AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

[Insert_Nickname]

Ryzen 4C/8T 4.0 GHz CPU will be on par with 4790K. If it will cost 199$, will it compete with Core i3's, or Core i7700K?

At that price 4C/8T Ryzen will compete with mid-range i5s, and likely doing very well at it, offering 4790K-esque performance for $199. It might even be a little too successful. If AMD really want to step up competition they could offer the lowest tier 8C/8T (or 6C/12T) at $250 as a direct competitor to the x600K. Double the cores for the same price. Easy marketing too.

Anyway we shall know in 28 days...

 

[dullard]

Why would they do that? Phrases like its an enthusiast product are just throw away lines they dont mean anything. Zeppelin is a 180-200mm sq CPU, cost of manufacture , testing , packaging and desired mix off GP will determine price not intels pricing structure. Why would AMD not want to complete in the 100-200 market?

It is an enthusiast product, since it is a large expensive processor with many cores (at least at launch).

Plus, the best price to sell it at is the price that maximizes profit. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with cost to produce, unless the maximum profit is negative (in which case it may be best not to produce it). The price is set instead by supply and demand. The demand has everything to do with Intel's pricing structure. If Intel is a better value, few will buy AMD. So, Intel's prices have everything to do with AMD's prices. That is, unless AMD and Intel can produce significantly different processors, so different that we just have two monopolies instead of competition.

Why does AMD not want to compete in the $100 market? Because they tried that for decades, losing money all the time, nearly going bankrupt several times. Being a budget product, means that OEMs put them in with terrible motherboards, terrible laptops, etc. That just gives AMD a bad name. It is time for AMD to try to become a performance company with premium products. That is where the money is at. Apple didn't become one of the world's biggest companies selling bottom-of-the-barrel products.

AMD has a small history of being an enthusiast product. They priced the processors accordingly. The first 1 GHz processor was AMD (by a couple days), and it cost far more than Intel (the Athlon 1000 was $1,299 at launch and the Pentium III 1000 was $990). Don't just assume that AMD will be cheap if they have a good product.

 

[cytg111]

With the complete lack of leaks since what, Canard? It sure looks like AMD is running a tight ship here... and that the leaks that we have gotten so far has been sanctioned.
I dont think we will see another zen bench for the rest of february.

 

[AtenRa]

Yea looks AMD is in quiet mode now until the official launch.

 

[Doom2pro]

The calm before the storm... Going to be a flurry of activity in about a month from now, going to be hard to adjust from sporadic leaks to no leaks to suddenly too much information to digest... What a journey it's been.

 

[Sweepr]

Revealed details of our upcoming “Zen”-based processor architecture, go-to-market strategy and performance. (AMD Ryzen™ processor for desktops is expected to ship in early March 2017. “Naples” processor for servers is expected to ship in Q2 2017)

https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...yfFBhcmVudElEPTUyNDY0NDJ8Q2hpbGRJRD02NTc4OTI=

 

[inf64]

Launch seems to be a month from now ( start of March). Dunno about the NDA liftoff but if I had to guess it will be launch day or thereabout.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Again with this? Ryzen is gona be a ENTHUSIAST product line, think for one second, if AMD prices 4C 8T Ryzen anywhere near $170 (and you are still missing 4C/4T), whats the point in a AM4 APU line?

At the time Ryzen launches, the only APU lineup AMD will have is Bristol Ridge which is still mostly MIA except in rare APU + mobo bundles and OEM machines. The top-end APU at the time of Ryzen launch will settle in to a price point below $100 where it will (sort of) compete with the new HT-enabled Pentiums.

You are thinking they will sell a sub $100 A12-9800?

Yes. Everything in their lineup pre-Summit Ridge will be severely devalued to the point where it will have to sell at a major discount.

If they perform like AMD said, 4C/4T will be placed against mainstream I5 and 4C/8T against mainstream I7.

No. See below.

Lots of slides from today's event:

http://www.sweclockers.com/forum/post/16639315

Thanks. Looks like Asus finally came through. I am interested in knowing more about the "ROG Exclusive" VRM design on the Crosshair VI Hero.

You're ignoring the fact that those Athlon X4 processors are slower than the i3s they're trying to compete with. 4C8T Ryzen will not be competing with i3s, and so it will not be priced like one.

Okay, hear me out.

AMD needs to do two things with Ryzen: improve their brand image and beat Intel at their chosen price points.

AMD can't compete directly with HEDT due to platform constraints, so don't expect them to go head-to-head with Intel at that level. What they CAN do is take advantage of the high(er) core counts on their mainstream desktop platform (AM4) to beat Intel in raw throughput, even if they can't win the ST performance title against Kabylake.

AMD's best bet is:

4c/8t Ryzen vs i3-7350k: price at +15-20% of MSRP of i3-7350k
8c/8t Ryzen vs i5-7600k: price at +20%-30% of MSRP of i5-7600k
8c/16t Ryzen vs i7-7700k: price at +40% of MSRP of i7-7700k

My prediction is that there will be no 4c/4t Ryzen, just as there likely will be no 6c/12t Ryzen.

edit: I will add that CanardPC is saying there may be 4c/4t Ryzen along with a second 8c/16t SKU, though I am uncertain of where AMD will put those in the pricing structure. 4c/4t would probably come in at the ~$130-$150 mark with Bristol Ridge being pushed into the sub-$100 range.

I am guessing that the top-end "BE" 8c/16t will hit the $499 mark, while the lower-end one would be in the range of $350-$400.

$290 for the 8c/8t chip

$200 for the 4c/8t chip

Why does AMD not want to compete in the $100 market?

Because Intel just dropped the 2c/4t Pentium bomb.

 

[Shivansps]

Ok when you get back into reality call me.

 

[ultima_trev]

Going by the Canard PC leaks from last December, Ryzen has about 95-96% of the IPC of Broadwell-E while the IPC advantages of Sky/Kaby Lake versus BW-E are near-negligible. Right now, it seems Ryzen's success hinges on the following:

1) Clocks. If it can't hit at least 4.8 GHz like the i7 7700K (which seems to do so with ease) those extra cores/threads will do nothing for them in mainstream workloads.

2) Price. This is where it looks murky. An 8 core/16 thread Ryzen CPU, assuming it can OC to 4.8+ GHz will most likely cost significantly more than the i7 7700K. AMD could probably position it against the 6900K performance wise but price it like the i7 6850K. Great for people looking towards HEDT for more professional workloads, not great for gamers who just need a fast quad core overclocked to hell. Maybe a 6C/12T or 8C/8T version will be closer to the i7 7700K price wise and assuming it can clock as well, beat it over all.

 

[Lepton87]

Going by the Canard PC leaks from last December, Ryzen has about 95-96% of the IPC of Broadwell-E while the IPC advantages of Sky/Kaby Lake versus BW-E are near-negligible. Right now, it seems Ryzen's success hinges on the following:

1) Clocks. If it can't hit at least 4.8 GHz like the i7 7700K (which seems to do so with ease) those extra cores/threads will do nothing for them in mainstream workloads.

That's non-sense. So 6 cores on my CPUs do nothing over 4 cores just because it clocks at 4.25GHz? Good logic. The 8 core ryzen won't compete with the 7700K it will compete with the broadwell-e CPUs that don't overclock to 4.8GHz more like 4.2GHz. If it overclocks to 4.8GHz why would AMD make it any cheaper than the 8 core 6900K 1000$ dollars CPU? It seems that what you want is a CPU that is faster than a 1000$ dollars CPU from Intel and priced at 1/3 the price just like the mainstream 7700k. Talk about high expectations. The top part shouldn't even try to compete with the 7700K as it's in entirely different category.

 

[KTE]

With these consecutive delays, AMD already having delayed the product from Q4 16 to last month of Q1 17 despite saying it won't be the end of Q1, there is no chance this product is what is being hyped.

Sorry to be a downer, but.

No chance.

I've seen this too many times before.

By the time they decide to launch the limited quantities, Intel will highly likely already have something much better. This has always been AMDs shortcoming.

I kept screaming in Sept that having a good product is not all that is needed to be competitive. This is why.

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)

 

[Sweepr]

First review samples of Ryzen CPUs should reach reviewers in about 2 to 3 weeks. Around the same time, X370 motherboards from AMD partners should be sent out to the reviewers. Interestingly Kabylake motherboards were sent out to reviewers months before the official introduction.

https://videocardz.com/65654/amd-ryzen-6-core-cpu-exists

 

[jpiniero]

With these consecutive delays, AMD already having delayed the product from Q4 16 to last month of Q1 17 despite saying it won't be the end of Q1, there is no chance this product is what is being hyped.

Disagree, well I guess it depends on what your hyped for I guess. They delayed it pretty obviously to get another spin to get the clocks higher, and if that happened in December an early March release is really pushing it to release Ryzen if they wanted to include those chips for launch.

 

[DrMrLordX]

By the time they decide to launch the limited quantities, Intel will highly likely already have something much better. This has always been AMDs shortcoming.

What exactly is Intel going to launch that is "much better"?

Skylake-X is coming in August, and it will be HEDT pricing all over again unless Intel really slashes prices across the board.

Coffeelake is coming in "Q1 2018" whenever that is, and it tops out at 6c/12t. Basically take Kabylake and add two cores, and there you go. Unknown clock potential but don't automatically expect 5 GHz Coffeelake in the 6c variant.

If AMD keeps prices on their top-end Summit Ridge low enough ($500 and below) then Intel has nothing that will clearly unseat it at the same price point until . . . Icelake?

 

[Doom2pro]

If AMD keeps prices on their top-end Summit Ridge low enough ($500 and below) then Intel has nothing that will clearly unseat it at the same price point until . . . Icelake?

Ehh is it me or is their product stack getting more and more depressing as their code names?

Ryzen cannot get here sooner.

 

[ultima_trev]

That's non-sense. So 6 cores on my CPUs do nothing over 4 cores just because it clocks at 4.25GHz? Good logic. The 8 core ryzen won't compete with the 7700K it will compete with the broadwell-e CPUs that don't overclock to 4.8GHz more like 4.2GHz. If it overclocks to 4.8GHz why would AMD make it any cheaper than the 8 core 6900K 1000$ dollars CPU? It seems that what you want is a CPU that is faster than a 1000$ dollars CPU from Intel and priced at 1/3 the price just like the mainstream 7700k. Talk about high expectations. The top part shouldn't even try to compete with the 7700K as it's in entirely different category.

Assuming the same IPC, a 4.2 GHz 6 core is better than a 4.8 GHz quad core... in multi-threaded workloads. However that wasn't my point.

Point being that the average consumer does not need or likely want a 6 or 8 core CPU. HEDT is a smaller niche than the gaming PC market so AMD would have to price their competitors to i7 68xx or i7 69xx under the i7 7700K as 1) they don't have the brand recognition of Intel and 2) most consumers will benefit more from an i7 7700K than something like a HEDT i7 68xx or i7 69xx.

I would gladly pay $800 for a Ryzen CPU if it performs on par with the i7 6900K and plan on doing so in my next build, however that doesn't change the fact most people will choose an i5 7xxx or i7 7xxx because it will benefit them more for their lightly threaded loads and be faster in said loads.

 

[Atari2600]

however that doesn't change the fact most people will choose an i5 7xxx or i7 7xxx because

Sadly, most people will choose Intel because they make the best chips.... right?

Consumer ignorance will allow Intel to continue to price far in excess of AMD for the same performance.


Others may be bright enough to ask someone who knows a bit, and may then get told the obvious; "buy the AMD CPU, you'll get almost the same performance for $200 less, then spend that $200 on a better GPU".

 

[Sweepr]

Ryzen 8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz

https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1485365573.A.E03.html
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/409f0980-b72c-4d49-b6b8-2c4847c6bb5d

Real or Fake?

Spoiler

i7-990X (Westmere, 2010)

i7-6700K (Skylake, 2015)

i7-7700K (Kaby Lake, 2017)

i7-6850K (Broadwell-E, 2016)

 

[jpiniero]

That Ashes Ryzen benchmark is obviously fake.

 

[inf64]

Ashes has "Ryzen" as CPU name, a red flag. Also version 1.5?

 

[Doom2pro]

I remember that profile name, AMD_FanBoy... Wasn't that the same profile in the last fake?

 

[lolfail9001]

I remember that profile name, AMD_FanBoy... Wasn't that the same profile in the last fake?

What last fake? The only AotS leaks before that screen are in OP and there is no such profile to be seen.

 

[Glo.]

What last fake? The only AotS leaks before that screen are in OP and there is no such profile to be seen.

Because the AMD_Fanboy or whatever its called removed previous scores, for Vega GPU, that appeared on his profile and were faked.

 

[Greyguy1948]

Let us take a look at single thread.
I guess 40% higher than Excavator means on small benchmarks for L1 but they are few today.
So i had a look at Kraken 1.1 (mostly single thread) and Cinebench R10 single.
Kraken for Athlon 845 = 1846 ------> 1318 this is like Westmere at 3.6 or Haswell at 2.1 GHz
CB-R10 for Athlon 845 = 4265 ------>5971 this is like Sandy Bridge at 3.4 or Haswell at 2.1 GHz

But sure L2 and L3 cache could mean more!
2 times higher BW on L2 and 5 times higher on L3 compared to Bulldozer.
They never made any Excavator with L3