Based on some new Leaks! =)
Ryzen SR7 @ 3.4 Ghz No Turbo
CB R15 Score : 1188
Core i7-7700K @ 4.2 Ghz on all cores
CB R15 Score : 966
Core i7-6900k @ 3.5 Ghz on all cores
CB R15 Score : 1500
How do you compare?
Read more...
Ryzen 8c/16t @ 3.4 ghz no turbo
Score : 54 seconds
Intel i7 6900k @ 3.7 turbo (3.5 on all 8c)
Score : 59 seconds
Instructions as per AMD James
"AMD_jamesProduct Manager 4 points 4 days ago
The statement for download yourself was for the blender file. However you can test the handbrake one...
Theoretically,
If a 3.4 ghz flat Ryzen SR7 scores 36 seconds @ 150 Samples in the Blender test
A 4.5 Ghz overclock will yield ~27.2 seconds
A 4.7 overclock will yield ~26.0 seconds
A 4.8 Ghz overclock will yield ~25.5 seconds
A 5.0 Ghz overclock will yield ~24.4 seconds
4.125 Ghz stable...
The SR7 scores are not clarified directly by AMD
Its 25 second score at 100 samples
and 36 seconds at 150 samples
There are two different test settings, dont confuse them!
Post your Ryzen Blender Demo Scores with your setup!
Ryzen SR7 - 3.4 Ghz (No Turbo) : 25 seconds - Samples 100
Ryzen Sr7 - 3.4 Ghz (No Turbo) : 36 Seconds- Samples 150
EDIT: Make sure to set to 100 or 150 samples to compare !
EDIT: To Compare to the presentation score of 36 seconds, set...
Its 20 dollars a year difference AmD vs intel! Teksyndicate already proved how negligibile this is. Power consumption is only really a factor in mobile and server.
Get a 9370/9590 if you want the highest chances at getting 5.0-5.1 Ghz stable with a good Air or closed water cooling solution. They are basically better binned chips than the 8320 which typically will hit 4.5/4.6 Ghz Stable even with an H100i. Regardless, the FX 8320 is the price to performance...
this was already confirmed not to be the problem for why ivy bridge over heats.
http://www.eteknix.com/news/ivy-bridge-heat-problems-remain-even-after-ihs-removal/
This looks like great news to me!
Look at the results carefully
IPC of trinity BEATS IPC of LLano (K 10.5) because both the A10-4655m AND the A6-3400m turbo to the exact same 2.3 ghz clock. This just implies the IPC jump from current bulldozer will be huge! If the math is correct, and IPC is...
I will be in the third part of my review. I laugh at any one who thinks my results are BS because you simply have no concrete evidence to make such a idiotic claim. My results are mostly CPU based so do some basic first grade math with OC scaling by % from stock results and voila my results are...
Unless you have an FX 8150 that overclocks to 4.9 Ghz and a 6990 that overclocks to 990/1500 you are not qualified to judge whether my results are "made up". Any one with an FX 8150, or with common sense (36.1% clock scaled up from reviews at stock on CPU) can confirm my results within error.
Its called science :whistle
Intel seems to be happy with a mere 3% increase in IPC, while Trinity IPC is looking great in Engineering Sample benchmarks. We will see May 15th!
Can you do a Fritz Chess benchmark run with 1 thread / 4 threads? And a WPrime 32m - 1x Thread run aswell. Thanks again man! Ill be using your results in my next post!
With the next generation of Bulldozer chips, increased IPC and decreased power consumption will be the focus (15-20% per gen).
Looking at my overlocked results at 4.9 Ghz, a 15-20% increase in IPC will push the FX 8350 ahead of ivy bridge in many scenarios, but it will still fall behind IPC...
Remember scaling on all 8 cores for FX is not double scaling on all 4 for the i5.
If an FX 8150 scales as 6.69 for 8 cores, the i5 2500k doesnt necessarily scale half this (3.34) but closer to ~3.62 ish.
Part II for my review will be up tomorrow or the next day!
I can confirm that windows 8 CP does increase FX performance by up to 15% in certain Passmark Performance CPU tests when compared to windows 7 at the same 4.9 ghz overclock. But due to GPU driver problems, I am working on windows 7 SP1 now, and my benchmarks are all in windows 7.
This is true, but intel has the benefit of IPC always counting towards performance in benchmarks or games and multihtreaded applications, and more cores/threads not (in all scenarios).. Soon cores/threads will be a lot more valuable, and IPC will only become less of a factor as it naturally...
Still there are numerous cases where an FX 8150 with 8 threads will beat the i5 2500k.
The i5 2500k is only more appealing to gamers because it has strong 4 core performance, where many dx11 games still only use 2-4 cores effectively.
Multi threaded encoding performance for example will show...
Thanks man, is that tech arp x264 HD? the scores seem off
heres a link
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520
and whats your single core performance in cb11.5?
Scaling for bulldozer isnt double the 2600k, but neither is IPC of ivy over FX (although in some cases it might be, generally it is not). When all threads are used it just about makes up for lost IPC per thread. FX is seen to fail most when all 8 threads arent taken advantage of.
Awesome man! I have a few requests for you then!
CPUMark99
Fritz Chess 4.3 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 10 - 1 core performance
Cinebench 11.5 - 1 core performance
TechARP x264 HD - first pass
would love to see how a single 4.9 ghz FX thread goes up against a 4.0 Ghz phenom II thread...
I am looking for someone with an 1100t that can oc to 4.2-4.3 range who would be willing to help me have more data points for comparison. (another column beside intel 3770k).
Also due to the high demand for a power consumption numbers during stress, Ill be getting to this as well! Thanks for...
PART I of V : Return of AMD FX, Enter Gigabyte
My System:
AMD FX 8150 @ 4.90 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Maingear T1000 TIM
8 Gb DDR3 Team Xtreem 2400 cl9 @ @ 1987 Mhz / CL9
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7
XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @...
For my CPU or GPU? Regardless my clocks are more than stable enough for long term use and every benchmark i ran multiple times without any issue. :confused:
Here are some pics of my new motherboard + ram together. New Post with New benchmarks April 20th.
---
Exit
ASUS Crosshair V +
4 Gb Gskill 2200 CL7
---
Enter
GA-990FX-UD7 +
8 Gb Team Xtreem 2400 CL9
The first thing that came to mind when I first laid eyes on my new Gigabyte 990FX...
The 960T is on a whole other level. So in this case the 960T is the better choice.
However, the FX 6100 is more equivalent to the 960T, so if your thinking about going FX this is the chip you should look at.
I highly doubt the 6670 is being bottle necked, but then again it is dual core, and quad core is really the standard these days. But I am pretty sure that when core 2 duo was the bestm that the best graphics card was about as good as a 6670 (was it a 8800 Ultra?)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.