Zen benchmarks leaked ahead of time - take with salt

[zMeul]

source: https://videocardz.com/66846/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-review-leaked

 

chinese website ChipHell leaked their benchmarks results ahead of time

Quote

CPUs:

• AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 3.70GHz
• Intel Core i7-6900K 3.70GHz
• Intel Core i7-7700K 4.50GHz

Motherboards:

• [AMD X370] ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO (BIOS Ver.0702)
• [Intel X99] ASUS X99-E-WS-10G (BIOS Ver.0403)
• [Intel Z270] ASUS ROG MAXIMUS IX CODE (BIOS Ver.0701)

RAM

• [Intel] G.Skill Trident Z RGB 8GB x4 @ 2666MHz 16-16-16-36
• [AMD] Corsair Vengeace LPX 8GB x2 @ 2666MHz 16-16-16-36

1800X single thread performance is, as expected, weak; multithread perf is on par (or better/worse) compared to i7 6900K; the memory / cache latency is abysmal:

Spoiler

 

synthetic graphics perf puts it on par with i7 7700K

Spoiler

 

the benchmarks seems to be done with the previous version of the altered BIOS we're discussing here:

would be interesting to see if others do benches on same platform, with the new BIOS, and how they compare

 

generally the 1800X is faster than the i7 7700K, but also quite more expensive

[porina]

Or wait for lower salt alternatives expected to drop in about an hour...

[unsubscribed]

Huh... Nothing spectacular. Nice in some areas, a bit disappointing in other. Usual.

[Bouzoo]

While you're at it, you might do a Ryzen Review Mega Thread to group them all up. I'd do it but I have an exam in two hours, and I've no idea why I'm writing this instead of studying. Must be the reason why I've been more active the last couple of days.

[Dabombinable]

If these benchmarks are true, its about what you'd expect from the clock speed and projected IPC.

[ApolloFury]

Is this somewhat related to the BIOS?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

While you're at it, you might do a Ryzen Review Mega Thread to group them all up. I'd do it but I have an exam in two hours, and I've no idea why I'm writing this instead of studying. Must be the reason why I'm more active the last couple of days.

neah, I've generally seen what I needed to see

people and AMD overhyped the shit out of Zen - it's good, but it's not earth shattering like they made it look like

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

If these benchmarks are true, its about what you'd expect from the clock speed and projected IPC.

I don't have Haswell numbers, but I suspect Zen will be on par with those - exactly as it was projected many months ago

[Guest Kloaked]

Hey look, more worthless benchmarks.

[Scionyde]

What specific time is the NDA supposed to lift again?

[Notional]

That's even more impressive than I thought. The 6900k is 10-15% faster or so, AT TWICE THE PRICE! Price to performance blows Intel out of the water, not even a contest.

 

I do wonder what the impact of the different RAM setup has: Both Intel systems has 4x8GB vs Ryzen's 2x8GB. Could skew some of the RAM bandwidth intensive tasks.

[VagabondWraith]

Just now, Scionyde said:

What specific time is the NDA supposed to lift again?

45 mins

[ApolloFury]

2 minutes ago, Scionyde said:

What specific time is the NDA supposed to lift again?

There is a countdown timer at Videocardz website.

EDIT: Oops someone beat me to it.

[LAwLz]

In before lots and lots of excuses and cherry picking from the red fanboys.

 

I tried to set my expectations low, but I am fairly disappointed by a lot of those scores. Even some benchmarks which loves cores have really low scores for the Ryzen chip, such as WinRAR and 7zip.

 

 

Also, damn that cache and memory latency from SiSandra is brutal.

7700K latency - 21.5ns

1800X latency - 73.3ns

 

3.4 times as high memory latency at the same frequency and timings...

 

 

Edit:

6 minutes ago, Notional said:

That's even more impressive than I thought. The 6900k is 10-15% faster or so, AT TWICE THE PRICE! Price to performance blows Intel out of the water, not even a contest.

Winning over the 6900K at price:performance is like winning the Paralympics. Sure you won, but you're still handicapped.

I haven't done all the math yet, but price:performance doesn't seem that good compared to the 7700K. It will obviously depending on what programs you will run, but it doesn't even seem as clear cut as "i7 for single threaded stuff, Ryzen for multithreaded stuff".

 

The 7700K is quite significantly cheaper than the 1800X, and it does not seem like the overall performance difference is that big.

 

6 minutes ago, Notional said:

I do wonder what the impact of the different RAM setup has: Both Intel systems has 4x8GB vs Ryzen's 2x8GB. Could skew some of the RAM bandwidth intensive tasks.

It's not really skewing the results. Ryzen only supports dual channel RAM and the 6900K supports quad channel. Running the Ryzen with 4 sticks wouldn't help it (if rumors are to be believed, might even have caused issues) and running the 6900K with only 2 sticks would have kneecapped it (and nobody who buys X99 should use 2 sticks of RAM).

[raphidy]

YES, moar numbers that don't really tell a thing. Sorry, all I care gaming performance. Give me game benches.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, raphidy said:

YES, moar numbers that don't really tell a thing. Sorry, all I care gaming performance. Give me game benches.

utter irrelevant

when comparing CPUs , you compare their compute capabilities

[raphidy]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

utter irrelevant

when comparing CPUs , you compare their compute capabilities

Sorry, I don't prime95, cinebench nor un/zip things all day. Synthetic benches means nothing to me.

[zMeul]

9 minutes ago, raphidy said:

Sorry, I don't prime95, cinebench nor un/zip things all day. Synthetic benches means nothing to me.

you are comparing CPUs, not apples and oranges to see who has more Uranium in them

 

when comparing video cards, there is where games are very relevant 

[grimreeper132]

14 minutes ago, zMeul said:

neah, I've generally seen what I needed to see

people and AMD overhyped the shit out of Zen - it's good, but it's not earth shattering like they made it look like

yea, but at the same time, they are a lot  cheaper than intels 8 and 6 core offerings, and if our like me who needs that many cores, they are good value, maybe not the more powerful than other options, but they offer a similar performance (sure many worse in some cases, but also sometimes better in others) for at maximum half the price as intels 8 core

[Notional]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In before lots and lots of excuses and cherry picking from the red fanboys.

 

I tried to set my expectations low, but I am fairly disappointed by a lot of those scores. Even some benchmarks which loves cores have really low scores for the Ryzen chip, such as WinRAR and 7zip.

 

 

Also, damn that cache and memory latency from SiSandra is brutal.

7700K latency - 21.5ns

1800X latency - 73.3ns

 

3.4 times as high memory latency at the same frequency and timings...

 

 

Winning over the 6900K at price:performance is like winning the Paralympics. Sure you won, but you're still handicapped.

I haven't done all the math yet, but price:performance doesn't seem that good compared to the 7700K. It will obviously depending on what programs you will run, but it doesn't even seem as clear cut as "i7 for single threaded stuff, Ryzen for multithreaded stuff".

 

The 7700K is quite significantly cheaper than the 1800X, and it does not seem like the overall performance difference is that big.

 

 

Latency is higher, but so is the bandwidth compared to the 7700k. Still not sure how these things are affected or if BIOS updates can improve upon them.

 

Handicapped? That's a VERY strong word to use about a CPU that beats the 7700K in multithreaded apps. AMD wins some and loses some, just like Intel, so I hardly see an issue here. The 1800x is ~50% more expensive than the 7700k, but the 1700x is only ~15% more expensive at 100mhz less or so? That's where the price to performance destroys Intel. 

 

In the end, of course, it depends on your core needs. If you cannot utilize 8 cores, then look out for the Ryzen 5 instead (hopefully it will be clocked higher). Performance is exactly where we knew it to be: IPC around broadwell levels give or take depending on the software tested.

[slashed_wings]

i do want to see a comparison clock for clock ryzen at 4.5ghz to i7-7700k at 4.5ghz that will eliminate the clock difference and tell you how they actually compare in ipc

[unsubscribed]

Huh... Nothing spectacular. Nice in some areas, a bit disappointing in other. Usual.

[zMeul]

Just now, grimreeper132 said:

yea, but at the same time, they are a lot  cheaper than intels 8 and 6 core offerings, and if our like me who needs that many cores, they are good value, maybe not the more powerful than other options, but they offer a similar performance (sure many worse in some cases, but also sometimes better in others) for at maximum half the price as intels 8 core

what?

the 6800K is priced ridiculously and is with a leg in the grave, later this year the new X299 platform will launch and will shit on 1800X from the rooftop (maybe not on price)

the i7 7700K is actually quite significantly cheaper than 1800X (!!)

 

in compute workloads, the 1800X is not blanket better than 6800K; some results are even worse than 7700K

[scottyseng]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

6900K with only 2 sticks would have kneecapped it (and nobody who buys X99 should use 2 sticks of RAM).

Hmm, does this apply to the 2011-3 Xeons as well? I have a E5-2695V3 on a SuperMicro C612 based board. If so, I guess I'll have to put more consideration on getting another RAM stick pair for it (I have 16GB x 2 ECC). It's mostly my workstation / rendering server.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

Hmm, does this apply to the 2011-3 Xeons as well? I have a E5-2695V3 on a SuperMicro C612 based board. If so, I guess I'll have to put more consideration on getting another RAM stick pair for it (I have 16GB x 2 ECC). It's mostly my workstation / rendering server.

you are gimping that CPU

the 2695v3 has a quad channel memory controller: https://ark.intel.com/products/81057/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2695-v3-35M-Cache-2_30-GHz