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

[sirmo]

I must say though these coolers do look awesome for being stock:

 

[realibrad]

Did you seriously go through college?

http://precisionintermedia.com/color

Psychology of Color: Gray
Gray is most associated with the practical, timeless, middle-of-the-road, solid things in life. Too much gray leads to feeling mostly nothing; but a bit of gray will add that rock solid feeling to your product. Some shades of gray are associated with old age, death, taxes, depression or a lost sense of direction. Silver is an off-shoot of gray and often associated with giving a helping hand, strong character (sterling in-fact!).

Few things are marketed as practical, timeless, middle-of-the-road. Gray can be used to contrast, but as the primary base color of collateral is generally not done. Marketing often tries to invoke feelings and gray is not great at generating drive to purchase.

 

[Glo.]

That's the Zen Buddhist 'Enso' that they are using. I guess since they are using the Zen name, they felt using the religious symbol was equally important as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensō

Funniest for me is that I am a buddhist .

And no, they did not stolen the logo, because that would mean that monkeys that can draw a circle on the paper could steal the logo.

 

[Ryzenenthusiast]

http://precisionintermedia.com/color



Few things are marketed as practical, timeless, middle-of-the-road. Gray can be used to contrast, but as the primary base color of collateral is generally not done. Marketing often tries to invoke feelings and gray is not great at generating drive to purchase.

Thank you man. My Major was marketing at College. So I know these stuff. But there are always people who just attacks every opinion on every corner of internet.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Interesting. So they pretty much just stole this logo

So did Lucent Technologies apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent

Theirs is all red, maybe that's why we have the red blended into yellow on Ryzen?

 

[Arachnotronic]

So did Lucent Technologies apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent

Theirs is all red, maybe that's why we have the red blended into yellow on Ryzen?

It would definitely seem so!

 

[Atari2600]

http://precisionintermedia.com/color

Media "guru" <profanity redacted>.


By-and-by large, the clueless will buy:
- a Ryzen because their mate who knows something about computers said its the one to get* // there is someone in the shop who actually knows a bit and cares about getting their customers' the best bang for buck*.
- an Intel because that is what they've always done // that is what the even more gormless idiot in the shop said to get // 'cos they've heard of Intel.

The educated will buy:
- the CPU that best meets their needs and can properly evaluate their needs.

None will buy based on the colour of the box.


*Assuming Zen delivers the performance we are kinda expecting at this point at the prices we hope for.

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Ryzenenthusiast]

Media "guru" <profanity redacted>.


By-and-by large, the clueless will buy:
- a Ryzen because their mate who knows something about computers said its the one to get* // there is someone in the shop who actually knows a bit and cares about getting their customers' the best bang for buck*.
- an Intel because that is what they've always done // that is what the even more gormless idiot in the shop said to get // 'cos they've heard of Intel.

The educated will buy:
- the CPU that best meets their needs and can properly evaluate their needs.

None will buy based on the colour of the box.


*Assuming Zen delivers the performance we are kinda expecting at this point at the prices we hope for.

So since box art is nothing to consider, AMD shall put this guy into the middle of Ryzen boxes;

 

[Arachnotronic]

So since box art is nothing to consider, AMD shall put this guy into the middle of Ryzen boxes;

That'd make for some crappy box art! Har, har!

Sorry, I'll show myself out...

 

[Atari2600]

So since box art is nothing to consider

Aye. Sure why not put something more offensive on it.


If AMD had a white box with simple text on it, they'd sell pretty much the same number.
If they'd a white box with simple text, but included bullet points outlining the performance relative to comparatively priced Intel CPUs, they might even sell more.

 

[PhonakV30]

AMD was brilliant to use that Zen symbol.It gives "Strong sense" to customers.First time that I saw at AMD Zen's event , I Felt something strange in symbol. LOL

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Aye. Sure why not put something more offensive on it.


If AMD had a white box with simple text on it, they'd sell pretty much the same number.
If they'd a white box with simple text, but included bullet points outlining the performance relative to comparatively priced Intel CPUs, they might even sell more.

Whitebox with a dickbutt on it.

 

[Mockingbird]

I must say though these coolers do look awesome for being stock:

The one with heatsink is probably for retail packaging while the one without is for OEMs.

 

[beginner99]

How long before system req for ultra settings will demand an 8 cores? AMD does work with game devs and those prices enable a large user base.
More cores aren't really hurting perf in a real world gaming scenario but can provide upside in some games that scale and will provide more and more upside.
There is also multitasking even if just gaming plus a light workload.
Ofc folks that want quad, can buy quad and maybe invest more in a GPU if budget constrained but that's not a good idea for high end.
Intel by staying on 4 cores has been trying to upsell gamers to faster SKUs and sites that test "gaming" with a Titan X at 1080p, have been helping them, intentionally or not by creating this illusion that you are gonna be CPU bound. Some folks will buy 4 cores Intel for gaming thinking it's better and they will get burned ofc. Staying with 4 cores is unsustainable for game devs as single core perf just doesn't scale much anymore.The only way to gain access to more CPU resources is to go above 4 cores.

The clocks might be about product segmentation for now and AMD could introduce faster SKUs, a technical limitation isn't the only possible explanation. And clear winner in ST has no relevance anymore.

The problem is as long as engine and games have a DX11 code path the game and engine inherently are limited by DX11 paradigms which is 1 thread for draw calls. Tacking on dx12 on an engine based probably on dx9 (or even older) won't give great benefits especially not scaling well to an 8-core. So the whole tool-chain from engine to game has to be made from scratch. That will take years and then you can upgrade again.

Besides that, some games even in 2017 are 100% ST dependent, prime exampel being starcraft 2. So If you play that alot, 7700k is the way to go.

In 2017, I would choose the 6C 12T with 10-15% lower ST over the 4C 8T at the same price every day.
Ryzen 6C 12T (R5 1600 non X) could even be cheaper than the 7700K.

As for the 4C and 6C Ryzen SKUs that have lower clocks, they are all 65W TDP vs 95W TDP of the two higher clocked 8C SKUs. If they were 95W TDP parts they would have same or even higher clocks than the 8C SKUs.

I addressed TDP indirectly in how are these CPUs binned? Which are actually unlocked? I don't care about TDP if the quad or hexa-core can reach the same clocks as the 8-core if you OC and ignore TDP limits. I would say this is really needed. If you can't properly OC hexa-core Ryzen, then the 7700k is the clear winner. 3.7 Ghz Ryzen vs say 4.7 Ghz 7700k, 7700k wins in my book clearly. Because in that case ST performance will be > 15% in favor of 7700k due to clock alone.

 

[Dresdenboy]

I must say though these coolers do look awesome for being stock:

140W TDP trolling inbound!

 

[looncraz]

How do you guys believe these CPUs will be reviewed: with XFR or without it?

I bet a lot of big names will explicit disable this feature saying its an overclock and compare with Intel's only boost vs boost.

I will be testing it at 3Ghz*1, stock*2, max fixed OC*3, and max XFR*4. Then I will do an independent sections on XFR, overclocking, power consumption/frequency curve, CCX penalty, SMT, memory, and other aspects of the architecture.

*1 - 3Ghz fixed frequency, RAM at DDR4-2400 CL15, stock cooler
*2 - stock = if XFR is on by default, it stays on, stock cooler, DDR4-2400 CL15.
*3 - ? GHz fixed frequency, DDR4-3200 CL16 (assumed), custom water-cooled
*4 - Best method with XFR alone, using water-cooling, and DDR4-3200 CL16.

 

[Shivansps]

6900k is its natural competitor specification-wise and performance wise. Intel doesn't have other 8-cores for comparison...

Just like the 6-core Ryzen's natural competitor is the 6850k.

Cash-wise, the 8-core Ryzen competes with the 6850k... and utterly trashes it in MT while being rather close in ST... making the choice pretty clear... and THAT is the audience AMD is really after.

You have a $400 Xeon E5-2620 V4 8C/16T to compare it with if you wish, petty sure 1700 and 1800 are going to be faster than that since Xeon turbo is just 3ghz, but you dont longer have the $1000 price mark to justify everything. If you want to do the $1000 awesomeness comparison you can place two of these in a dual socket server motherboard and end up with 16C/32T @3Ghz for just $1100.

It's a shame (for your argument) that microprocessor design is not merely an IPC pissing contest.

Clock speed Envelope (determining the range of products the uarch will be successfully target), Performance/watt, performance/mm, are all critical metrics to combine with IPC in order to compare uArch's.. and that's assuming they're manufactured on the same process - which they aren't (at which AMD is at a disadvantage)

If you do want to play IPC pissing contest games though, then perhaps one can look at the low-power x86 core world and conclude Intel only just caught up with 4 year old AMD tech with Goldmont, and call it even?

Since we dont known anything about the 4C/8T we cant be sure about clock, if you wnat to talk about Haswell-E, there was (8C HSW-E at 3.8Ghz), we can also talk about Zen is on 14nm and Haswell was on 22nm, but again you are trying to justify AMD by saying "Intel hasnt... X", that really does not work that way.

More of the "x-year old tech" spin. Intel has barely managed to beat that same tech by more than 10% themselves. I'm using that 4-year old tech and it's right there with Skylake.

Caught up with Haswell is near equivalent to caught up with Intel's latest and greatest, and you even admit that in your post. All you've got is irrelevant age metrics to make your points, whatever talking point makes Ryzen look the worst, you cling to, well beyond the point of it actually mattering, and then you chastise others for using comparisons that make Intel look bad "unfairly" (given the performance leaks, and given the prices, Ryzen is absolutely impressive at every market segment) and fantasize about a Ryzen that's 50% as fast a 6900K, which it isn't, it's much closer to 95-100% as fast.

AMD having a great processor that's competitive with Intel isn't going to hurt you, and neither will accepting you were wrong when you and so many others said it would be Bulldozer 2.0. Soon, you'll be able to pick up an 8-core processor with 4GHz+ (when overclocked, for the lower SKUs) clocks and Haswell IPC for $300-$500. Sounds pretty awesome if you ask me, but if you'd rather it be $1000...

Fine for you, does not mean arriving 4 years late with Haswell performance with more cores is something impressive for everyone else. Its good, but thats it.

Intel released Haswell-E 2.5 years ago. With AMD's R&D budget and how far behind they were it's very surprising to most of us that they have even gotten this far to being competitive again. It's a good thing.

Who said anything about Haswell-E? So far Passmark ST score puts it in line with desktop Haswell I3 at the same core speed, i dont like to use passmark only either but thats all we have. Its good, but im really not impressed and im not going to use what Intel had done to justify it.

 

[Crumpet]

I must say though these coolers do look awesome for being stock:

Hmm, where's my AMD S3.0 Radiator?

Those look really freaking cool though

 

[richierich1212]

Who said anything about Haswell-E? So far Passmark ST score puts it in line with desktop Haswell I3 at the same core speed, i dont like to use passmark only either but thats all we have. Its good, but im really not impressed and im not going to use what Intel had done to justify it.

I brought up Haswell-E because that's what Intel released for Haswell cores in a 6-core/8-core config. We all get it, you're not impressed. That's fine.

AMD getting to Haswell IPC (or even Broadwell IPC) with Ryzen means so much because there's still a ton of people out there still using Sandybridge-based systems and haven't had a compelling reason to upgrade (or platform costs were prohibitive).

Ryzen will at least be more affordable as a whole. And Intel will respond with price cuts. Competition is good.

 

[CatMerc]

I will be testing it at 3Ghz*1, stock*2, max fixed OC*3, and max XFR*4. Then I will do an independent sections on XFR, overclocking, power consumption/frequency curve, CCX penalty, SMT, memory, and other aspects of the architecture.

*1 - 3Ghz fixed frequency, RAM at DDR4-2400 CL15, stock cooler
*2 - stock = if XFR is on by default, it stays on, stock cooler, DDR4-2400 CL15.
*3 - ? GHz fixed frequency, DDR4-3200 CL16 (assumed), custom water-cooled
*4 - Best method with XFR alone, using water-cooling, and DDR4-3200 CL16.

I was wondering if anyone will test that. Since the configuration was detailed I was wondering if inter-CCX communication provides a performance penalty of any sort, or if AMD managed to mitigate it.

 

[Shivansps]

I brought up Haswell-E because that's what Intel released for Haswell cores in a 6-core/8-core config. We all get it, you're not impressed. That's fine.

AMD getting to Haswell IPC (or even Broadwell IPC) with Ryzen means so much because there's still a ton of people out there still using Sandybridge-based systems and haven't had a compelling reason to upgrade (or platform costs were prohibitive).

Ryzen will at least be more affordable as a whole. And Intel will respond with price cuts. Competition is good.

Yes, thats good, i never said it wanst.

 

[.vodka]

I brought up Haswell-E because that's what Intel released for Haswell cores in a 6-core/8-core config. We all get it, you're not impressed. That's fine.

AMD getting to Haswell IPC (or even Broadwell IPC) with Ryzen means so much because there's still a ton of people out there still using Sandybridge-based systems and haven't had a compelling reason to upgrade (or platform costs were prohibitive).

Ryzen will at least be more affordable as a whole. And Intel will respond with price cuts. Competition is good.

Not only that, AMD created this with a shoestring budget that also covers the GPU division.

Intel obviously doesn't spend the ~$13B annual R&D only on their CPUs, but you can be pretty damn sure their budget for those is much higher than AMD's. If this isn't impressive, I don't know what is. You don't get Skylake IPC with Kabylake frequencies on a first generation core manufactured on an inferior node relative to Intel's.


Remember what happened to Phenom II as the 45nm node matured and the design got tweaked? This is what Intel now markets as "Optimization"

Same thing happened to Bulldozer. FX8150 -> FX8350 got clock speeds from 3.6GHz base to 4GHz base, from a better 32nm node while keeping power the same or reducing it. This frequency increase will also happen to Zen along this year. Zen+ will probably bring an IPC increase because of Zen being a first generation core that its architects admitted to having cut some corners here and there to make it in time and form to market. It'll probably be not as big as Bulldozer -> Piledriver, yet it will probably close the gap to Skylake... and we're back to parity until Intel gets their next gen cores out. Competition is good!

 

[looncraz]

I was wondering if anyone will test that. Since the configuration was detailed I was wondering if inter-CCX communication provides a performance penalty of any sort, or if AMD managed to mitigate it.

It's one of my post pressing questions regarding the architecture... Testing it will be relatively simple.

1+1 versus 2+0
...and...
2+2 versus 4+0

That should tell use what we need to know.

 

[DrMrLordX]

How do you guys believe these CPUs will be reviewed: with XFR or without it?

If the reviewer is on the ball, they'll include results from both.

Interesting. So they pretty much just stole this logo

The Buddhists are probably pleased more than anything else.

That'd make for some crappy box art! Har, har!

Hey! I was gonna . . . awww shucks.

I was wondering if anyone will test that. Since the configuration was detailed I was wondering if inter-CCX communication provides a performance penalty of any sort, or if AMD managed to mitigate it.

Hmm. What would be the best way to test inter-CCX communications penalties?

It's one of my post pressing questions regarding the architecture... Testing it will be relatively simple.

1+1 versus 2+0
...and...
2+2 versus 4+0

That should tell use what we need to know.

Hmm . . . that could work. L3 is per CCX, right? What if they're using something like a modernized version of HT Assist to mitigate inter-CCX communication problems? We might not detect it unless using something with a sufficiently-large data set.

 

[Atari2600]

You have a $400 Xeon E5-2620 V4 8C/16T to compare it with if you wish, petty sure 1700 and 1800 are going to be faster than that since Xeon turbo is just 3ghz, but you dont longer have the $1000 price mark to justify everything. If you want to do the $1000 awesomeness comparison you can place two of these in a dual socket server motherboard and end up with 16C/32T @3Ghz for just $1100.

Can you get a dual socket board for $300?

Oh, and the 2620v4 has a base frequency of 2.1GHz. Kinda changes the perspective your putting on things.