yeah you sure have missed the fact that Canard PC had a buggy A0 revision ES. They acknowledge their sample had SMT and uop cache issues. If anybody is deriving any conclusion from canard PC benchmarks its bound to be wrong. I would say the final reviews of the production chip with all bugs fixed, proper turbo and firmware optimizations is what we should wait for. AMD has already demonstrated Blender and Handbrake with similar and better performance respectively wrt 6900k. If you do not want to believe AMD controlled benchmarks thats perfectly fine. But then jumping to conclusions based on a buggy ES sample is not the right approach. You would be right to disregard all benchmarks till launch but drawing your conclusion based on a buggy ES benchmark from canardpc while ignoring more recent benchmarks done by AMD based on recent steppings points to an agenda of your own.Perhaps I've missed something, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that Ryzen actually matches BW-E IPC on avg. Rather is slightly behind.. Enough to be considered more like Haswell in throughput, or slightly lower.. This is based on the Canard tests which show a 6900K at a 14.5% advantage, (including blender) and which, by all accounts has a <10% clock advantage. So perhaps people shouldn't be getting there knickers in a twist 're who's predictions were right or wrong quite yet? Moreover, the 40% is an ST claim, and none of the benchmarks so far have been run 1T per core. So until someone does this, no one knows.
By my own testing of Excavator in 1T/module vs Skylake i3 1T/core , I stiill avg around 60% to SKL no matter what I add or remove from the bench set to try and get a realistic avg (which is difficult due to the wildly different architectures), that puts Skylake approx 15% > A theortical Zen. Which in turn plants it pretty firmly in between ivy and Haswell.
A bit more than The Stilt's original prediction, and still sounds low to some, but personally I still predict Ryzen will have greater SMT Yeild (%) than Broadwell, which means of course that throughput can be closer to Haswell/BW than it's ST performance is.
As for why I think this will be the case:- Distributed Int Schedulers, and a higher number of statically partitioned structures are the main reasons. Intel's more dynamic approach here should result in higher ST performance, but IMO is a mistake in regards to throughput perf/watt. if not perf/mm , It makes sense to me that AMD chose to avoid such a large unified scheduler.. This is after all an architecture designed to be as balanced as possible, But given it's 2017 now (Is here in Australia!) likely biased towards throughput wherever it didn't impact ST significantly,