AMD Ryzen 2600 Eng Sample leak

[The Benjamins]

Quote

A new engineering sample has been spotted at SiSoft website. The sample goes by a codename of ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y and it features higher clock than its predecessor.  While the ZD means it’s a desktop processor, the rest does not necessarily mean it’s Ryzen 5 2600 (it may be just a coincidence to be listed as ZD2600).

If the data presented at SiSoft website is correct, then the new Ryzen 5 2600 processor would be 200 MHz faster than Ryzen 5 1600.

The BB value in the codename means it’s a 65W TDP processor. According to SiSoft, the CPU is 6-core and 12-thread CPU.

It is nice to see the Eng sample have a 200Mhz bump in clocks, I hope the final product has a bit more. We will see if the overclocking headroom remains the same or improves.

 

Keep in mind the 2200G and 2400G have a 400Mhz high clock then the 1200 and 1400.

 

https://wccftech.com/amd-2nd-generation-ryzen-5-2600-asus-crosshair-vii-hero-x470-leak/

https://videocardz.com/74829/amd-ryzen-5-2600-and-asus-rog-crosshair-vii-hero-spotted

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3ead9e0d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbf3&l=en

 

[ImNotThere]

this would be dope, hopefully the same 200 dollar ish msrp

[Phentos]

Those clock speeds are a bit of a letdown. I know it's an engineering sample though, so I'm still going to wait and see.

 

However I'm more interested in TR 12nm is going to bring to the table, as I'm planning a high end HEDT build later on in the year.

[Bruno_A]

I just built myself a new RYZEN system with an R5 1600 and I must say I'm quite happy with it, although, I should also say my previous Core i5 2500 at 4.1GHz had a slightly higher single-core performance against my current R5 1600 at stock speeds, which is why I think it would be great to see a clock speed improvement to boost the single-core performance. But still, it performs great in gaming and I don't see the need for a better CPU at the moment. My initial plan was to buy a RYZEN+ CPU when they came out as I already had RAM and MB ready for the upgrade, however, I didn't have a current RYZEN CPU to do the BIOS upgrade, so I guess I'll have to wait for RYZEN 2 in 2019? or is it 2020?

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Those clock speeds are a bit of a letdown. I know it's an engineering sample though, so I'm still going to wait and see.

 

However I'm more interested in TR 12nm is going to bring to the table, as I'm planning a high end HEDT build later on in the year.

what kind of clock bump do you want to see?

 

also if it was a 200Mhz clock bump but you could OC it 400Mhz higher then last gen would that be ok?

[Phentos]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

what kind of clock bump do you want to see?

 

also if it was a 200Mhz clock bump but you could OC it 400Mhz higher then last gen would that be ok?

Was hoping for 3.6 stock at the very least. If the clock speed increases are going to be tiny like this, then Intel is going to bury it with Coffeelake's (rumored) refresh or successor.

[tarfeef101]

If these CPUs can hit 4.2-4.4 OCed, then i'd be pretty happy I'd say. That's a reasonable enough improvement to the point that I could recommend them even in strictly gaming builds.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Was hoping for 3.6 stock at the very least. If the clock speed increases are going to be tiny like this, then Intel is going to bury it with Coffeelake's (rumored) refresh or successor.

well the 2400g hit that, and the 2600x would be at 3.8/4.2 with a 200Mhz bump.

[WereCat]

+200 MHz while keeping the same TDP is not bad, I wonder how well it will OC, even if it still hit 4GHz-4.2GHz wall... it may be able to get this on a lot lower voltage.

Honestly, I think that most improvements to performance will come from a better IMC and possibly better implemented or optimised Infinity Fabric.

[Coaxialgamer]

19 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Those clock speeds are a bit of a letdown. I know it's an engineering sample though, so I'm still going to wait and see.

 

However I'm more interested in TR 12nm is going to bring to the table, as I'm planning a high end HEDT build later on in the year.

Keep in mind that amd has reworked the memory controller for lower latencies. 

That could potentially bring performance improvements as well as the clock speed improvements brought by 12nm.

But ryzen 2 (zen+) was never meant to be much more than a refresh anyway. 

[MaktimS]

18 minutes ago, bruny06 said:

I guess I'll have to wait for RYZEN 2 in 2019? or is it 2020?

Ryzen 2 (Zen+) is coming out on April. The CPUs you are talking about are Zen 2. 

[Phentos]

12 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Keep in mind that amd has reworked the memory controller for lower latencies. 

That could potentially bring performance improvements as well as the clock speed improvements brought by 12nm.

But ryzen 2 (zen+) was never meant to be much more than a refresh anyway. 

Here's hoping that comes to pass, as I'd rather go with TR 12nm for my HEDT build than Coffeelake-X or whatever.

 

Spectre and Meltdown with Intel really left a sour taste in my mouth.

[ThreePinkApples]

10 minutes ago, MaktimS said:

Ryzen 2 (Zen+) is coming out on April. The CPUs you are talking about are Zen 2. 

Better to call it Ryzen 2nd Gen, as Ryzen 2 can be confused with the naming scheme (R3, R5, R7 is just short for Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7)

[Bananasplit_00]

hope they overclock better, will be interesting to see how much, if any, better the IMC is too

[cj09beira]

so they were able to achieve 200 mhz more while maintaining the same tdp, thats pretty good, but i am diyng to know how it overclocks 

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Keep in mind that amd has reworked the memory controller for lower latencies. 

That could potentially bring performance improvements as well as the clock speed improvements brought by 12nm.

But ryzen 2 (zen+) was never meant to be much more than a refresh anyway. 

Given where the actual performance difference between AMD and Intel revolves around, AMD could make up a lot of ground with very minimal clock increases. The 4c APU parts have already shown a fairly nice improvement with the more subtle details that slow down certain tasks when they're not optimized properly.

 

The other detail is if this is the 1600 replacement, then it's the worst CPUs in the range. It should also have XFR as well, which should be 200 Mhz. Will this be a 4 Ghz part, as the baseline?

 

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3dbe3d7e4d0f684b989afcaaf92a284f7cafa&l=en

 

I went and found a slightly above average 1600X result in the same test. It's clocked at just over 4 Ghz. Unless the Floatpoint calculations aren't effected by clock speeds, this looks to be a Clock for Clock improvement. That's really, really interesting.

 

Also, CES over and first leak drops. Nothing timed about that!

[Taf the Ghost]

SiSoft can be a little wonky for certain details, especially clocks, but this is more interesting than you realize.

 

The ES comes in at 347.23 Mpix/s , while the Average 1600 is 320.77Mpix/s. Average 1600X is 345.06Mpix/s. 

 

The ES comes in faster, at "3.4 Ghz" than the average 1600X at an average of 3.85 Ghz. 

 

Here's a regular 1600: http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d2e3d6e6def88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4f4&l=en

 

Here's just a random 1600 from today: http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e2d3eadee8dbfd8fb282a4c1a499a98ffcc1f9&l=en

 

It appears to be around 10% faster, clock for clock, in this test. Is that true? No clue, as we aren't sure what clocks the ES is actually running at, though I can surmise it's running at 2133 MHZ memory speed. (But I don't think that effects that test that much.) We could be seeing some actual IPC improvements just on tweaks from the rest of the system.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, Phentos said:

Was hoping for 3.6 stock at the very least. If the clock speed increases are going to be tiny like this, then Intel is going to bury it with Coffeelake's (rumored) refresh or successor.

It all depends on the overclockability. This supposedly isn't the X variant. For instance, we know how high KL and CL CPUs can clock (the unlock ones, of course), yet the i5-8400 ships with a base clock of 2.8 GHz. If a 2600 does indeed ship with a base clock of 3.6GHz, that doesn't really tell us how far they have pushed the clock ceiling yet.

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah such clock increases are to be expected. It will be nice to see how much they can be pushed.

[Rakanoth]

Wow an incredibly huge increase

[RagnarokDel]

3 hours ago, bruny06 said:

I just built myself a new RYZEN system with an R5 1600 and I must say I'm quite happy with it, although, I should also say my previous Core i5 2500 at 4.1GHz had a slightly higher single-core performance against my current R5 1600 at stock speeds, which is why I think it would be great to see a clock speed improvement to boost the single-core performance. But still, it performs great in gaming and I don't see the need for a better CPU at the moment. My initial plan was to buy a RYZEN+ CPU when they came out as I already had RAM and MB ready for the upgrade, however, I didn't have a current RYZEN CPU to do the BIOS upgrade, so I guess I'll have to wait for RYZEN 2 in 2019? or is it 2020?

Clock for clock Ryzen is definitely faster then sandy/ivy bridge. It's actually close to Skylake. The issue is the clock speed.

[sazrocks]

3 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

Clock for clock Ryzen is definitely faster then sandy/ivy bridge. It's actually close to Skylake. The issue is the clock speed.

Doesn’t it depend on workload?

[Taf the Ghost]

35 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

Doesn’t it depend on workload?

Yes, but the AMD vs Intel IPC issue is rarely something that actually effects anything most people do. It's only in Server & Workstation applications that you really see anything. However, what most people mean is Optimizations for Intel uArchs. Or maybe it should just be called the "Adobe Problem". It's not AMD having "worse" IPC overall, it's that programs were specifically optimized for Intel's architecture, so there are simply optimization benefits available by being on Intel. In most cases, outside of Adobe, Arma & PUBG, you'll never actually notice the difference.

 

Side-point: it's still pathetic that Adobe, who sells a massive amount to companies with real workstations, can't optimize better. The top SKU Mainstream part shouldn't be toasting the better workstation CPUs as a general statement.

[qepsilonp]

Eh engineering sample no need to get your knickers in a twist, they are likely testing what clockspeed they could get right now and may do another respin before finial silicon anyway, for the moment all we can do is say there is certainly a clockspeed improvement for the moment.

[suits]

Honestly anything less than 4.5 boost/OC is going to be a let down. And I’m really banking on being let down.