Chinese site shows extensive benchmarks results of AMD Ryzen

[Belgarathian]

8 hours 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?

If that was the case, the FX series would have offered decent competition as for multi-thread application a lot of small cores is usually superior to a few big cores, particularly for parallel workloads. 

[Belgarathian]

6 hours ago, MageTank said:

People often forget the T in TDP stands for "thermal". They automatically think TDP equates to actual power consumption, but it does not. Sometimes it's close, but others, it's off by a long shot. It's also certainly not the max a chip can pull. As shown above, I can pull 130w (123w in that specific screenshot after only 3 mins of 48k FFT) with relative ease. That's a massive 40% (give or take) difference if you are actually comparing power consumption to TDP. This is also me running stock clocks AND undervolted. Imagine if you actually overclocked, or threw more volts at it. I have friends that push 180w on their 4790k's. 

Yeah, 5GHz small FFT ~230W peak draw. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

If the 6800K is running at 127W that is below it's TDP. An OCed one to 4.4Ghz is around 200Ws and 4.4Ghz isn't hard to get with an AIO.

Intel uses the same TDP for the entire lineup... even though OBVIOUSLY a 6950x consumes WAY more power than a 6800k.

 

That is what happens. AMD seems like they want to under-rate their TDPs while Intel is pretty over-generous at rating theirs... Just a different design philosophy.

[Curufinwe_wins]

22 minutes ago, MageTank said:

To be fair, almost everyone does this. Intel does it (though they've recently switched to Scenario Design Power) but still mistakenly confuse TDP and power consumption. I don't know if I can blame Nvidia for this, but a lot of reviewers that review Nvidia GPU's also list their TDP as their power consumption, which again, is a misrepresentation of the cards actual power consumption. 

You do realize though that all power consumed is thermally exausted (well technically speaking there is a few mW of shannon work done, but still.)

 

Look, all I want to point out here is that chip for chip AMD's new cpus are equivalent-ish to Intel's in power efficiency. They are not the MASSIVELY better that so many rumor sites and AMD's own PR wants to pretend.

[goodtofufriday]

7 hours 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.

Unless im wromg the 123w tdp is after xfr and boost clocks. 

 

Base clocks are 95w. 

 

However im sure you are aboe to surmise this, so odd to mw you made this comment. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

Unless im wromg the 123w tdp is after xfr and boost clocks. 

 

Base clocks are 95w. 

 

However im sure you are aboe to surmise this, so odd to mw you made this comment. 

AMD doesn't specify ANY power consumption other than the 95W "TDP". Intel doesn't specify ANY power consumption other than the 130W "TDP". They consumed margin of error the same power. That is all. Just another proof of "TDP hacking".

 

For the record.... AMD is much worse at doing this as well with their GPUs than Nvidia is.

 

It doesn't actually make a difference for consumers... It just pisses me off.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Look, all I want to point out here is that chip for chip AMD's new cpus are equivalent-ish to Intel's in power efficiency. They are not the MASSIVELY better that so many rumor sites and AMD's own PR wants to pretend.

 

My exact thoughts. 

[SCHISCHKA]

7 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Their approach of all-unlocked Ryzen encourages people to make the most of what they get, and encourages people to delve into overclocking.

i just like the smaller product range. less SKU to browse through and honest prices

[Curufinwe_wins]

13 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

i just like the smaller product range. less SKU to browse through and honest prices

Three actual products with 12 sku's? Don't see how that is better personally...

 

It's like going back to the i7 960-990 days.

 

But pricing looks nice ofc.

[TechGod]

8 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

My bad, missed OC.

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

You don't believe a validated benchmark? Jesus. 

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, kladzen said:

Well when MSI wants to make a marketing stunt about their "boost" function... i'm fairly sure that they are confident that most people will be able to do such a OC... sure some will be getting some shitty cpu's that wont hit that mark... and then the average.. propperly will ( i assume since MSI uses it as marketing ) and then the godlike cpu's that hit 4.7-4.8 maybe even 4.9 on water.... beyond that its LN2 i would assume

@MageTank I run an MSI Gaming Pro Carbon with Game Boost. The final step on their auto OC for my 5930K is 5GHz, the average OC under water is 4.43MHz, air is 4.77 apparently. Cascade cooling gets an average OC of 5GHz, but that's an expensive and exotic setup that most people can't afford, and likely not indicative of the average 5930K's OC ability under that type of cooling.

 

Game boost is advertised with a single statement that doesn't factor in what platform is being used. That 5GHz number was derived from cherry picking two chips: prebinned 6700K and 5930K, cherry picking the setup, and phrasing their advertisement so that they can bullshit their way out of any consequences if needed, without actually conveying that their claims aren't likely.

 

It's like Geico's "You can save up to 15% or more with Geico" statement. Sounds good, but they literally told you that they can offer you savings anywhere between 0% and 100%.

[elkenrod]

Somebody tell me.... should I be excited about this?

 

I see a lot more black than red here.  What's the price difference of these two CPUs that were benchmarked?

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, elkenrod said:

Somebody tell me.... should I be excited about this?

 

I see a lot more black than red here.  What's the price difference of these two CPUs that were benchmarked?

A lot.

 

You definitely should be excited... Ryzen is great for the market. It just probably isn't quite the top of the heap in anything.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, VagabondWraith said:

Can't wait for Friday for all the shitposting to cease.

You havin' a giggle, mate?

 

Because that isn't happening. It's either going to be shitposts about Ryzen being the greatest thing ever or somehow worse than Cancer, Aids, and MechaHitler rolled into one.

[elkenrod]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

A lot.

 

You definitely should be excited... Ryzen is great for the market. It just probably isn't quite the top of the heap in anything.

I'm thinking about this from an economic standpoint.  If Ryzen is in high demand and AMD can't keep chips on the market, prices might shoot up to a point where the savings might dwindle.   I didn't pre-order, but there may be a scenario where pre-ordering might end up being the best move one could have made with this release.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, elkenrod said:

I'm thinking about this from an economic standpoint.  If Ryzen is in high demand and AMD can't keep chips on the market, prices might shoot up to a point where the savings might dwindle.   I didn't pre-order, but there may be a scenario where pre-ordering might end up being the best move one could have made with this release.

Maybe... But long term it will be fine.

[Fetzie]

9 hours ago, MageTank said:

You cannot use the words "at least" when talking about overclocking. The sample size is too low. I don't care if MSI overclocked to 5ghz, we don't know anything yet. 

Yeah, my 2500K REALLY disliked anything above 4.3 GHz. I had to really try hard to get it stable at 4.4 with over 1350 mV on the core

 

9 minutes ago, elkenrod said:

Somebody tell me.... should I be excited about this?

 

I see a lot more black than red here.  What's the price difference of these two CPUs that were benchmarked?

 

The Ryzen chip is about 100 bucks cheaper if I remember correctly.

[Lays]

herr derp look at my single thread w0w

 

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/ic5y0m/1

 

/r/nocontext

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

You do realize though that all power consumed is thermally exausted (well technically speaking there is a few mW of shannon work done, but still.)

 

Look, all I want to point out here is that chip for chip AMD's new cpus are equivalent-ish to Intel's in power efficiency. They are not the MASSIVELY better that so many rumor sites and AMD's own PR wants to pretend.

As an ITX enthusiast, I understand TDP better than most people. My point is relatively simple. TDP is not the max power consumption of a product. People often look at TDP, and use that number when calculating power supply requirements. You can even look at Pcpartpicker, they do the exact same thing: 

 

TDP of the 7700k is 91w. TDP of the reference 1070 is 150w. Both of these components are perfectly capable of exceeding these values, even without any overclocking involved. 

 

I completely understand your point, and I agree with you, but I just want people to understand that advertised TDP and actual power consumption are two entirely different things. 

[SCHISCHKA]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Three actual products with 12 sku's? Don't see how that is better personally...

 

It's like going back to the i7 960-990 days.

 

But pricing looks nice ofc.

im refering to the K and non k

[2FA]

8 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

So basically the problem is that developers are too lazy to make their games or programs work with multi-core.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not but some tasks have to be completed serially, that's just the nature of computing.

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Lays said:

herr derp look at my single thread w0w

 

http://valid.x86.fr/bench/ic5y0m/1

 

/r/nocontext

At least with your we can see it was at what can only be described as a Lays frequency  

 

We still don't know how fast or slow RyZen was running in this test  

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Rangaman42 said:

Who cares about stock, people don't pay all that money for overclockable, top end processors to run them at stock.

Well I leave my 4930K at default OC that the R4BE does which is near enough to your example of someone buying a high end processor and not overclocking it .

[Phate.exe]

13 hours ago, VagabondWraith said:

Can't wait for Friday for all the shitposting to cease.

I think it will only increase.

 

 

There are no brakes on this hype train.

[Bouzoo]

6 hours ago, TechGod said:

You don't believe a validated benchmark? Jesus. 

No, I don't, and neither should you until we see proper reviews. We know nothing about specs, and for all we know it could be a heavily OC system under LN2 just for 1 run before it crashed. I hope it will beat it, but the things we know until now say otherwise.