Ryzen 2700(X?) First Bench show better perf than 8700K

[Asche]

On the French website Tom's Hardware, relaying Chinese website "Hardware Battle", a capture of a synthetic test of the allegedly 2700X, show some good performance compare to his rival, the Intel 8700K.

http://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/ryzen-7-2000-processeur-amd-benchmarks,1-66968.html

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

Le site chinois Hardware Battle vient de publier de nouveaux benchmarks d’un processeur Ryzen 7 2000 (présumé 2700X). Le site ne donne pas le modèle exact et il faudra attendre la sortie de la nouvelle famille de puces en avril pour confirmer ces résultats. En attendant, ils sont intéressants, car ils montreraient que le XFR 2.0 des Ryzen 2000 pourrait atteindre 4,35 GHz, offrant ainsi un gain de performances substantiel comparativement aux premiers Ryzen.

Quote

Résultats prometteurs

Le Ryzen 7 2000 devancerait le Coffee Lake Core i7–8700K, selon les résultats dans 3DMark FireStrike, FireStrike Ultra, et Cinebench R15. Il est important de prendre du recul en attendant de plus amples tests, mais ces premiers scores sont encourageants. Ce gain de performances semble être aussi dû aux optimisations apportées à la gestion de la mémoire, AIDA64 semblant montrer une réduction non-négligeable de la latence.

 

I translate for you :

 

The Chinese "Hardware Battle" just publish new benchmarks of Ryzen 2000 (allegedly 2700X) CPU. The website doesn't give the exact model and we have to wait the launch of the new family of chip in April to confirm those result.

They are interesting, because they show that XFR 2.0 of Ryzen 2000 could reach 4.35Ghz, offering a boost in performance relative to first Ryzen.

Ryzen 2000 could take the leap against Coffe Lake 8700K according to the result in 3D Mark FireStrike Ultra and Cinebench R15. It is important to take this with a bit of salt, and wait for more ample test.

Results of those benchmarks are nonetheless encouraging. this boost gain in performance seem to be due to memory optimization,  AIDA64 is showing a non-negligible drop in latency.

 

Another source from videocardz.com (Thx @Carclis)

Slide from the Zen+ presentation leaked (Thx @Taf the Ghost)

[NelizMastr]

Title is misleading. It's faster than the 8700K multithreaded, but so was the 1800X after all. Single thread, though, it's closed the gap to 12% from 21% which is about expected for a refresh, but still slower.

[NelizMastr]

3 hours ago, violentnumeric said:

-snip-

That's not what I said. I simply pointed out that the topic title was stating that the alleged 2700x is faster than the 8700K, which it isn't in every scenario. Nobody said it's not worth it for gaming at all. Stick that rant in a place where the sun doesn't shine, thanks  

 

It'll be a great all-round multitasking chip, just like the 1700x it'll allegedly replace, but that still doesn't change the objective fact that the single threaded performance is still slightly lower than Coffee Lake. That has nothing to do with preferences, the numbers do the talking. 

 

 

[porina]

3 hours ago, violentnumeric said:

-snip-

You can cherry pick scenarios where differences are minimal, or where either side will get crushed. The 1st gen 8 core Ryzens already gave a lot of performance for use cases that need it, but it didn't satisfy for high fps gaming for example. I'm cautiously optimistic that a clock bump on 2nd gen will be "good enough" to close that. Not beat Intel, but get close enough that most wont care any more.

 

So these score leaks aren't exactly surprising. The biggest two questions are how far will they clock, and how much would it cost?

[asus killer]

i think the biggest question is: can it run crysis? 

 

sorry just to lighten the mood, it looks like some fanboys wars are coming.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

But the advantage of going Intel is not having to buy a new mobo and fresh installing a new copy of Windows when upgrading the processor, thus invalidating Ryzen's value proposition

...right?

I've always found the whole "platform X will last for more generations therefore it's better" argument kind of silly.

If you're the type of person who upgrades every single year then yes it makes sense, but most enthusiasts probably upgrades their CPUs each 3+ years (assuming we go back to more than 5% generational improvements).

At that point even the "long lasting" sockets will need to be upgraded. It doesn't really matter if one or three new sockets has been released between your old and new processor.

 

By the time my processor is due for an upgrade I will most likely want a new motherboard as well. Either out of necessity (new processor uses a new socket) or because of the improvements to the chipset.

I have an X370 AM4 board right now (a rather high end one at that) and I fully expect to not reuse it once it's time to upgrade to a new CPU.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

But the advantage of going Intel is not having to buy a new mobo and fresh installing a new copy of Windows when upgrading the processor, thus invalidating Ryzen's value proposition

...right?

If you're on Intel and you're upgrading to something that is worth the effort you'll be buying a new motherboard anyway, Intel releases chipsets like candy. This point is actually more in line with what people are saying about AM4 but the same problem exits, if it's actually worth upgrading it won't be an AM4 CPU if you already own a current Ryzen CPU.

[Asche]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the time my processor is due for an upgrade I will most likely want a new motherboard as well. Either out of necessity (new processor uses a new socket) or because of the improvements to the chipset.

I have an X370 AM4 board right now (a rather high end one at that) and I fully expect to not reuse it once it's time to upgrade to a new CPU.

Good point. But that is without saying that you have the money to do so.

Most of "young" or with low income peoples may be attracted by the fact that they can just spend a few hundred in a new CPU, and see the benefit immediately.

Well, if there is a benefit to see. But we can argue that after 4 years, at least in generic task, CPUs have a significant boost. Especially if you consider the person who bought a i3/r3, then upgrade to a last gen i7/r7.

[Ashaira]

56 minutes ago, NelizMastr said:

Title is misleading. It's faster than the 8700K multithreaded, but so was the 1800X after all. Single thread, though, it's closed the gap to 12% from 21% which is about expected for a refresh, but still slower.

But how important is that today? 8 core apps may not be common place but 2-4 cores is. How many does it take before the 2700 is equal or better?

[Sfekke]

3 minutes ago, Ashaira said:

But how important is that today? 8 core apps may not be common place but 2-4 cores is. How many does it take before the 2700 is equal or better?

They should become common place.

This coming from a i7 4790K user with 4 cores & 8 threads.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Ashaira said:

But how important is that today? 8 core apps may not be common place but 2-4 cores is. How many does it take before the 2700 is equal or better?

7 cores for equal based on those results, meaningless though just go with what ever is the best value that nets the performance you want. Most people who buy 8700K don't really buy it for any actually requirement other than it produces the bigger numbers, though Intel forces you to really since the step down has feature loss. At least with AMD you can step down a model or two and only lose a slight bit of performance and not miss out entirely on SMT.

[Carclis]

That's a little better than I expected. I'm guessing the improvements to memory latency have something to do with that.

[thisforumsucksassdeletemya]

1 hour ago, porina said:

You can cherry pick scenarios where differences are minimal, or where either side will get crushed. The 1st gen 8 core Ryzens already gave a lot of performance for use cases that need it, but it didn't satisfy for high fps gaming for example. I'm cautiously optimistic that a clock bump on 2nd gen will be "good enough" to close that. Not beat Intel, but get close enough that most wont care any more.

 

So these score leaks aren't exactly surprising. The biggest two questions are how far will they clock, and how much would it cost?

Ryzen isn't really "crushed" by any standard Intel consumer CPUs anymore. If by cherry pick you mean like 2 or 3 games in the entire world give Intel an advantage (because they're paid to do so) in DX12 then sure... The rest it's close enough that the only relevant point is price to performance ratio.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Carclis said:

That's a little better than I expected. I'm guessing the improvements to memory latency have something to do with that.

Most of the results point to a 4.1 Ghz effective clock, as throughput of the Zen+ shouldn't be all that different. However, changes to the Cache & Latency won't show up until we get extensive gaming benchmarks. Some of the results will just be due to faster clocks, but IPC uplift will show up in a few spots. It's about what has been expected for a bit: 1-5% IPC uplift depending on task, upwards of 8-15% clock uplift.  (Which is really, really good for an intra-generation improvement cycle.)

 

The fun part is when the 2800X starts to leak out. Been some credible info suggesting 3.9 base, 4.3 boost and 4.5 XFR. If that's true, that's exactly the speed AMD needs to hit to saturate a 1080 TI.

 

Though, with all of this, if the clocks are right, it's going to be the 2600X, coming probably in June, that's going to be the golden part again in the stack. 

[GoldenLag]

If a overclock to 4,6 ghz is super achivable then AMD has done a homerun with this generation, especially cobsidering its only minor tweaks and a slight process node shrink

[Taf the Ghost]

https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

 

Looks like the announcement power points got leaked.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://videocardz.com/75194/amd-ryzen-2000-series-exposed-pricing-performance-leaked

 

Looks like the announcement power points got leaked.

Looking at it, it isbt really surprise they dropped the 2800x. As it shortens the scew they have to offer and the 1800x didnt really have a good place considering the 1700 and the 1700x

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Looking at it, it isbt really surprise they dropped the 2800x. As it shortens the scew they have to offer and the 1800x didnt really have a good place considering the 1700 and the 1700x

We'll see when we get a look at the BIOS updates & CPU lists on those. Threadripper 2 comes out probably Q3, so AMD is keeping the best dies for that. They could release a "Black Edition" part later in the year with the TR2 launch. If max boost is 4.35 Ghz on the 2700X, that means there is 4.5 Ghz parts available. 

 

Looking at it from AMD's perspective, especially with the $369USD MSRP on the 2700X, they're going to more directly undercut Intel at price points. The 2800X wouldn't fit this type of launch.

[Asche]

Well they maybe want to skip the 2800 for this refresh, and bring the X800 series back for Zen 2, who knows.

Lest wait the official presentation before drawing any conclusion i suppose.

[porina]

26 minutes ago, violentnumeric said:

Ryzen isn't really "crushed" by any standard Intel consumer CPUs anymore. If by cherry pick you mean like 2 or 3 games in the entire world give Intel an advantage (because they're paid to do so) in DX12 then sure... The rest it's close enough that the only relevant point is price to performance ratio.

When I used the term crushed, it applied both ways. There will be use cases where either may be a better choice. As said, I'm hopeful for AMD that the clock boost alone will address some of the remaining shortcomings in making it better all round.

 

When I was doing a high fps build last year from spare parts, I initially tried 1700 + 980Ti SLI, and it sucked. Got better results with a 6600k. Wrong CPU for the use case. If I want to submit competitive Cinebench R15 scores, overclocked 1700 easily rules over any Intel system I currently have. Conversely, put an AVX2 load on it, and my i3-8350k takes the lead and will beat any equivalently cooled consumer 8 core AMD system. Neither side is universally better. 

[Taf the Ghost]

From the slides. With a 1080, likely at stock, the only differences crop up in Dota 2 & CS:GO of any real margin. That's an issue with the Source Engine that someone found. It does a calculation that's actually out of spec and has negative scaling across threads.

 

There would be more of a difference with the 1080 Ti and the Titans, but that's due to Clock Speed difference alone. 

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

We'll see when we get a look at the BIOS updates & CPU lists on those. Threadripper 2 comes out probably Q3, so AMD is keeping the best dies for that. They could release a "Black Edition" part later in the year with the TR2 launch. If max boost is 4.35 Ghz on the 2700X, that means there is 4.5 Ghz parts available. 

 

Looking at it from AMD's perspective, especially with the $369USD MSRP on the 2700X, they're going to more directly undercut Intel at price points. The 2800X wouldn't fit this type of launch.

They also keep their 4 core "old" process part wich allows them to sell out their "old" dies. Im seing 4 core parts coming in the summer when they have little to no dies left of the "old" process. The G part will be the last of the "old" dies

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

They also keep their 4 core "old" process part wich allows them to sell out their "old" dies. Im seing 4 core parts coming in the summer when they have little to no dies left of the "old" process. The G part will be the last of the "old" dies

Well, the G-parts are the consumer version of their Laptop & Embedded lines, so they'll be making those for a couple of years. Parts like the 1200 and 1400 were always going to go away with how nutty the yields have been on the Zen1 dies. Even then, most of the 4 core functional dies can still go to Epyc. (There's a reason AMD went for this design approach and it's working wonders.)

 

I don't know if we'll see 4c 12nm parts. We might later, but AMD would effectively be competing against itself.

[asus killer]

i love the pricing, except theadripper, all CPU's are just a few dollars away from the Intel comparable CPU.

1 dollar cheaper in the case of what will probably be the most top seller R5 2600. That is some serious trolling 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i love the pricing, except theadripper, all CPU's are just a few dollars away from the Intel comparable CPU.

1 dollar cheaper in the case of what will probably be the most top seller R5 2600. That is some serious trolling 

For what they do, AMD & Intel's HEDT platforms actually don't compare very well.