1st Ryzen CPU Review Leaked

razor1 said:
Err there were two reviews there, and I just added to my original post with the links and added one sentence. So if you think that is substantial, geez.
Click to expand...
Adding new info. like a video is pretty big. And you completely rewrote post #78 which was only 1 sentence when I replied too.
 
mesyn191 said:
Adding new info. like a video is pretty big. And you completely rewrote post #78 which was only 1 sentence when I replied too.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with you about my post, you replied to a post that had the first half of the post there, before the links lol, so what ever.

The info is there now, so there ya go.
 
freeloader1969 said:
Should change the title of the thread to "preview of Zen". No one reviews an ES.
Click to expand...
Eh that sorta happened with the original K7 I believe.

Someone benched a ES K7 before it launched back in 1999 or so and it did pretty poorly on the tests which prompted AMD to make some public comments about it being a ES and not representative of the final product. That was back when Sanders was still running things I think so a very different AMD.
 
razor1 said:
you replied to a post that had the first half of the post there, before the links lol, so what ever.
Click to expand...
You're supposed to finish your post then hit reply, especially since you seem to care about context and keeping things straight in a thread right?

razor1 said:
The info is there now, so there ya go.
Click to expand...
I already addressed it in a post you quoted on the previous page.
 
mesyn191 said:
You're supposed to finish your post then hit reply, especially since you seem to care about context and keeping things straight in a thread right?


I already addressed it in a post you quoted on the previous page.
Click to expand...


and you totally missed the link. The video was only part of it not only that if you watched the full video you would know the min frame times were better for the higher memory in more than 2 of the games tested......
 
razor1 said:
and you totally missed the link. The video was only part of it not only that if you watched the full video you would know the min frame times were better for the higher memory in more than 2 of the games tested......
Click to expand...
No I skimmed the link. I didn't mention it because its shit and does things like play up a .3 second increase in Excel as if its significant. Its not so much a real article as it is a memory ad. And min. frame rates hardly budged dude. Keep reaching.

Until you can show me large performance increases in line with large increases of memory bandwidth across the board in nearly all apps you've got nothing as far as I'm concerned. That is what happens when bottlenecks are fixed.
 
mesyn191 said:
No I skimmed the link. I didn't mention it because its shit and does things like play up a .3 second increase in Excel as if its significant. Its not so much a real article as it is a memory ad. And min. frame rates hardly budged dude. Keep reaching.

Until you can show me large performance increases in line with large increases of memory bandwidth across the board in nearly all apps you've got nothing as far as I'm concerned. That is what happens when bottlenecks are fixed.
Click to expand...


so 54% increase in app performance when doing something isn't big for you?

a 19% increase in frame rates in a game isn't big for you,

Going to link the graphs

Photoshop.png


Sorry but its not .3 seconds I'm looking at here
HandBrake.png


How many FPS difference is there?

ARMA3.png


That's a pretty big increase in FPS its nowhere near the 5%, its double that.

Fallout.png


Well this ones is 19%

Highly App dependent but they all show the same thing, Skylake is Bandwidth bound

Now this is the question I have for you, and how anyone can extrapolate data when the CPU is boosting different under different loads, and what the memory frequency and how it will affect the performance?

Orange + GRAPEFRUIT = UGLI FRUIT

That is what ya get when someone tries to extrapolate data like this.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
so 54% increase in app performance when doing something isn't big for you?
Click to expand...
Is it across the board? You know it isn't. Its application specific. We have the links on the previous page showing it frequently does nothing. So you know my answer. Stop being facetious.
 
mesyn191 said:
Is it across the board? You know it isn't. Its application specific. We have the links on the previous page showing it frequently does nothing. So you know my answer. Stop being facetious.
Click to expand...


Wow do you want me to quote myself when I stated that, it was well before you even started posting in this thread

razor1 said:
What are you trying to show here? Memory bandwidth, IPC, changes, what? What are you trying to baseline before you make your extrapolation? Cause it all changes based on what programs what you are looking at and what you are trying to equalize before you extrapolate. Pointing to different reviews and trying to show something, doesn't show only one thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not being facetious at all. I was very clear on what I was talking about and tried to clear up the mess the other guy started with.

So after showing you what I stated was on the money, now I'm acting silly, and it all doesn't matter?
 
razor1 said:
Wow do you want me to quote myself when I stated that, it was well before you even started posting in this thread
Click to expand...
That quote has nothing to do with what I've said nor your other claims about Skylake being bandwidth bottlenecked or Purley either. Its just a vague platitude at best and at worst it comes off to me like you're trying to discredit other sources of information.

razor1 said:
I'm not being facetious at all. I was very clear on what I was talking about
Click to expand...
Nope on both. The constant after the fact post rediting information + constant rediting snark/insults + the way you misattributed something to me shows otherwise.

razor1 said:
So after showing you what I stated was on the money, now I'm acting silly, and it all doesn't matter?
Click to expand...
Silly? What?? You come off as something else to me. And its not too hard to show other sources of information that demonstrates you're not anywhere near to being on the money here: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1478-page4.html. Next page has general performance scaling with various apps with DDR4 2133 vs DDR4 3000.

Just like the previous links it shows hardly any difference. That would not be true if Skylake had a memory bandwidth bottleneck.
 
dude did you just show me a benchmark suite with a gt 640 with games that probably are GPU bound on that particular card?

But the next page quite interesting totally different then the ones I linked to, so.......

Well maybe something different with the motherboards being tested?
 
razor1 said:
dude did you just show me a benchmark suite with a gt 640 with games that probably are GPU bound on that particular card?
Click to expand...
At the resolutions they're using it wouldn't matter. Notice how they're all relatively low. There is only 1 game with fps much below 60. Improvements due to a system memory bandwidth bottleneck being alleviated would still be apparent across the board (edit) in a clear and large fashion too.
 
mesyn191 said:
At the resolutions they're using it wouldn't matter. Notice how they're all relatively low. There is only 1 game with fps much below 60. Improvements due to a system memory bandwidth bottleneck being alleviated would still be apparent across the board.
Click to expand...


Can't make assumptions like that. There is no way to. The gt 640 is a damn slow card its pretty much close to integrated graphics for last gen or maybe even 2 gens ago CPU's...... Its like 2 or 3 times slower than a 750ti if I'm not mistaken
 
razor1 said:
Can't make assumptions like that. There is no way to.
Click to expand...
With a bottleneck? Yes you can. Fixing bottlenecks allows you to get large performance increases, once you fix it the difference is dramatic and obvious.

razor1 said:
The gt 640 is a damn slow card its pretty much close to integrated graphics for last gen or maybe even 2 gens ago
Click to expand...
Its slow but that doesn't matter for what they're trying to test. They don't need it to do 100fps at 1440p to see if there is any large improvement in performance. Especially for bottlenecks.

edit: they do have IGPU only performance tests in that same article. More bandwidth is something that will indeed help the IGPU a whole lot.
 
mesyn191 said:
With a bottleneck? Yes you can. Fixing bottlenecks allows you to get large performance increases, once you fix it the difference is dramatic and obvious.


Its slow but that doesn't matter for what they're trying to test. They don't need it to do 100fps at 1440p to see if there is any large improvement in performance. Especially for bottlenecks.

edit: they do have IGPU only performance tests in that same article. More bandwidth is something that will indeed help the IGPU a whole lot.
Click to expand...


If you can identify the bottlenecks and the % variation yes but by those you can't.
 
Would quad channel 2133Mhz match dual channel 4000Mhz RAM?

I will be getting a Xeon E5 for my gaming rig soon and it probably doesn't support XMP.
 
theoretically it should, actually I think the 4000mhz Ram will be more beneficial, but really depends on the motherboard and applications.

The quad channel will come into play if you have dual CPU's.
 
FrozenSun said:
I'm not sure why so many people are looking at the gaming results, comparing Ryzen to the 6700k, and declaring problems. Intel's own 8 core gets beaten soundly by the 6700k at gaming as well. Assuming the base clock of the retail chip is 3.4GHz (which they stated it would be), the 8 core Zen is only going to be a bit behind Intel's similarly clocked (6/8 core chips) at gaming. I don't see that as a bad result.

If gaming is all you do, then yes, the 8 core Zen chip is a probably a bad buy. But on the same token, so is the 6900k. It doesn't mean they're bad chips. It means 8 core chips tend to sacrifice clock speed and that doesn't make for top of the line gaming in most games. We'll have to see if the 4/6 core Zen offerings have enough clock speed to compete. I'm personally suspecting they won't and the 6700/7700k will still be the top end for gaming, but let's not burn an 8 core chip because it's gaming isn't top end.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point, but in the graph it shows Ryzen performing significantly worse than a 6900K in gaming. I think a higher base clock should help, but I doubt it will make up the difference.

Price will be key, but the fact that people were expecting Ryzen to cost more than half as much less than the 6900K (even if the performance was superior) means AMD is in a lose-lose situation.

Who can afford to produce a superior product and charge half the market price?
 
Looking at the overall MT bench, Zen is at most SB IPC at 3.3GHz all core turbo. Coupled with the fact Intel is rumored to price the i3-K at an absurd $170 pretty much means AMD is again forced to significantly undercut Intel which is good or bad depending on where you stand.
 
penn919 said:
That's a really good point, but in the graph it shows Ryzen performing significantly worse than a 6900K in gaming. I think a higher base clock should help, but I doubt it will make up the difference.

Price will be key, but the fact that people were expecting Ryzen to cost more than half as much less than the 6900K (even if the performance was superior) means AMD is in a lose-lose situation.

Who can afford to produce a superior product and charge half the market price?
Click to expand...


Frank Lucas? ;)
 
Taking that it's lower clocked ES on beta mobo, those are surprisingly good results. It will be probably much closer to 6700k (and 7700k). Now it's all about pricing. If top Ryzen is about 300-350 euro, it will hit hard Intel 6+ core lineup and pricing. And will blow up their mainstream platforms.

Though, for people like me, who got 4790k and newer chips, until games start running at more than 4 cores, there is still no need to upgrade. Maybe in 2 gets, when Intel tweaks coffee lake and amd tweaks new gen of Ryzen, I'll consider change.

But it's good to see AMD coming back, it will force the innovation, generation upgrades might finally be meaningful, and we might get modern version of Core 2 Duo in response :)
 
One thing that comes along with age is the fact, none of this really matters at the end of the day. There is a lot of spit and fire in here over a few ms of performance one way or the other. You guys do realize that right? lol

If they can deliver the Ryzon, their highest tier part for $375 to $425, in that range, then they are going to capture the widest part of the interest spectrum for builders / upgrades. I would be one of them as I'm wanting to retire my 5820K after 2 years.

I've been pretty vocal against AMD recently. I'm hoping their new GPU and CPU get priced to where I feel comfortable moving to an all AMD platform. Hell, they even have branded Memory and SSD's. I'll go all in if the money is right. Too close to Intel and man, that's going to be a tough tough call.
 
mesyn191 said:
The article's data gives the exact picture opposite of what you're saying it does + the articles conclusion is AGAINST buying the highest speed memory possible (in fact they don't even recommend above DDR4 2666) since its effectively a waste of money. Its quite blunt about this.

edit: I never said the above + even when overclocked to 5Ghz+ Skylake doesn't see much if any benefit from more bandwidth. Its not bandwidth limited for desktop apps at all. Servers and HPC are a different story but that market buys Xeons and eventually whatever AMD calls server Zen, not HEDT chips.
Click to expand...

Anyone should know that Skylake likes 3000Mhz+ memory to really give what it got.

SkylakeDDR4_Watch_dogs.jpg

Witcher.png
 
5150Joker said:
The Intel quotes probably came from the horse shit often posted at glassdoor. Lots of disgruntled or former employees post things there.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised. There is always someone burning bridges when they think they are better than they are.

How many in here haven't experienced someone that didn't exactly take it well that they got laid off.
 
TheLAWNoob said:
Would quad channel 2133Mhz match dual channel 4000Mhz RAM?

I will be getting a Xeon E5 for my gaming rig soon and it probably doesn't support XMP.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Bandwidth yes, latency no. However with E5 etc you have a much bigger cache that gives a great benefit there. So the result would be yes and then some.
 
SixFootDuo said:
One thing that comes along with age is the fact, none of this really matters at the end of the day. There is a lot of spit and fire in here over a few ms of performance one way or the other. You guys do realize that right? lol

If they can deliver the Ryzon, their highest tier part for $375 to $425, in that range, then they are going to capture the widest part of the interest spectrum for builders / upgrades. I would be one of them as I'm wanting to retire my 5820K after 2 years.

I've been pretty vocal against AMD recently. I'm hoping their new GPU and CPU get priced to where I feel comfortable moving to an all AMD platform. Hell, they even have branded Memory and SSD's. I'll go all in if the money is right. Too close to Intel and man, that's going to be a tough tough call.
Click to expand...

AMD isn't going to price 8/16 Ryzen at less than half of what intel is offering in that bracket, you people are crazy. top end Ryzen will be at least $500 USD, if not more.
 
Reality said:
AMD isn't going to price 8/16 Ryzen at less than half of what intel is offering in that bracket, you people are crazy. top end Ryzen will be at least $500 USD, if not more.
Click to expand...
Good luck for AMD trying to sell those chips then. Personally I think it should cost less than Intel's 6 core CPUs because AM4 platform is much simpler. Octa core Zen should be comparable in size to mainstream quad core i7 and the platform is similar so I don't see why it shoul cost more. Also 6 core i7s aren't >500 € chips and I'm pretty sure that AMD wants to undercut those.
 
Don't let ES / Beta this or that warp your expectations. These numbers are going to be pretty close to retail.

edit: Ok damn I can't find the article I was just reading. I was going to link it here to make my point.

Some web site took ES chips and their retail counterparts and benched them. The difference was very very slight. Their was about 4 or 5 chips.

If someone knows the article I am talking about please link it.

edit: Never mind they were Intel chips
 
SighTurtle said:
Thanks to the OP at /r/AMD_Stock, we have all the pages on the Zen preview,
The album of photos: http://imgur.com/a/KOXPd

Also included are comments summarizing CanardPC's article on Intel's outlook, including this:
Click to expand...


It does jive with a few things I heard from people I know in the industry. The current CEO of Intel seems a lot like Hector Ruiz was for AMD. But from what little I know I think there is some truth to that posting, take it for what it's worth.
 
From a performance standpoint it boils down to max attainable frequency; at 4GHz it would trade blows with a stock 6900K in threaded applications (and Broadwell has virtually no clock headroom), while more or less matching the 6700K in games. If it's stuck at 3.4GHz (which isn't a stretch, remember how poorly Broadwell clocked?) it better be $349.
At the very least it looks like we're back to the Phenom II vs i7-9xx days, AMD will give you significantly better multithreaded performance for less while not being awful at single threaded applications (unlike the disaster that was Bulldozer); I'd probably still buy Intel as my primary gaming rig, but Ryzen will put a cap on how much Intel can charge.
 
I Don't care about the cores as much but I do love my 6 core 12 threaded 5820K.

Unless this chip is around $350 then I will stick with Intel. Anyone can buy a 5820k at Microcenter for $299 or less on eBay used.

You can get 4.6ghz out of a 5820k @ 1.35v and good cooling.

@ 4.6ghz and 3000mhz DDR4 I just really don't need anything.
 
lisa implied the boost wasn't working. and the probable reason she showed 16 thread tests rather than 1 thread tests is because the boost indeed wasn't working.

so there's no use to these (leaked?) game tests. the real product could be 400mhz different, which is a lot
 
bAMtan2 said:
lisa implied the boost wasn't working. and the probable reason she showed 16 thread tests rather than 1 thread tests is because the boost indeed wasn't working.

so there's no use to these (leaked?) game tests. the real product could be 400mhz different, which is a lot
Click to expand...

The reason could also be that there wasn't room for it. Power consumption was up at the TDP limit. And we got plenty of hints that boost will depend on cooling solutions and temperature. So from the sound of it, boost will be quite random from user to user.
 
Last edited:
akmens said:
https://www.techpowerup.com/228684/...eats-usd-1-100-8-core-i7-6900k-with-lower-tdp

"Again at 3.4 GHz, Ryzen was shown "beating the game frame-rates of a Core i7 6900K playing Battlefield 1 at 4K resolution, with each CPU paired with an Nvidia Titan X GPU".

Yep, indeed it's another AMD chip, how borring ;)
Click to expand...

It didn't beat 6900K in BF1. From people there Ryzen was quite a bit from it. 6900K gave 10%+ higher frame rates and unlike Ryzen was GPU limited.

If I dont recall wrong it was "comparable" in the live stream , but then the press it became beating.

https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-zen-performance-preview.1908926/page-14#post-1042703485
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top