Why is sm625 calling it a turd? At those clockspeeds thats good results by ryzen.
edit: there you are, AMD ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y
It's using a GTX 1080, 16GB DDR4, an MSI A320M PRO-VD (bummer, no X370) on W10 14393
Holy cow, that is bad bad bad in writes and latency department.Ryzen's results here that would show in the boxes:
Memory mark: 1855
Database: 78 Kops/sec
Memory read uncached: 14915 Mbytes/sec
Memory threaded: 34011 Mbytes/sec
Memory read cached: 28006 Mbytes/sec
Memory write: 7917 Mbytes/sec
Memory latency: 76 ns
I am convinced single threaded passmark was certainly running at 3.8Ghz. Do not know about multi threaded tests though, but it should be enough to establish that rest of tests were not running on higher clock than that.For all anyone knows the "automatic overclocking" feature might be activated, given that the processor is launching so soon.
I'm going to take all of this with a grain of salt both ways. The absolutely terrible memory scores mean that there's a moderate amount of performance left on the table once that's fixed, but there's also no way to be sure of what clockspeed the Ryzen sample is running at. For all anyone knows the "automatic overclocking" feature might be activated, given that the processor is launching so soon.
But for sure, the initial signs are very promising.
No automatic overclocking / XFR, the motherboard is using the A320 chipset which doesn't support overclocking along with A300. B350, X300 and X370 are the overclocking enabled chipsets.
Well, he managed to throw more actual coal into the hype loco than AMD over half a year, if we are honest. If that memory issue does not get resolved on launch, i can see it biting AMD in the arse in gaming benchmarks though.sm625 has gone missing. He unintentionally fuelled the hype train, trolled himself and set us all for a journey to infinity... and beyond
Yeah, if that's at 3.4GHz, then it's faster per-clock than Haswell (3.7GHz boost i5-4590), but only very slightly (1.8%).
edit2: Passmark knows how to read turbo VERY well athough it doesn't show such information when it builds the graphs. Have a look at my system vs this Ryzen baseline. It has correctly read my 4.5GHz turbo settings. We can be pretty sure those Intel baselines he chose are clocked at the speeds shown.
It was a dual channel setup. The motherboard has two RAM slots and...
the baseline shows two 8GB sticks installed. I'll put up the individual memory results in a little while so you guys can see what the program is actually testing.
So, the individual tests are as follows (the results in the pictures are from my system):
Ryzen's scores here that would show in the boxes:
CPU mark: 15084
Integer: 39672 Mops/sec
Prime: 37 million primes /sec
Compression: 24723 KBytes/sec
Physics: 726 Frames/sec
CPU ST: 2046 Mops/sec
FP: 14807 Mops/sec
SSE: 717 Million Matrices /sec
Encryption: 3865 Mbytes/sec
Sorting: 15204 Thousand Strings/sec
Ryzen's results here that would show in the boxes:
Memory mark: 1855
Database: 78 Kops/sec
Memory read uncached: 14915 Mbytes/sec
Memory threaded: 34011 Mbytes/sec
Memory read cached: 28006 Mbytes/sec
Memory write: 7917 Mbytes/sec
Memory latency: 76 ns
Ryzen is running with DDR4 2400 17-17-17-39 probably 2T. Explains the poor results, those timings suck for that memory speed. Now we can either find baselines using stock Intel processors or you can download the benchmark, run it on a stock system and directly compare the results. You can't get any clearer than this on this leak.
It is a QS, in fact, it's spec looks to match that of 1700x at glance.But this is an ES.
It is a QS, in fact, it's spec looks to match that of 1700x at glance.
EDIT: Hm, 16 caches is weird, indeed, lemme check real quick.
Can't be real. Wen know Ryzen can beat 6900k in MT.Hmm, a 3.8 GHz Ryzen losing out against the 3.6 GHz i3 on ST is a very telling about its IPC.
meh, write are @1:2 to to read, so not really a big deal. 76ns isn't bad its just not good, skylake with 2400mhz is around 52ns.Holy cow, that is bad bad bad in writes and latency department.
- Damn, how much money did we bet? I am pretty sure I put my car down on 5% slower IPC than broadwell..Yeah, if that's at 3.4GHz, then it's faster per-clock than Haswell (3.7GHz boost i5-4590), but only very slightly (1.8%).
Can't be real. Wen know Ryzen can beat 6900k in MT.
So to loose this badly in St but beat in MT, AMDs SMT implementation must be so much superior than Intel's that it just impossible.
everything outside Amd own benchmarks points Ryzen underperforming badly...Canard benchmarks, sandra sisoftware benchmarks etc