Chinese site shows extensive benchmarks results of AMD Ryzen

[Bouzoo]

5 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I don't think I've heard or even have read of anyone that believes that. The TITLE says it's OC'd

My bad, missed OC.

I still absolutely don't believe it. Even at 4.5 1700x. But we'll see. 

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

My bad, missed OC.

I still absolutely don't believe it. Even at 4.5 1700x. But we'll see. 

I do get your skepticism, but you can't falsify a validated cpu-z score on their site.

[Enderman]

Either those K chips are highly overclocked or that benchmark is BS because a 6600 should be right behind a 6600k in single core, not at the bottom of the list.

[goodtofufriday]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

Either those K chips are highly overclocked or that benchmark is BS because a 6600 should be right behind a 6600k in single core, not at the bottom of the list.

To my understanding these are all OC'd results.

 

Edit: Not the case

[Master Disaster]

So an OCed 1700X is faster than a stock 7700K? 

 

Useless information without specifics, I mean the guy could have cranked the OC up to 11 just to get a run in.

[Stefan1024]

1 hour ago, Darth Revan said:

Why do people still say oh too bad single core performance isn't that good?

How many programs are still limited to single core in 2017?

Using multiple cores is easy. But getting a decent speed up from doing so can be quite chalangeing. If you are not careful your programm even runns slower when using multiple cores compared to a single one.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

To my understanding these are all OC'd results.

So then you're basically saying this benchmark is useless, since the clock speeds are not listed?

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

I do get your skepticism, but you can't falsify a validated cpu-z score on their site.

I do want to see full system specs and stuff before commenting.

[Bananasplit_00]

well this is cool, i really hope its true tbh because i want competition

[goodtofufriday]

19 minutes ago, Enderman said:

So then you're basically saying this benchmark is useless, since the clock speeds are not listed?

Not really, CPU-Z displays the top validated scores when doing comparisons. So even withoutht clocks, that 7700k score is the top validated one.

 

Edit: Not the case. They are base clocks.

 

Of course that doesnt mean that the 7700k cant do better. it likely can and just hasn't been validated.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Enderman said:

So then you're basically saying this benchmark is useless, since the clock speeds are not listed?

The benchmark is useless, all it tells us is that a 1700X can be quicker than a 7700K under some unknown circumstances.

[Enderman]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Not really, CPU-Z displays the top validated scores when doing comparisons. So even withoutht clocks, that 7700k score is the top validated one.

 

Of course that doesnt mean that the 7700k cant do better. it likely can and just hasn't been validated.

So these are only the top CPUs validated?

Well that's even more useless.

 

Why should someone care about a 7GHz 4690k performing better than a 6GHz 4770k or whatever if those are just the cream of the crop?

No regular user will be running those frequencies.

 

It's cool that you can compare between the top CPUs of each model, but it literally says nothing about the useful performance of each CPU in regular conditions.

Just because X CPU reached some GHz does not mean that the other 99.999% of the CPUs can too.

This is why real benchmarks are done at stock or at regular achievable overclocks.

[Teddy07]

Well Ryzen 1700 is the same cost as the 7700k here in Germany. 1700x is around 70 € more expensive

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Not really, CPU-Z displays the top validated scores when doing comparisons. So even withoutht clocks, that 7700k score is the top validated one.

 

Of course that doesnt mean that the 7700k cant do better. it likely can and just hasn't been validated.

No it doesn't, it shows the average stock result in the benchmark chart. It would be pretty disconcerting for a new buyer to benchmark their shiney new chip and have it come in at 500pts below the one listed in the charts.

[TheRandomness]

3 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

To be fair, yes the 7700K at 2301 is actually stock.

Here is another CPU-Z benchmark result with the same 7700K@2301 versus... an overclocked 7700K;

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/de1va2/1

No its not my bench I don't have a 7700K

Also you get to see the multi thread score of the 7700K, totally no match for an 8c16t obviously

What clocks are those?

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

What clocks are those?

That is 4.9ghz. Click on the "Back to validation" button to see the configuration.

[skatblast]

The hype sure is exciting, i have no plan on switching because i currently have a 5960x but glad to see it looks promising for AMD.

[Curufinwe_wins]

So this is super amusing....

 

Full load power usage... 6800k 127W, 1700X 123W...

 

Can we please go back to where AMD claims these are 95W cpus?

 

Rofl....

 

That said. Cool stuff really. x99 is absolutely terrible at low power usage (because it is explicitly designed not to care about that stuff lol), but still good showings by AMD.

[goodtofufriday]

10 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

No it doesn't, it shows the average stock result in the benchmark chart. It would be pretty disconcerting for a new buyer to benchmark their shiney new chip and have it come in at 500pts below the one listed in the charts.

My mistake =[ Was lead to be believe otherwise.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

So this is super amusing....

 

Full load power usage... 6800k 127W, 1700X 123W...

 

Can we please go back to where AMD claims these are 95W cpus?

 

Rofl....

 

That said. Cool stuff really. x99 is absolutely terrible at low power usage (because it is explicitly designed not to care about that stuff lol), but still good showings by AMD.

It's the same with Intel. 91w 6700k. I can pull 130w with relative ease, lol.

 

http://imgur.com/a/bnusw

 

For those that are curious about my temps, please take heed of this advice: Do not throw copious amounts of highly OC'd ram at AVX. You are asking for trouble, especially if you are using a 45mm vapor chamber. Even undervolted to 1.14v, it gets insanely hot.

[vanished]

Obviously there's some pretty important information missing here, like, oh, idk, the clock speed of the 1700X in this test  

 

I'm putting my money on it having been at 4.5 GHz.  I guess we'll see what the truth is in time.

 

Regardless, looking very good!  

[MageTank]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Obviously there's some pretty important information missing here, like, oh, idk, the clock speed of the 1700X in this test  

 

I'm putting my money on it having been at 4.5 GHz.  I guess we'll see what the truth is in time.

 

Regardless, looking very good!  

Honestly, if the 1700X made it to 4.5ghz on air/water, that's really good news for the average consumer. I just hope this isn't some sort of LN2 run getting our hopes up. 

[done12many2]

1 hour ago, Darth Revan said:

Why do people still say oh too bad single core performance isn't that good?

How many programs are still limited to single core in 2017?

 

The majority of stuff currently available.  Single-threaded impacts perceived user interface a great deal more than multi-threaded.  My 5950x at 4.6 GHz gets smoked by my 7700k @ 5.3 GHz in almost everything, but the very few tasks that are effective at taking advantage of all cores at one time.  It's cool to see the 5960x crush tasks when all cores are firing, but I don't see it happen too often at all.

 

Things in the area of multi-threading are improving, but it is painfully slow.  So much so that an 8 core processor that I've had for almost 2 years is still barely utilized to it's potential.  

 

For day to day use and for most gaming, single-threaded performance should remain an area to focus on.  

 

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

It's the same with Intel. 91w 6700k. I can pull 130w with relative ease, lol.

 

http://imgur.com/a/bnusw

 

For those that are curious about my temps, please take heed of this advice: Do not throw copious amounts of highly OC'd ram at AVX. You are asking for trouble, especially if you are using a 45mm vapor chamber. Even undervolted to 1.14v, it gets insanely hot.

 

It's just going to be a matter of time and folks will see that TDP is just a play on words.  Anyone who paid enough attention to the AMD press event where they showed power draw during testing could see that at load they were essentially drawing the same power.  The total system draw at idle was lower during those examples, but as soon as load hit they look like twins.  

[vanished]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Honestly, if the 1700X made it to 4.5ghz on air/water, that's really good news for the average consumer. I just hope this isn't some sort of LN2 run getting our hopes up. 

I just saw the posts that came in between mine above and the ones half way down the first page which didn't show up for some reason.  My post was based on the assumption that the 7700k in this chart was at stock.  I now see  it was at 4.9 GHz.  This just got even more interesting.

[SammYw0w]

Even if the 1700X was overclocked it's a huge step in the right direction for AMD. And if you then could get the CPU up to 4.5 GHz on air/water that would still be good results. I don't really think AMD would risk their customers by comparing a non-overclocked Intel CPU to an overclocked AMD processor. A lot of poeple have been pre-ordering the processors just based of AMDs benchmarks.