[updated] Ryzen benchmark leaked

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Well... After looking a bit harder (and according to Intel ark) the Broadwell-E CPUs don't have SSE..? 

why does intel do this??? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Well... After looking a bit harder (and according to Intel ark) the Broadwell-E CPUs don't have SSE..? 

 

13 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

 

why does intel do this??? 

Intel CPUs have had SSE for a long time, each architecture supports different versions of it. Broadwell-E has SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2.

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

 

Intel CPUs have had SSE for a long time, each architecture supports different versions of it. Broadwell-E has SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2.

But then why doesn't ark show that?

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

But then why doesn't ark show that?

Because Intel Ark is stupid, plus there's a lot that isn't shown beyond that.

 

Edit:

Wikipedia is actually more useful than Intel ark, go figure.

 

Architecture	Broadwell x86
Instructions	MMX, AES-NI, CLMUL, FMA3
Extensions	x86-64 SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 AVX, AVX2, TXT, TSX VT-x, VT-d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwell_(CPU)

[Space Reptile]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because Intel Ark is stupid

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

I really wanna see the 4C/8T variants and how they perform in games. 8C/16T might become more important for games in the future as DX12 and Vulkan become more common, but 4C/8T seems to be the standard for gaming now..... If Ryzen is superior to the i7 6700k in gaming perf, I just might sell what I have already ( unopened i7 6700k + mobo + CPU cooler ) and switch to a Ryzen+Vega or 1080Ti rig. Do you think that's plausible or even feasible to do ? 

I really think Ryzen is going to be good overall but I am doubtful that any of the 4c/8t variants are going to be better than a 6700K. Fair comparisons can only be done at the same price points, it doesn't actually matter what one product is supposed to contend with as that isn't how we purchase. The difficulty here is that it looks like Ryzen prices at the top end are going to be significantly less than Intel goes up to.

 

Ryzen is also such a massive architectural change, much more so than Intel's current and 4 generations ago, so nailing everything down first try shouldn't be expected. If it is a blinding success and is outright better in every way I'm going to be less happy with AMD than I will be annoyed. Why has it taken this long? What the hell were you doing before? Basically I'll be having an epic WTF moment.

[TorqueS]

On 2/11/2017 at 6:22 PM, dalekphalm said:

So, if you read the details closely, you'd see a few things.

 

First:

The 7700K is OC'd to 5GHz

The 5820K is OC'd to 4.8GHz

The 5960X is OC'd to 4.7GHz, and finally,

The 6900K is OC'd to 4.2GHz

 

The graph was TERRIBLY made, but all of that info is sthere at the beginning of the article.

 

The Ryzen chip is also locked at 3.4GHz, so even the slowest OC'd chip (6900K) is still running 800MHz faster, with the 7700K running a full 1.6GHz faster.

 

This is a very very bad comparison, since people won't look at the details, and will come to the wrong conclusions.

 

Well that makes sense then, but holy cow, were those graphs a disaster.

I have seen the first image with the OCed speeds, but I didn't know, or think those were the speeds present in the graphs.
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Brooksie359]

22 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I really wanna see the 4C/8T variants and how they perform in games. 8C/16T might become more important for games in the future as DX12 and Vulkan become more common, but 4C/8T seems to be the standard for gaming now..... If Ryzen is superior to the i7 6700k in gaming perf, I just might sell what I have already ( unopened i7 6700k + mobo + CPU cooler ) and switch to a Ryzen+Vega or 1080Ti rig. Do you think that's plausible or even feasible to do ? 

I highly doubt the ryzen 4c/8t will outperform the i7 6700k. Ryzen will be about value not pure performance. It would be extremely difficult for amd to come out of nowhere and release a cpu faster than Intel's most recent gen. I guess the 7700k would be the most recent gen but let's be honest it's just a higher clocked 6700k.

[Phate.exe]

55 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I highly doubt the ryzen 4c/8t will outperform the i7 6700k. Ryzen will be about value not pure performance. It would be extremely difficult for amd to come out of nowhere and release a cpu faster than Intel's most recent gen. I guess the 7700k would be the most recent gen but let's be honest it's just a higher clocked 6700k.

The question that comes to mind is whether or not the performance difference is perceptible, and whether or not it's $100 perceptible.

 

I share your doubts that the Ryzen 4c/8t (i.e.the one that sure sounds like 85% of an i7 at i5 prices to me) being able to trade blows with the 6700k.  But I'm not sure how much it will actually matter to most gamers, especially if it will allow you to allocate some more of the budget into the video card or monitor.

 

Plus I'm VERY curious about XFR, which could be game-changer status in the CPU world.  It would be amazing if I can take a 65W TDP 4c/8t chip, put a cooler that would be suitable for a 125W cpu on it (i.e.any cooler that worked well on a Phenom II or FX chip), crank the power limit up to 95-100 watts then sit back and watch the magic happen to be in the mid-4GHz range.

 

Then there's the idea of an APU with actually midrange performance.  AMD's previous APU's were a great idea that was let down by the architecture that they had to work with at the time.  The construction core was an experimental idea that did not end up working out, and was refined into something solidly usable but far from competitive.  No matter what your preferred brand and level of skepticism, we can pretty much accept that Ryzen will be acceptably competitive in more than a few market segments.

If I can get a 4c/8t APU with around RX 470-level graphics onboard, we will absolutely have a game-changer on our hands for small form factor and console-replacement builds.  I'm envisioning a tiny case with a 240mm AIO blowing out the top, and not much else to it.

[Jahramika]

On 2/11/2017 at 6:57 AM, Lord Nicoll said:

Well what did you expect, for one thing those benchmarks seem off, no way an FX-9590 even at 5.15GHz would beat an i7 7700k at 5GHz.... And the Ryzen CPU's are clocked all under 3.5GHz, with IPC around Haswell, means if true, are very good results.

You must be high I had a 9590 an ran it water cooled @ 5.2 MHz

[Jahramika]

On 2/12/2017 at 9:43 AM, Kumaresh said:

I really wanna see the 4C/8T variants and how they perform in games. 8C/16T might become more important for games in the future as DX12 and Vulkan become more common, but 4C/8T seems to be the standard for gaming now..... If Ryzen is superior to the i7 6700k in gaming perf, I just might sell what I have already ( unopened i7 6700k + mobo + CPU cooler ) and switch to a Ryzen+Vega or 1080Ti rig. Do you think that's plausible or even feasible to do ? 

I down clocked my I7-6700 to 3.4 and clocked my memory to 2400 Mhz and that Ryzen test results beat my I7 on a MSI titanium by 125 points. If Rhyzen OC well it will be very competitive in single threaded work loads.

[Sreno1]

It's not logical to think any 4c/8t from Ryzen will be faster than the 6700k or 7700k. The IPC of Ryzen is Haswell, not Skylake+.

 

These CPU's will be the best price to performance but Intel will still control the high end enthusiast chips. They already have Skylake/Kabylake extreme CPU's planned.

[Lord Nicoll]

25 minutes ago, Jahramika said:

You must be high I had a 9590 an ran it water cooled @ 5.2 MHz

Even at 5.2GHz, it's a very old architecture, some examples of Kaby Lake can also run at 5.2GHz, and the massive IPC means that 5.2GHz in a lot more powerful in many cases.

[Space Reptile]

14 minutes ago, Lord Nicoll said:

Even at 5.2GHz, it's a very old architecture, some examples of Kaby Lake can also run at 5.2GHz, and the massive IPC means that 5.2GHz in a lot more powerful in many cases.

 dude , my I7 2600 (NON K) matches the 9590 @ 5ghz 

 

FX is dead , stop putting it in benchmarks 

[Lord Nicoll]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

 dude , my I7 2600 (NON K) matches the 9590 @ 5ghz 

 

FX is dead , stop putting it in benchmarks 

it's still good for ultra cheap virtualisation and certain workloads, but in most cases it gets it's ass handed to it. 

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, Lord Nicoll said:

it's still good for ultra cheap virtualisation and certain workloads, but in most cases it gets it's ass handed to it. 

if you want tons of threads? Xeon E5520 or E5620 , there 3 and 5 € respectively , first gen I7 architecture , 4c/8t , support dual cpu 

[Lord Nicoll]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

if you want tons of threads? Xeon E5520 or E5620 , there 3 and 5 € respectively , first gen I7 architecture , 4c/8t , support dual cpu 

I have Xeon X5670's, but for new builds, or times when you can't get them cheaply (In Ireland, we mainly have to get them from the UK, and they sometimes aren't in great supply) No I7 supports dual socket, and I've been mainly moving to LGA 1567 for the massivly more core count, up to 40 cores on most server boards. 

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, Lord Nicoll said:

No I7 supports dual socket,

the xeons based on the same architecture do , check up on ark 

 

and yea , only downside w/ 1366 is the board cost 

[Lord Nicoll]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

the xeons based on the same architecture do , check up on ark 

 

and yea , only downside w/ 1366 is the board cost 

All modern Xeons on the higher end socket support dual socket, the higher end LGA 1567/E7 versions going up to 8, but you said I7, there are no I7's that support dual socket. That a train wreck of comments

[Space Reptile]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nicoll said:

All modern Xeons on the higher end socket support dual socket, the higher end LGA 1567/E7 versions going up to 8, but you said I7, there are no I7's that support dual socket. That a train wreck of comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

 

I7 9XX --> Xeon E55XX/E56XX

[Lord Nicoll]

2 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

 

I7 9XX --> Xeon E55XX/E56XX

The 56 series for one thing is Westmere EP, and second, I know I7's are based off Xeons, but i7's don't support SMP configurations, what part of I have a Dual X5670 server and work mainly with Xeons aren't you getting. 

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, Lord Nicoll said:

The 56 series for one thing is Westmere EP, and second, I know I7's are based off Xeons, but i7's don't support SMP configurations, what part of I have a Dual X5670 server and work mainly with Xeons aren't you getting. 

I AM SAYING THAT THE I7 BASED XEONS SUPPORT DUAL CPU CONFIGS 

17 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

Xeon E5520 or E5620 , there 3 and 5 € respectively , first gen I7 architecture , 4c/8t , support dual cpu 

 

[Lord Nicoll]

15 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

I AM SAYING THAT THE I7 BASED XEONS SUPPORT DUAL CPU CONFIGS 

 

I KNOW BRO, I UNDERSTOOD THAT LONG BEFORE I COMMENTED, WHY DO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO FIGHT MAN, WE USED TO BE FRIENDS, WE USED TO PLAY TOGETHER. ALSO TECHNICALLY THE I7'S ARE BASED ON XEONS, AND ALL XEONS ARE LIKE PROFESSIONAL I7'S, 

[vitor_cut]

here it is a new one to add

 

http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-scores-sandra-benchmarks-taking-on-kaby-lake

 

 

 

Spoiler

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/40195/content/AMD_Zen.jpg

The leaks surrounding AMD's not-yet-released Ryzen processor family are coming in fast and furious, with only weeks to go before launch. In just the past week alone we've seen what is supposed to be AMD's full Ryzen lineup spanning 17 SKUs, along with core/thread counts and TDP ratings for each chip. In some cases we've even seen clock speeds and pricing info. Now we can add Ryzen benchmark scores from SiSoftware's official ranking database for its SANDRA suite.

SANDRA (System ANalyzer, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is a popular program that has been in active development for many years. It allows users to audit their system from top to bottom and sports several built-in synthetic benchmarks. We use SANDRA in many of our desktop and laptop reviews to evaluate processor performance, along with memory bandwidth, and storage. It has been a reliable metric for us throughout the years, and now it's playing the part of a crystal ball as we try to peer into Ryzen's future.

 

 

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/40195/content/small_sandra_ryzen_breakdown.jpg

Click to Enlarge

Twitter user Tech Inquisition (@InquisitionTech) responded to one of our previous articles on Ryzen and shared with us a link to a Ryzen listing in SANDRA's database. What it shows is a Ryzen 7 1700X slotting in at the No. 44 spot on a list of the top SANDRA 2015 "Processor Multi-Media" benchmarks. Running in a Windows 10 64-bit environment, it scored 435.12 Mpix/s with an average clock speed of 3.39GHz.

 

 

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/40195/content/small_sandra_ryzen.jpg

Click to Enlarge

That places the processor ahead of several Intel Xeon E5-2600 series CPUs, and more interestingly within striking distance of Intel's Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake chip, which scored 450.91 Mpix/s. Here is how the two processors compare:

 

 

	Cores/Threads	L3 Cache	TDP	Base	Turbo	Price
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X	8/16	16MB	95W	3.4GHz	3.8GHz	$389
Intel Core i7-7700K	4/8	8MB	91W	4.2GHz	4.5GHz	$350

Intel's Kaby Lake part is at a core count and thread disadvantage and has half the amount of L3 cache available compared to AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X. However, Ryzen is clocked much lower at 3.4GHz to 3.8GHz, versus 4.2GHz to 4.5GHz.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that AMD is probably still optimizing AM4 chipset drivers, while Kaby Lake has had time to mature in the marketplace. We also don't know if the Ryzen chip is an engineering sample that might have some features disabled, or if it's even final silicon.

Disclaimers aside, it's interesting to see how Ryzen performs, even if it's only a single benchmark. To throw more numbers into the mix, we dug up an older version of Sandra (2015) and ran the same benchmark on a Core i7-6950X, a Broadwell-E CPU with 10 cores and 20 threads clocked at 3GHz to 3.5GHz. It also has 25MB of SmartCache and a 140 watt TDP.

 

 

image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/40195/content/small_broadwell-e_sandra.jpg

Click to Enlarge

Scores in Sandra can change from version to version and we're not sure which specific build of Sandra 2015 Ryzen appears in, so this is more for reference than an exact comparison. What we have is the Core i7-6950X scoring 460.24 Mpix/s. Folks, that's a part that streets for over $1,600 putting only a tiny bit of distance between it and an AMD Ryzen processor that will supposedly sell for under $400.

Other benchmark results that emerged over the weekend suggest that the Ryzen 7 1700X will perform similarly to Intel's Core i7-6900K. The CPU's SANDRA score is in line with that. If that is indeed the case, it's no wonder Intel is said to be readying new Kaby Lake Core i7 and i5 processor with more aggressive pricing.
Read more at http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-scores-sandra-benchmarks-taking-on-kaby-lake#uPiBeP1fK1ssu021.99

 

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

The question that comes to mind is whether or not the performance difference is perceptible, and whether or not it's $100 perceptible.

 

I share your doubts that the Ryzen 4c/8t (i.e.the one that sure sounds like 85% of an i7 at i5 prices to me) being able to trade blows with the 6700k.  But I'm not sure how much it will actually matter to most gamers, especially if it will allow you to allocate some more of the budget into the video card or monitor.

 

Plus I'm VERY curious about XFR, which could be game-changer status in the CPU world.  It would be amazing if I can take a 65W TDP 4c/8t chip, put a cooler that would be suitable for a 125W cpu on it (i.e.any cooler that worked well on a Phenom II or FX chip), crank the power limit up to 95-100 watts then sit back and watch the magic happen to be in the mid-4GHz range.

 

Then there's the idea of an APU with actually midrange performance.  AMD's previous APU's were a great idea that was let down by the architecture that they had to work with at the time.  The construction core was an experimental idea that did not end up working out, and was refined into something solidly usable but far from competitive.  No matter what your preferred brand and level of skepticism, we can pretty much accept that Ryzen will be acceptably competitive in more than a few market segments.

If I can get a 4c/8t APU with around RX 470-level graphics onboard, we will absolutely have a game-changer on our hands for small form factor and console-replacement builds.  I'm envisioning a tiny case with a 240mm AIO blowing out the top, and not much else to it.

don't get me wrong. im super excited for ryzen and will most likely end up upgrading to soon after release. im just saying that if you have a 6700k and are expecting AMD to come out with a 4c/8t that will outperform it allowing you to justify upgrading to ryzen, you are probably going to be disappointed. i could see ryzen having very similar performance but not outperforming unless you are comparing to cpus that don't have the same amount of cores and threads but have the same price.