ZEN ES Benchmark from french hardware Magazine

[unseenmorbidity]

Translation

[] Performances - Raw computations

H.264 encoding 1080p & H.265, Wprime, PovRay 3.7, Blender 3D, 3DSMax 2015 / Mental Ray, Corona Benchmark

With it's true eight cores, Zen accomplishes prowesses despite it's limited frequency of 3.3 Ghz. It's getting dangerously close - for Intel - of the Intel 6900K while offering performance comparable to the Core i7 5960X which has an identical frequency (3.3 Ghz in Turbo mode). AMD's allegations a few months ago seem to check out in practice, and this is an excellent news. Compared to the FX-8370, we witness a performance gain of around 35% for equal clockspeeds, matching there too with the manufacturer's previsions (40%)

[] Video games performances

Far Cry 4, GRID: AutoSport, Battlefield 4, Arma III, X3:TC, The Witcher 3 : Wild hunt, Anno 2070

If the results might seem clearly more disappointing on the average of the tested games, it fits to keep in mind than the tested prototype was an octo-core with a quite low frequency (in particular in Turbo mode). Meanwhile, the tested games stay very sensitive to the frequency and keep struggling to exploit more than four cores. Hard in those conditions to compare it with a Core i7 6700k of which frequency is at over 4 Ghz. Remains that the Zen architecture shows an efficiency we haven't saw at AMD since a very long time.

[] Electric consumtion

Measures took at full load (in watts)

The measurement of the electric consumption of the Zen CPU was took with an amps meter on the ATX 12V connector at full load. While this method is less precise than the usual one we do on the oscilloscope, it gives a good idea of the performances of the 14 nm LPP of Global Foundries. Once removed losses from the motherboard's VRMs, we can estimate that the processor consumes a bit less than 90 W, a value very close to that of an 6900K. A result that gives good faith in the future.

Editor's opinion:

The Zen architecture should allow ZEN to seriously come back on the CPU market, including the high-end segment abandoned since long. Intel thus risks to suffer a violent [untranslatable French gibberish], a well-deserved consequence for their years of lazyness and arrogance ( The 1 900€ core i7 6950X shall stay the perfect illustration of that). If we hope the comeback of a real concurrency on the processor market, all is not won yet for AMD. While the octocores look on schedule, the constructor must finalize quickly the quad-core derivatives with vastly higher frequencies than the current prototypes: 3.8 see 4.0 or 4.2 Ghz seems like the minimum to tickle the latest Kaby Lake. At last, remains a sizeable unknown : the prices. If some rumours talk of a prety low price grid, we doubt AMD will cut down their CPU while they at last have a chance to make up for their years of losses. At must, do not fuck up in the last straight line ...

 

[unseenmorbidity]

This is from "CPC hardware", issue 31 : http://www.canardpc.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque.html

And for those who don't know them, yes they are trustworthy and yes they are serious. This is 100% legit, unlike the other benchmarks in the troll thread.

 

[IntelUser2000]

This is from "CPC hardware", issue 31 : http://www.canardpc.com/cpc-hardware-n31-debarque-kiosque.html

And for those who don't know them, yes they are trustworthy and yes they are serious. This is 100% legit, unlike the other benchmarks in the troll thread.

CanardPC has very good sources. They are the leakers of key information that can't be found anywhere. They leaked the Sandy Bridge die shot 2 years before release with details.

 

[vissarix]

slower then an i5 6600 on games, good job amd.

Yes i understand the frequency is lower, is unoptimized or whatever your going to say guys but theres is no excuse at this point...it is clear as hell that this chip wont be the gamers choice unless they price it lower then $200 which is unlikely..

Might be good for other tasks tho..

 

[USER8000]

slower then an i5 6600 on games, good job amd.

Yes i understand the frequency is lower, is unoptimized or whatever your going to say guys but theres is no excuse at this point...it is clear as hell that this chip wont be the gamers choice unless they price it lower then $200 which is unlikely..

Might be good for other tasks tho..

Its clear as hell you are just trying to twist the results as much as possible - no amount of twisting them won't change the fact that you are on purpose ignoring the Core i7 6900K which is only 10% faster than the AMD chip whilst running at a higher clockspeed. Using your logic,that means the Core i7 6900K is worth $220.

You also know very well this is an engineering sample on a pre-release BIOS with Turbo not working,and AMD did not even have Turbo activated during the Ryzen preview.

I have not owned an AMD chip for like a decade,but some of the frankly weird responses like this are getting hilarious on forums. People like you should be happy AMD is making a competitive CPU,since it actually means we also get cheaper Intel CPUs too.

 

[iiiankiii]

slower then an i5 6600 on games, good job amd.

Yes i understand the frequency is lower, is unoptimized or whatever your going to say guys but theres is no excuse at this point...it is clear as hell that this chip wont be the gamers choice unless they price it lower then $200 which is unlikely..

Might be good for other tasks tho..

Than what's the problem? If you were to look at it from a clock for clock bases, it's pretty good, isn't it? Based on the numerous leaks going around and the recent public benchmark, we already knew that clock speeds would be most likely lower than Intel's. Guess what? The i7-6900k isn't much better than the i5 6600 in gaming, too!! Being priced at $1000, there's no excuses, too, right?

Also, don't forget that the will be a 4 and 6 core version of Ryzen. Those would be much cheaper and clock a bit higher than the 8 core version just due to lower TDP. This is actually pretty. I'm impressed. Competition is back!!!

 

[bjt2]

Than what's the problem? If you were to look at it from a clock for clock bases, it's pretty good, isn't it? Based on the numerous leaks going around and the recent public benchmark, we already knew that clock speeds would be most likely lower than Intel's. Guess what? The i7-6900k isn't much better than the i5 6600 in gaming, too!! Being priced at $1000, there's no excuses, too, right?

Also, don't forget that the will be a 4 and 6 core version of Ryzen. Those would be much cheaper and clock a bit higher than the 8 core version just due to lower TDP. This is actually pretty. I'm impressed. Competition is back!!!

Actually core to core Zen should have higher clock... 3.4Ghz+ base was promised, versus 3.2Ghz base for the 6900K and 95W vs 140W...

 

[Paul98]

Great news, looks like performance per clock is very close, and power consumption is looking good also. New we just need to see what sort of max clock speed we can get

 

[frozentundra123456]

Pretty much what I expected, except the power consumption is lower than I thought it would be. Slots between the hex core and 8 core intel cpus in productivity. So they might find a nice niche at 500 to 600 dollars. All comes down to overclocking though. If it cant overclock well, it might only be on par overall with an overclocked 6800k. And the gaming scores are awful. Even granted that the stock clocks are low, the stock clocks are low in the HEDT cpus also, but they do much better in gaming.

Not to mention, it will have to face KL X and HEDT Skylake not too soon after release. So, it should be a nice option, but really only a game changer relative to the clearly overpriced 6900k. That is of course unless they price it at less than 300.00.

Obviously, we need more benchmarks, but these seem quite reasonable. If these results hold up overall, makes it clear the Blender benchmarks presented by AMD are, in fact, pretty much best case.

 

[iBoMbY]

There should be more in the article.

 

[USER8000]

And the gaming scores are awful. Even granted that the stock clocks are low, the stock clocks are low in the HEDT cpus also, but they do much better in gaming.

Hyperbole much?? The Core i7 6900K is clocked 10% higher and has working Turbo - it seems some are trying to really make the benchmarks look as negative as possible.

The Core i7 6700K is clocked around 10% higher than the Core i7 6900K and scores 10% higher.

If these results hold up overall, makes it clear the Blender benchmarks presented by AMD are, in fact, pretty much best case.

LOL. The Core i7 6950X has Turbo running at between 3.5GHZ(all cores) and 3.7GHZ(lighter loads like many games). The Ryzen sample tested is running under 3.3GHZ in the best case scenario,and probably under that when all cores are stressed. AMD didn't even run Turbo meaning its probably broken currently. It is an engineering sample against a production sample.

AMD had their sample running at 3.4GHZ and apparently Lisa Su said they would be running at 3.4GHZ upwards. The Core i7 6950X was running at 3.5GHZ during both AMD tests.

In the other thread it was mentioned this is a motherboard validation sample which was tested.

Not a final production sample.

Edit to post.

Someone in WCCFTech Comments said this in reference to the ES Code (AMD 2D3151A2M88E).


Rev 2D
Clock 315
2M 2MB cache L2
88E 8c 8t eco
This's a business cpu 65w TDP, no HT.
It's not SR7|SR5 consumer product.


Can anyone confirm this?

LOL,if true.

 

[iBoMbY]

There is a number missing, most likely 2D3151A2M88E4. E4 is the revision. One of the 8 is the number of cores, the other indicates the size of the cache. Power is most likely the 2 between A and M

8c/16t sample: 2D2801A2M88E4
4c/8t sample: 2D2802AUM4KE4

2 Probably means 95W TDP, and U mean 65W TDP. But that is just a guess ...

 

[vissarix]

Its clear as hell you are just trying to twist the results as much as possible - no amount of twisting them won't change the fact that you are on purpose ignoring the Core i7 6900K which is only 10% faster than the AMD chip whilst running at a higher clockspeed. Using your logic,that means the Core i7 6900K is worth $220.

You also know very well this is an engineering sample on a pre-release BIOS with Turbo not working,and AMD did not even have Turbo activated during the Ryzen preview.

I have not owned an AMD chip for like a decade,but some of the frankly weird responses like this are getting hilarious on forums. People like you should be happy AMD is making a competitive CPU,since it actually means we also get cheaper Intel CPUs too.

Im not twisting the results, im being objective...

It is closer to the i7 6800k performance rather then the i7 6900k....is not suitable for gaming since its slower then a $200 cpu, so what is this cpu aimed at?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hyperbole much?? The Core i7 6950X is clocked 10% higher and has working Turbo - it seems some are trying to really make the benchmarks look as negative as possible.



LOL. The Core i7 6950X has Turbo running at between 3.5GHZ(all cores) and 3.7GHZ(lighter loads like many games). The Ryzen sample tested is running under 3.3GHZ in the best case scenario,and probably under that.

AMD had their sample running at 3.4GHZ and apparently Lisa Su said they would be running at 3.4GHZ upwards. The Core i7 6950X was running at 3.5GHZ during both AMD tests.

In the other thread it was mentioned this is a motherboard validation sample which was tested.

Not a final production sample.

Edit to post.



LOL,if true.

Little defensive are we? I am not trying to make the benchmarks look like anything. IMO these benchmarks are actually far worse that my post indicated them to be, except for the power consumption. But I tried to make a reasonable post showing both sides of the story. If I wanted to focus on the negative, I would have said it is only 10% faster than a hex core intel in the best case productivity benchmarks while the hex core intel is 9% faster in gaming. So after all the hype, it is a wash vs an intel hex core. And I personally expect intel to gain ground when overclocking is taken into account, but nobody really knows. And you conveniently failed to point out that I *did* say more benchmarks were needed and the final results come down to overclocking.

 

[inf64]

Im not twisting the results, im being objective...

It is closer to the i7 6800k performance rather then the i7 6900k....is not suitable for gaming since its slower then a $200 cpu, so what is this cpu aimed at?

You do realize that this is just an Engineering Sample, right? It is running @ ~10% lower base/Turbo from what AMD will release and is performing just about ~10% slower than 1000$ 6900K.

 

[USER8000]

Little defensive are we? I am not trying to make the benchmarks look like anything. IMO these benchmarks are actually far worse that my post indicated them to be, except for the power consumption. But I tried to make a reasonable post showing both sides of the story. If I wanted to focus on the negative, I would have said it is only 10% faster than a hex core intel in the best case productivity benchmarks while the hex core intel is 9% faster in gaming. So after all the hype, it is a wash vs an intel hex core. And I personally expect intel to gain ground when overclocking is taken into account, but nobody really knows. And you conveniently failed to point out that I *did* say more benchmarks were needed and the final results come down to overclocking.

Little defensive are we? You seemed to have missed the Core i7 6900K results which are the ones which are 10% faster than the Ryzen 8C/16T sample in gaming. Both you and your mate are trying your best,but sadly for you its not working very well.

You do realize that this is just an Engineering Sample, right? It is running @ ~10% lower base/Turbo from what AMD will release and is performing just about ~10% slower than 1000$ 6900K.

He and his mate are trying their best to bury the results and make them look as negative as possible by making sure they misinteprete them as much as possible. My advice is not to bother any more with them as you know what is going to happen.

They know very well the sample is running at very low clockspeeds as it is a engineering/validation sample and it is not even running at the clockspeeds of the AMD demo chip.

They then on purpose ignore the 8C/16T BW-E results,and then try to spin the AMD demo as not represenative of actual performance.

The Core i7 6950X runs at 3.7GHZ during gaming,mean it is 10% faster since it is 10% clocked higher.

The Core i7 6950X runs at 3.5GHZ for all cores benchmarks,meaning it is 200MHZ to 400MHZ clocked higher and on Reddit it was mentioned the Ryzen CPU was running at between 3.1GHZ to 3.2GHZ,so add nearly a 10% clockspeed improvement and the effects of quad channel memory into the mix,which would explain the 14% improvement.

So,despite the fact they really want to lie and make the AMD demo look a lie themselves,AMD ran their Ryzen sample at around the same clockspeed as the Core i7 6950X sample they tested.

These results and the AMD preview results show BW-E level IPC.

 

[rainy]

Im not twisting the results, im being objective...

It is closer to the i7 6800k performance rather then the i7 6900k....is not suitable for gaming since its slower then a $200 cpu, so what is this cpu aimed at?

To be honest, you're quite far from being that.
Maybe instead you should ask owners of 5960x, why they're using such a "bad" CPU for gaming?

 

[USER8000]

To be honest, you're quite far from being that.
Maybe instead you should ask owners of 5960x, why they're using such a "bad" CPU for gaming?

Its no point mate - looking at most tech forums,most people are being postive about this,since they see its a validation/engineering sample running at low clocks,running on a pre-production motherboard,not running at final clockspeeds and even AMD said in their preview Turbo was off. On average it seems close to BW-E IPC in gaming and non-gaming benchmarks which is broadly(!) in agreement with the AMD preview,which is now presented as some conspiracy.

So in the end best we just ignore them moving forwards as they will not have a single positive thing to say about Ryzen and will frame it in the most negative way.

You can't please all the people all of the time.

 

[inf64]

Well one thing is for certain: those next 2 weeks cannot pass soon enough. It will be a long wait. I bet we will get at least one more leak similar to this one, source will again likely be some motherboard company.

 

[USER8000]

Well one thing is for certain: those next 2 weeks cannot pass soon enough. It will be a long wait. I bet we will get at least one more leak similar to this one, source will again likely be some motherboard company.

Yep,I mean it will be interesting to see how well AMD has implemented SMT. If AMD SMT effiency is better than Intel we could see closer to Haswell level single core performance,but if the AMD SMT implementation is worse it could be better than Broadwell.

The game benchmarks include ARMA 3,Anno2070 and GRID which do horrendously on AMD chips as they tend to prioritise single core performance:
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/849/bench/Gaming_08.png
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039213.png
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stori...RID_Autosport/test/GRIDAutosport_proz_amd.jpg

The FX8350 barely matches a Core i3 4330 in Far Cry 4:

http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Far_Cry_4/nv/test/fc_proz.jpg

That hints more at per core performance increasing a considerable amount since they tend to not scale very well with SMT.

 

[Zstream]

Im not twisting the results, im being objective...

It is closer to the i7 6800k performance rather then the i7 6900k....is not suitable for gaming since its slower then a $200 cpu, so what is this cpu aimed at?

Can you stop trolling, it's exhausting.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Little defensive are we? You seemed to have missed the Core i7 6900K results which are the ones which are 10% faster than the Ryzen 8C/16T sample in gaming. Both you and your mate are trying your best,but sadly for you its not working very well.



He and his mate are trying their best to bury the results and make them look as negative as possible by making sure they misinteprete them as much as possible. My advice is not to bother any more with them as you know what is going to happen.

They know very well the sample is running at very low clockspeeds as it is a engineering/validation sample and it is not even running at the clockspeeds of the AMD demo chip.

They then on purpose ignore the 8C/16T BW-E results,and then try to spin the AMD demo as not represenative of actual performance.

The Core i7 6950X runs at 3.7GHZ during gaming,mean it is 10% faster since it is 10% clocked higher.

The Core i7 6950X runs at 3.5GHZ for all cores benchmarks,meaning it is 200MHZ to 400MHZ clocked higher and on Reddit it was mentioned the Ryzen CPU was running at betweem 3.1GHZ to 3.2GHZ,so add nearly a 10% clockspeed improvement and the effects of quad channel memory into the mix,which would explain the 14% improvement.

So,despite the fact they really want to lie and make the AMD demo look a lie themselves,AMD ran their Ryzen sample at around the same clockspeed as the Core i7 6950X sample they tested.

These results and the AMD preview results show BW-E level IPC.

The base clock for the 6950x is 3.0 ghz, and the max turbo, is 3.5 ghz, excluding the gimmicky turbo 3.0 boost which may or may not work, and applies to only a single core in any case. So please tell me how it is running at 3.7 ghz under a multi-core gaming load. In any case the cpu under discussion is the 6900K, is it not? That cpu does have a max turbo of 3.7, but it certainly does not run at that speed during gaming. Maybe you should get your facts straight and at least know the model number of the cpu you are talking about before accusing other posters of being liars.

 

[Glo.]

The base clock for the 6950x is 3.0 ghz, and the max turbo, is 3.5 ghz, excluding the gimmicky turbo 3.0 boost which may or may not work, and applies to only a single core in any case. So please tell me how it is running at 3.7 ghz under a multi-core gaming load. In any case the cpu under discussion is the 6900K, is it not? That cpu does have a max turbo of 3.7, but it certainly does not run at that speed during gaming. Maybe you should get your facts straight and at least know the model number of the cpu you are talking about before accusing other posters of being liars.

Small technical point: 6900K has 3.2 Base clock, and turbo mode 3.7 GHz, with all-core turbo 3.5 GHz.

 

[vissarix]

To be honest, you're quite far from being that.
Maybe instead you should ask owners of 5960x, why they're using such a "bad" CPU for gaming?

They bought an i7 5960x because they have other needs beside gaming, as i said an i5 6600k overclocked is quite faster for gaming and the upcoming i5 kabylake is going to get even better...

 

[inf64]

They bought an i7 5960x because they have other needs beside gaming, as i said an i5 6600k overclocked is quite faster for gaming and the upcoming i5 kabylake is going to get even better...

How do you know how much will Ryzen overclock? What if it will overclock over 4Ghz? We have already had a poster claiming that 4.3Ghz is max. "stable" OCing that can be done on current samples. Would that be good enough for you?

Also, AMD will have 4C/8T and 6C/12T SKUs, all clocking roughly the same. Would these parts clocking to 4+Ghz be good enough gaming chips for you?