Official AMD Ryzen Benchmarks, Reviews, Prices, and Discussion

[unseenmorbidity]

Are they listing 4.2GHz all cores? If not, then i would assume 4.2GHz boost.

 

[USER8000]

I will judge Ryzen reviews, and the chips, themselves when I will actually see them. Not before.

But its very worrying they are coming up with such crap before the review - if they are going into a review without understanding some basics of the platform it will colour their findings. No shit sherlock an SOC integrating the equivalent of a Core i7 6900 chip and most of its separate southbridge might need a bit more cooling than normal.

Look at the size of the coolers required for a Core i7 6900K,and then add the cooling required for the chipset -why are they not mentioning that or the Intel X99 stock cooler is not only big but noisy.

That is the cooler in action. I wonder how the X99 stock cooler compares??

Its the same with all this news about "AMD HAZ WEAK IMC" yet this weak IMC has been shown to run 3400MHZ DDR4 by AMD on a good motherboard. Biostar has said 3600MHZ.

Intel officially only supports 2400MHZ DDR4.

So what about the X99 motherboards - its almost like they are trying to ignore the Core i7 6900K and its platform and compare it only to the Core i7 7700K.

It makes very worried if indeed the rumours of Intel putting pressure on reviewers is true.

Intel knows very well if the R7 1800X performs well against a Core i7 6900K they will need to cut HEDT prices which will affect Core i7 7700K prices.

If they push reviews to compare against the Core i7 7700K,it means HEDT pricing can be preserved.

 

[looncraz]

So according to him , AMD deceived us ?

TDP != power consumption
TDP = Thermal Design Power (edited... no idea why I wrote "typical dissipation power")

That is to say how much heat energy, in Watts, the product can dissipate.

A device can "consume" 125W and dissipate only 95W of heat. The balance is eventually turned to heat (or kinetic energy), just not within the CPU... the balance will be dissipated in the ground plane of the motherboard, PSU, or even the earth ground outside your house.

 

[Teizo]

Why wouldn't it?

We've seen the videos with live systems and task manager open, showing for example the R7 1700 boosting well up to 3.6-3.7GHz from 3.0GHz base. Check Linus' video for that.

Turbo disabled assures less variability for testing clock for clock performance, that's why you've seen tests like that so far... and because engineering samples used for those leaks were still in the tweaking and getting everything up to speed for launch phase.. one of those features needing tweaking was turbo.

Reviews will be done with turbo enabled since that's default behavior.

Actually...Linus mis-spoke on that. The chip AMD was showcasing during all the pre-launch events was the 1700X...not the 1700. And, in the video you are talking about if you look at the cpu code you see F4_40/36_Y...meaning 3.6ghz base clock and up to 4ghz boost....which is the 1800X (referencing the 8:50 mark in his video).

We will know for sure tomorrow.

-Edit-

This post from Guru3D gives the breakdown on how to read the engineering sample codes

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...h-r15-score-close-to-intel-core-i7-6800k.html

 

[looncraz]

It kind of is though. I remember the pre-BD times in this forum when hype for AMDs new architecture was just as fevered. AMD even had someone from their marketing dept. (JFAMD) who posted regularly (he let everyone know about his job so it wasn't something shady) that further fanned the flames.

Phynaz was one of the few people calling out the stuff that smelled fishy without just throwing shade at AMD over everything as trolls are wont to do. I even argued with him about a few things and more often than not he was right because he wasn't caught up in the excitement or desire to believe only the best.

I've seen him post in other forums and be similarly dismissive of posts that are essentially naive or using rose tinted lens to view the world.

Perhaps it's specifically bad to call out someone, but there are a lot of people who seem to dismiss anything that could be bad. Also his post was a reply to one that basically insinuates that he's a shill so it's pretty easy to forgive him for responding in kind.

I've lurked enough threads to be reasonably convinced he's not some anti-AMD (or anything) shill. I just think he gets annoyed by people who drink too much Koolaid.

By this time for the Bulldozer launch it was well known that Bulldozer appeared to be a disappointment. Practically every leaked benchmark was poor. Only JF_AMD kept saying IPC increased.

At this point we already had the optimization guide and cache details. We knew it was 2 ALU and 2 AGU with a shared FPU that was only about on par with the Sandy Bridge FPU. We already discovered the cache policy and figured it would be a failure - it was a return to a cache style long since abandoned due to poor performance.

Bulldozer was a speed-demon design.

The ONLY hope left was the possibility that all of the leaks were wrong and that, somehow, AMD could use all of a module's resources on the same thread. Otherwise the CPU would be slower than Phenom II at the same clock. It was impossible for it to be faster - it had a third fewer execution resources per core, shared its FPU with another core, and had what appeared to be a horrible cache design... all the while not improving instruction latencies.

This launch is VERY different.

 

[imported_jjj]

Seems that everybody forgot what XFR is supposed to be.

""A lot of processors have pre-programmed clock speed voltage tables," explained AMD's Robert Hallock at CES. "We don't. This is very algorithmic. We analyse power consumption limits, thermal limits, silicon utilisation limits, and out of that boundary, if none of those limits are being met, you can just keep raising clock speed until one of them is. Then you level off the boost and then try to sustain it as long as possible. The system is smart enough to know what's going on inside itself, and adaptive enough to prevent sudden drops in clock speeds.""
source https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/amd-ryzen-motherboards-hype/

We've seen 100MHz in Cinebench but that doesn't mean that clocks won't go higher (or lower for that matter) in other apps.

 

[USER8000]

Is it me,or all these "negatives" about Ryzen we suddenly are hearing are overclocking of the IMC and CPU as a whole but only compared to the Core i7 7700K. How come the weak overclocking of the Core i7 6800K/6850K/6900K for both the CPU as a whole and the IMC is like a dirty family secret not to be mentioned in public??

Unless you pay Intel more money,none of this overclocking is actually promised or officially supported anyway. If these were all 100% possible Intel would be shipping their CPUs at higher clockspeeds for the core and IMC as standard.

 

[3DVagabond]

It doesn't meant that it's running at that speed though.

It would be brilliant for AMD to send RAM kits out that their processors can't run at advertised speeds, wouldn't it?

 

[tential]

Ryzen is an SOC - the CPU has full chipset functions,so what did he expect - don't some of these reviewers even bother to think before spouting stuff??

What is the bet,some review websites will try and isolate CPU power consumption instead of system power consumption to show it in a worse light??

I feel like it's a combination of us becoming more knowledgable as well. We can call these reviewers out on their junk far more easily and in more social outlets.
I barely trust reviewers anymore.

 

[USER8000]

Something else I also read on Overclockers UK forum:

£115 Asus, z170 ddr4 3466 support https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-z170-p-intel-z170-socket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-645-as.html

hmm, weird, have to pay up for more memory support I heard somewhere.

Asus £209, ddr 4 3400 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-maximus-viii-hero-intel-z170-socket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-651-as.html

Gigabyte £450 ddr4 3400 support https://www.overclockers.co.uk/gigabyte-ga-z170x-gaming-g1-intel-z170-socket-1151-ddr4-eatx-motherboard-mb-525-gi.html

Sorry but, bull, for a decade memory support has been pretty damn similar be it a £100 board or a £250 board, but right now, as of Zen, now only £250 boards support good memory, I call bull.


More, Asrock Z270 £115 ddr 4 3733 support https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-z270-pro4-intel-z270-socket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-14s-ak.html

ASrock Z270 £200 ddr4 3733 support https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-z270-gaming-itx-ac-intel-z270-socket-1151-ddr4-mini-itx-motherboard-mb-14j-ak.html

So even current gen Intel, the low end and high end boards have broadly speaking the same memory speed support. 95% of the stuff motherboard vendors add to the high end boards sounds good and does little. It's why the £100 board can achieve almost identical performance to the £400 board, you're talking about spending a huge amount for a marginal performance gain in most cases, extremely marginal memory overclock gains. It's not exactly like paying £80 for a monster power cable... but it's not far off. They want to make higher margins so need to find things to convince customers to pay for.

Again in 20 years of overclocking, working in various places, testing and overclocking hundreds of systems I've seen exceptionally small differences between the more basic overclocking boards and the ones that claim they can clean the kitchen, put your kids to bed and wash the car that cost a hell of a lot more. There is no reason to believe that all of a sudden, only £250 boards will have good overclocking or memory support and cheaper boards won't have anything, it's NEVER worked like that before and zero reason for it to work like that now.


Then something interesting.

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcdffd9b8d9e4dceadceddae3c5b78aba9cf99ca191b7c4f9c9&l=en

Sisoft results giving 33.99GB/s for Zen at 2133Mhz, Skylake gets around 32GB/s.... at 2666Mhz, and 26.1GB/s at 2133Mhz memory. Zen is absolutely phenomenal IMC performance, literally theoretical performance at 2133Mhz is 34.128GB/s.

I've literally pointed this out several times in the past couple of weeks, rumours of insanely efficient IMC also goes hand in hand with running lower speeds.

If AMD gets the same performance at 2666Mhz as Intel does at 3200Mhz... then expecting 3200Mhz just because Intel can do it is arbitrary. Everyone is jumping to conclusions, no one knows that Asus 3200Mhz isn't 2T and way lower bandwidth efficiency.

HAswell was faster at 2400Mhz than 2600Mhz because above 2400Mhz the IMC efficiency tanked badly. You need the ENTIRE picture to judge of 2666Mhz support is slow or fast, just because 2666Mhz seems slow in comparison to Skylake, doesn't mean it's not actually awesome on Zen.

Read the last bit.

 

[Teizo]

Is it me,or all these "negatives" about Ryzen we suddenly are hearing are overclocking of the IMC and CPU as a whole but only compared to the Core i7 7700K. How come the weak overclocking of the Core i7 6800K/6850K/6900K for both the CPU as a whole and the IMC is like a dirty family secret not to be mentioned in public??

Unless you pay Intel more money,none of this overclocking is actually promised or officially supported anyway. If these were all 100% possible Intel would be shipping their CPUs at higher clockspeeds for the core and IMC as standard.

Well, all the tests so far have been done stock vs stock where AMD appears to have the advantage. If Ryzen chips don't turbo as well as some are saying and overclock poorly...then in the end Intel may still likely have the 'performance' crown as their chips overclock well and very few people buying 7700ks and X99 chips run them at stock frequencies. Overclocking is not guaranteed..but it is really easy. So, that will be the tale of tape. Ryzen will be competitive regardless and anyone buying one will likely not be disappointed. The bottom line question to be answered though will Ryzen beat Intel's chips hands down or will their be caveats.

 

[USER8000]

Well, all the tests so far have been done stock vs stock wear AMD will have the advantage. If Ryzen chips don't turbo as well as some are saying and overclock poorly...then in the end Intel will still likely have the crown as their chips overclock well and very few people buying 7700ks and X99 chips run them at stock frequencies. Overclocking is not guaranteed..but it is really easy. So, that will be the tale of tape. Ryzen will be competitive regardless and anyone buying one will likely not be disappointed. The bottom line question to be answered though will Ryzen beat Intel's chips hands down or will their be caveats.

X99 Broadwell chips do not overclock well at all and the places where I worked which had large scale deployments of socket 1366 systems and socket 2011 systems all had them running at stock speeds.

Look at HWBOT:

Core i7 6800K - 4.197GHZ with 3304 entries

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6800k/

Core i7 6850K - 4.475GHZ with 2804 entries

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6850k/

Core i7 6900K - 4.37GHZ with 1302 entries

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6900k/

Its why pushing the narrative to the Core i7 7700K works for Intel. Those X99 Broadwell chips won't have much of a clockspeed advantage to swing things their way,especially if Ryzen is similar IPC.

The same goes with the IMC - quad channel memory does not really help X99 Broadwell and the IMC cannot be overclocked as much as Skylake can.

Edit to post.

Also read my previous post - if the Ryzen IMC is actually more efficient then all the noise of a weak IMC is rather unusual and comes from websites just looking at pure clockspeeds and not actual memory bandwidth and is good for Intel.

 

[3DVagabond]

Looks like Intel wants the 1800X vs. 7700K. More expensive AMD vs cheaper Intel. Then they just need to salt the reviews with enough tests that don't scale beyond 4C/8T and they win. Even if Ryzen keeps up the 7700K will likely O/C better and then that will be the metric that gives them the win. Either way the 7700K is the chip that will look best vs the 1800X. The 6900K will make them look like the overpriced ripoff artists that they've become. I want to see the 1700 vs. 7700K in a wide variety of apps. Same priced CPU's. Which gives better bang/$?

 

[USER8000]

Lisa Su is on record as saying Ryzen APUs for notebooks will be released towards the end of the year. It makes sense for AMD to have an efficient IMC ready to go in light of the APU release and OEMs like using cheaper RAM where possible. Its why all this focusing on IMC clockspeed is not telling a whole story.

 

[Mockingbird]

That is the cooler in action.

It looks really cool.

Now I wish AMD has included the Wraith Max Cooler with the Ryzen 7 1700X/1800X

 

[zinfamous]

Looks like Intel wants the 1800X vs. 7700K. More expensive AMD vs cheaper Intel. Then they just need to salt the reviews with enough tests that don't scale beyond 4C/8T and they win. Even if Ryzen keeps up the 7700K will likely O/C better and then that will be the metric that gives them the win. Either way the 7700K is the chip that will look best vs the 1800X. The 6900K will make them look like the overpriced ripoff artists that they've become. I want to see the 1700 vs. 7700K in a wide variety of apps. Same priced CPU's. Which gives better bang/$?

I want to see the 1600X vs 7700K...

 

[rtsurfer]

NVM

 

[Mopetar]

Intel knows very well if the R7 1800X performs well against a Core i7 6900K they will need to cut HEDT prices which will affect Core i7 7700K prices.

If they push reviews to compare against the Core i7 7700K,it means HEDT pricing can be preserved.

HEDT prices are going to come down from Intel no matter what. Their 4 core i7 prices might not move too much if they still offer a competitive niche. Most current games (you cant talk about the future all you want, but people can only game in the present. Never mind that by the time the future is here any current chips are going to be outdated.) don't scale well beyond 2-6 threads and even some of those that do are typically are bound by a single thread that's running some important task such that a high clocking 7700k is a better choice if all you care about is gaming performance.

Even if Intel's HEDT prices come down, they can keep the i7 K chip at the exact same price if AMD doesn't offer good enough competition or a deep enough discount for close enough. Sure a HEDT might be a better value for a long list of tasks, but if you don't do those tasks and only care about the one where the i7 K excels, then that's what you'd buy. Anyone in the market for an 8 core CPU is going to look at the tasks that they need them for and unless Intel drops their price, most people would go with AMD unless there's some really niche use case where the Intel still holds enough performance value to justify twice the cost.

 

[Insomniator]

So kind of unrelated but is there basically no point in me (or anyone) getting an x99 system? MC has good deals on them and I always kind of like getting the weirder stuff but I guess a 1700x is better than a 6800k even priced the same? Plus x99 is an old platform?

 

[looncraz]

So kind of unrelated but is there basically no point in me (or anyone) getting an x99 system? MC has good deals on them and I always kind of like getting the weirder stuff but I guess a 1700x is better than a 6800k even priced the same? Plus x99 is an old platform?

It's not like the platform doesn't work. It's just that it has been relegated to an overpriced clusterfsck.

 

[lolfail9001]

Look at the size of the coolers required for a Core i7 6900K,and then add the cooling required for the chipset -why are they not mentioning that or the Intel X99 stock cooler is not only big but noisy.

Because it is not sold with CPU in any retail package. You know, just like very few people will pay for the Wraith Max.

Its the same with all this news about "AMD HAZ WEAK IMC" yet this weak IMC has been shown to run 3400MHZ DDR4 by AMD on a good motherboard. Biostar has said 3600MHZ.

Yes, 3600Mhz, but at what timings? To me it looks fairly obvious that since they run 1T command rate they have way looser timings than required.

Intel officially only supports 2400MHZ DDR4.

JEDEC standards, look these up.

If they push reviews to compare against the Core i7 7700K,it means HEDT pricing can be preserved.

AMD helped them with that: they compare 1700 against 7700k themselves.

Also read my previous post - if the Ryzen IMC is actually more efficient then all the noise of a weak IMC is rather unusual and comes from websites just looking at pure clockspeeds and not actual memory bandwidth and is good for Intel.

Everyone who talks about weak IMC does mention that bandwidth is good (i mean, 1T command rate, of course it is good, even Broadwell-E hits 91% efficiency with 1T). But latency is not. And believe it or not, games like their latency, though faster cache should solve that one.

Anyways, 3 days to go for fanboys on both sides to realize that Zen is not the next coming of Jesus or the next coming of Bulldozer. It is Phenom III.

 

[rtsurfer]

It took Intel 3 generations (Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake) to hit 4000mhz on DDR4.


But AMD is supposed to be able to do it right out of the gate. Seems okay I guess.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[tviceman]

It took Intel 3 generations (Haswell-E, Broadwell-E, Skylake) to hit 4000mhz on DDR4.


But AMD is supposed to be able to do it right out of the gate. Seems okay I guess.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

The same sort of situation happened with AMD and Nvidia. AMD had significantly better memory controllers than Nvidia during the mid 2000's, but starting with Kepler Nvidia was able to suddenly bolt past AMD in memory speeds for a few years. It's not unreasonable to think AMD built a strong memory controller on top of the other massive improvements they are rolling out over their previous architecture.

 

[CatMerc]

Something else I also read on Overclockers UK forum:



Read the last bit.

Those sticks might be running at 3000MT/s, rather than 2133MT/s. The sticks are CMK16GX4M2B3000C15, which is rated at 3000MT/s, and is what reviewers got with their review samples.

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcdffd9b8d9e4dceadcead9efc9bb86b690f590ad9dbbc8f5c5

Here I tested my 6600K with memory at 3000MT/s 15-17-17-35 2T, and besides getting a similar score, the software detected 4000MT/s for whatever reason. So I don't think Sandra's detection is very good.

https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/836346777267761155

Our primary source for Ryzen information for many months is claiming the IMC is slow.

Everyone who talks about weak IMC does mention that bandwidth is good (i mean, 1T command rate, of course it is good, even Broadwell-E hits 91% efficiency with 1T). But latency is not. And believe it or not, games like their latency, though faster cache should solve that one.

I had considered that if the IMC really is approaching near 100% of the theoretical bandwidth, this may have been a concious decision by AMD to have higher latency for better throughput.
This would be perfect for Raven Ridge.

 

[lolfail9001]

But AMD is supposed to be able to do it right out of the gate. Seems okay I guess.

Haswell-E did 3000 on 8 DIMMs right out of the gate. With some tweaking, i would not lie, but it did.

So, seems okay i guess, all the more reasons to wait for Zen 2.

Here I tested my 6600K with memory at 3000MT/s 15-17-17-35 2T, and besides getting a similar score, the software detected 4000MT/s for whatever reason. So I don't think Sandra's detection is very good.

Well, that sort of crashes the entire hype train. We'll see on March 2nd if it'll recover. Timing detection looks right though.