.

When the 1st version of the benchmark was released in 2015, it was tested on all existing architectures to check the relevancy of the scores. Almsot two years later, Ryzen was introduced, and scored - core for core and clock for clock - almost 30% higher than Intel Skylake. After a deep investigation, we found out that the code of the benchmark felt into a special case on Ryzen microarchitecture because of an unexpected sequence of integer instructions. These operations added a noticeable but similar delay in all existing microarchitectures at the time the previous benchmark was developed. When Ryzen was released, we found out that their ALUs executed this unexpected sequence in a much more efficient way, leading to results that mismatch the average performance of that new architecture. We reviewed many software and synthetics benchmarks without being able to find a single case where such a performance boost occurs. We're now convinced that this special case is very unlikely to happen in real-world applications. Our new algorithm described below does not exhibit this behaviour.

 

[Veradun]

So, in the really lucky and likely event that their benchmark finds a an optimized path, say for avx on Intel, they will obviously Nerf Intel results? :>

 

[IEC]

Getting 462 single thread, 4975 multi thread on the new benchmark with my 4ghz Ryzen 7.

EDIT: Also, it seems to report my Core Voltage at exactly 2x what it really is.

Also showing voltage roughly double of my actual voltages with the new CPU-Z 1.79.

This clearly wasn't tested properly before release, and inspires no confidence in CPU-Z benchmark results.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

So, in the really lucky and likely event that their benchmark finds a an optimized path, say for avx on Intel, they will obviously Nerf Intel results? :>

The benchmark doesn't use AVX, it uses SSE. Taking advantage of AVX2 would be a non-representative advantage for Intel, so it's not used. But let's say that a new Intel arch scored 50% higher than it did across a range of other tests. They would investigate the code, figure out why that happened and refine the benchmark the same way they did in this case. Can't see why they wouldn't.

Ryzen isn't getting nerfed. It has around Haswell/Broadwell IPC now, same way it does in other benchmarks. The 1800X convincingly beats the 5960X, which seems in line with its performance in applications and other benchmarks. It's obviously far more representative of it's capabilities, rather than matching the 7700K single thread and smashing the 6950X multi thread with two fewer cores. The 1800X can't do that.

 

[krumme]

Has this been posted before ??

https://twitter.com/Dresdenboy/stat...pic/638548-amd-zen-am4-socket-part-2/page-321

"R5 1600 matching i5 7600k in German daily sales • r/Amd
reddit.com"

Impressive!. How is this analysis done?

 

[Oddzz]

"R5 1600 matching i5 7600k in German daily sales • r/Amd
reddit.com"

Impressive!. How is this analysis done?

The site is showing how much they have sold and updating it every week(?).

 

[Veradun]

The benchmark doesn't use AVX, it uses SSE. Taking advantage of AVX2 would be a non-representative advantage for Intel, so it's not used. But let's say that a new Intel arch scored 50% higher than it did across a range of other tests. They would investigate the code, figure out why that happened and refine the benchmark the same way they did in this case. Can't see why they wouldn't.

Ryzen isn't getting nerfed. It has around Haswell/Broadwell IPC now, same way it does in other benchmarks. The 1800X convincingly beats the 5960X, which seems in line with its performance in applications and other benchmarks. It's obviously far more representative of it's capabilities, rather than matching the 7700K single thread and smashing the 6950X multi thread with two fewer cores. The 1800X can't do that.

Because if you tweak your code to mimic the average result of a benchmark suite then your benchmark isn't a benchmark at all, as it just doesn't benchmark anything, so it's useless. If we needed proof about CPU-Z, we have one now :>

 

[DrMrLordX]

CPU-z benchmark never represented real-world use cases anyway. It was an amusing gimmick. Without any indicator of WHAT it was really benchmarking, it was meaningless. It does make them look a bit stupid when they rework the benchmark to reduce performance on a specific uarch.

So what if their benchmark was running "too fast" on Summit Ridge? That's what the code did, that's how the CPU handled it, so . . . what then was the problem? Unless Summit Ridge wasn't completing all of the calculations intrinsic to the bench, hence the higher scores?

 

[w3rd]

Sounds a tad too backroom.
If they don't stand behind their own benchmark, and suggest it doesn't do what it is suppose too. Then what are we to think about the new one, when new results are not what someone wants them to be...?

 

[Topweasel]

The benchmark doesn't use AVX, it uses SSE. Taking advantage of AVX2 would be a non-representative advantage for Intel, so it's not used. But let's say that a new Intel arch scored 50% higher than it did across a range of other tests. They would investigate the code, figure out why that happened and refine the benchmark the same way they did in this case. Can't see why they wouldn't.

Ryzen isn't getting nerfed. It has around Haswell/Broadwell IPC now, same way it does in other benchmarks. The 1800X convincingly beats the 5960X, which seems in line with its performance in applications and other benchmarks. It's obviously far more representative of it's capabilities, rather than matching the 7700K single thread and smashing the 6950X multi thread with two fewer cores. The 1800X can't do that.

While obviously outliers should be investigated and you should figure out why it happened. But the idea that you "have a rough idea of where the performance should be" and then engineer your benchmark till the data fits the expected result isn't the right move. There does need to be a balance a benchmark is useless if the information can't be used to give an accurate idea of performance, but on the other hand if it as simple as a certain code runs sooooo much better on a different processor instead excising it maybe keeping it in there to show people idea's of how to better utilize the CPU might be useful. Testing and benchmarking should be more scientific and not be led down the road of not confirmation bias but something similar, i just can't remember it right now.

 

[Leyawiin]

This is ridiculous. They haven't even given Ryzen enough time to see how its going to pan out.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amds-stock-plunges-toward-biggest-loss-in-over-12-years-2017-05-02

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Because if you tweak your code to mimic the average result of a benchmark suite then your benchmark isn't a benchmark at all, as it just doesn't benchmark anything, so it's useless. If we needed proof about CPU-Z, we have one now :>

It does benchmark something. They explained what the benchmark does and what application the code has.

The reason Ryzen performs so well us because of some unusual aspect of the code, likely a bug, something unintended that Ryzen reacts to differently from other CPUs. It makes the benchmark meaningless for evaluating Ryzen if this aspect doesn't carry over to properly designed code.

CPUID is not out to get Ryzen.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

CPU-z benchmark never represented read-world use cases anyway. It was an amusing gimmick. Without any indicator of WHAT it was really benchmarking, it was meaningless. It does make them look a bit stupid when they rework the benchmark to reduce performance on a specific uarch.

To the first part: how do you know? I'm not sure what the old bench tested, but that quote from them explained what the new one does, and it is based off an actual application. If the original CPU-Z was worthless, then the new one should be evaluated on its own merits. They didn't update it to reduce performance, they designed a bench that runs properly across all CPUs, not just Ryzen.

 

[IEC]

This is ridiculous. They haven't even given Ryzen enough time to see how its going to pan out.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amds-stock-plunges-toward-biggest-loss-in-over-12-years-2017-05-02

Considering the stock has quadrupled in less than a year I don't think it's ridiculous. It's simply a correction in share price based on the increased expectation of value that was not met. If you believe AMD will be resurgent and is undervalued, nothing has changed beyond the ability to purchase more shares at a lesser price. Not that I would invest in AMD in any event, as I do not invest in companies in the business of losing money.

Still, I do not think people understand the potential impact to AMD's fortunes from Naples and Vega. I expect that market share in the server and HPC space will increase substantially. Whether or not this leads to higher share prices or not is anyone's guess, and frankly uninteresting to me.