AMD Ryzen 6 Core and 4 Core Benchmark Leaks Rumor

collegeboy69us said:
Just for fun I ran a quick CPUZ bench of my I5 6600k @ 4.5 -- going off their numbers for their hex core screen shot

I'm 20% faster in single core performance
I'm 30% slower in multicore - despite having 33% fewer cores.
Click to expand...
And you are @ 4.5Ghz while the Ryzen pictured looks like it's running @ 3.56ghz (an approx 25% higher clock).

It looks like it will run somewhere between the i7-59## and the i7-69## series chips which IMHO would be good enough for people to switch to assuming the numbers hold up in future reviews and should have Intel worried given how they are seemingly standing still with the processors. IMHO it's been pretty pathetic that I have had no desire to even upgrade to a new processor for the past 5 years while I have had 2 graphic card upgrades in the same time period.
 
Dahkoht said:
Point blank , what is AMD about to release that will beat he 7700k at 5ghz in For Honor , Conan Exiles , Dishonored 2 , or upcoming ones like Camelot Unchained and so on.
Click to expand...
Unless you're running at very low (ie. sub 720p) resolution you're not going to be able to tell the difference in performance for Zen vs Kaby or Sky Lake while running the game while spending potentially quite a bit less.

So yes they're going to loose the benchmark wars with Zen, particularly synthetic benchmarks, but in actual real world application use for people who aren't in the HPC market they're offering near identical performance to Intel's best for less.

Value isn't a performance metric but it is something to beat Intel on and it is something many are quite willing to base their buy on.
 
Meh we are like 25-33% faster than the 2600k. So in all those years all intel did was lower my utility bill by $50 a year, and that is assuming i was maxing the cpu 365.

$100-200 is the meat and potatoes section of by cpu buyer list. If i spend $400 for cpu/mobo/ram, and its only 33% faster than the 5 generation old cpu i have now, i will be pissed. At least video cards get better bang for your buck each year.
 
vegeta535 said:
It is fact that all Intel needs to do is cut prices and Ryzen is irrelevant. With the state AMD is in now they can't win a price war with Intel.
Click to expand...
This true but its unlikely they'll be able to cut enough to matter much.

Intel has to keep their profit margins up and fabs are crazy expensive to run and develop. They can't afford to go lopping 30%+ off the prices of their chips.
 
dgingeri said:
Ryzen is already having an effect on the CPU and motherboard market: http://www.microcenter.com/site/emails/0217_Computer-Parts-DEALS.aspx?utm_source=eNews Special Ed 20170217&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=E4117&MccGuid=BD309A19-7965-4600-96EA-E072B7AE9F65
Click to expand...

Prices are normal for MC? Not sure what you mean? Care to point it out? The 6700k is the exact same price I paid months back? And they always have combo deals....

The 7xxx line is actually still expensive, MC will, just like always drop prices as demand tapers.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Scammers? Intel is totally open about performance, costs and features, you know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy an Intel chip, how exactly is that scamming? Take your fanboyism and sit back down please.
Click to expand...

Sit down and read about intels anti-competitive practices in the past.
 
I think most rational enthusiasts understand there's no way for AMD to beat Intel clock for clock in the near term. It doesn't need to in order to make an excellent choice as a next CPU. If we get Broadwell-E performance running on a Z170/Z270 platform that would last me years. I wonder what the landscape will look like come Skylake-E. If AMD is successful for the next several months Intel can easily release a SKU that destroys AMDs value proposition on the high end. Just discounting the 6900k to within $100 would make the choice very difficult.
 
CAVEAT:
This assumes that the CPUZ benchmark is representative of the CPU speed in applications you care about.
This also assumes (probably wrong) clock speeds.

I pointed out above: on single core this chip is at 78% of the 7700K @4.8
That is the Ryzen at 3.4GHz, and we don't know if/what sort of boost applies. We could perhaps split the potential middle and say the single core test ran at 3.6GHz.

That means 78% perf at 75% of the clock. That would mean in this particular test Ryzen may be about Kaby Lake performance at equal clock, for single core testing.

With all cores going and having about a 20% perf advantage over Kaby Lake while having 2c/4t more cores, and still assuming a turbo 3.6 clock, my math says 153% perf of Kaby Lake on multicore given the same clocks. If you normalize that to 4c/8t cores, take 1/3rd off and you're at 102%. Again, Kaby Lake perf levels at same clock/same cores.

I know we won't see Ryzen at 4.8GHz on all cores like Kaby does fairly easily (albeit AVX, well, I can't get it 100% prime95 stable above 4.6). So Kaby will be the faster chip for 4c/8t limited applications.

But once the 8c/16t gets to work, given that multicore is at the same level of perf as Kaby, and assuming the top parts can turbo all cores at 4GHz, you'll get about 80% faster calculations out of Ryzen.

I know these are wild-ass approximations. But there is a lot of potential in this chip, and it's brand spanking new. Zen+ may turn out quite the beast.
 
ochadd said:
II wonder what the landscape will look like come Skylake-E.
Click to expand...
Intel has a real advantage with per core power use so if you want LOTS of threads Sky Lake-E without going all out and getting a server platform Intel or AMD system Sky Lake-E will probably be the way to go.

ochadd said:
Just discounting the 6900k to within $100 would make the choice very difficult.
Click to expand...
I think if AMD was beating their latest greatest in single thread performance and overclocked similarly you could expect a panic move like this but I don't think they'll start slashing the prices on their chips like that. Zen is a solid chip vs Sky Lake or Kaby Lake but this isn't another P!!! vs Athlon or P4 vs Athlon64 situation all over again unfortunately.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Scammers? Intel is totally open about performance, costs and features, you know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy an Intel chip, how exactly is that scamming? Take your fanboyism and sit back down please.
Click to expand...
You never said intel overcharges like crazy, my i5 3570 is and always has been a sack of crap, same goes for the i7 in my MSI dominator. 8350 in my htpc cost way less and i haven't been pissed off at it once yet sure seems to handle multicore apps a lot better.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Prices are normal for MC? Not sure what you mean? Care to point it out? The 6700k is the exact same price I paid months back? And they always have combo deals....

The 7xxx line is actually still expensive, MC will, just like always drop prices as demand tapers.
Click to expand...

The 7700k dropped by $40 down to $299, while the 7600k dropped $30 to $199 compared to last week's prices. The 6700k was running $329 last week and is now $279, a drop of $50.

In addition, the Asus Z270-AR (not listed in this link, but listed in the email I received) has dropped to $125, down from $150 last week.

They're not huge, but they are significant. I believe that this is due to the 'leaks' of Ryzen performance we've seen lately. I do believe they'll drop lower, too.
 
mesyn191 said:
They said it was hanging around 3.5Ghz for the Ryzen chip which is supposed to have a 3.3Ghz clock that can ramp to 3.7Ghz. The Intel chip they compared it to has a 3.8Ghz clock that can ramp to 4.2Ghz. So I think "skewed heavily" is something that can be ruled out with these benches.

Its a fairly crap synthetic benchmark but so far those single and multi threaded benchmarks are actually fairly respectable. Against a Kaby Lake chip too!
Click to expand...

It is about Ryzen feature if that is working or not. If XFR allows higher peaks within thermals and beyond TDP you could sustain a better score while using water cooling. If you are talking about a single core performance there is a lot of headroom for this feature to perform.
 
mesyn191 said:
Intel has a real advantage with per core power use so if you want LOTS of threads Sky Lake-E without going all out and getting a server platform Intel or AMD system Sky Lake-E will probably be the way to go.


I think if AMD was beating their latest greatest in single thread performance and overclocked similarly you could expect a panic move like this but I don't think they'll start slashing the prices on their chips like that. Zen is a solid chip vs Sky Lake or Kaby Lake but this isn't another P!!! vs Athlon or P4 vs Athlon64 situation all over again unfortunately.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, SkyLake-X (the official name change for SkyLake-E) has been leaked as only having 28 PCIe lanes on all chips except the high end. The SkyLake-X will still just be 6, 8, and 10 core parts, at just slightly higher speeds compared to Broadwell-E and a higher memory interface, with crippled PCIe. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/skylake-x-will-be-launched-at-gamescom-2017.html

EDIT: Here's about the models: http://hothardware.com/news/intel-skylake-x-kaby-lake-x-lga-2066-processors-2h-2017 "The 10-core and 8-core models will have 44 PCIe Gen3 lanes, while the 6-core variant is cut down to 28 PCIe Gen3 lanes." So, we'd have to spend $1000 just to get the 44 PCIe lanes, plus >$300 for motherboards to support it. It's pathetic.

The KabyLake-X is going to be released at the same time, as a quad core with 16 PCIe lanes, of all the asinine ideas. In other words, KabyLake-X is just going to be a Kaby Lake without the graphics that drops into the 2066 socket of the SkyLake-X and even more crippled PCIe compared to SkyLake-X.

I'm incredibly unimpressed with SkyLake-X from the news I've heard.
 
Last edited:
ochadd said:
I think most rational enthusiasts understand there's no way for AMD to beat Intel clock for clock in the near term. It doesn't need to in order to make an excellent choice as a next CPU. If we get Broadwell-E performance running on a Z170/Z270 platform that would last me years. I wonder what the landscape will look like come Skylake-E. If AMD is successful for the next several months Intel can easily release a SKU that destroys AMDs value proposition on the high end. Just discounting the 6900k to within $100 would make the choice very difficult.
Click to expand...

That's going to be a pretty massive 'discount' if the leaked AMD prices are to be believed.
 
dgingeri said:
The 7700k dropped by $40 down to $299, while the 7600k dropped $30 to $199 compared to last week's prices. The 6700k was running $329 last week and is now $279, a drop of $50.

In addition, the Asus Z270-AR (not listed in this link, but listed in the email I received) has dropped to $125, down from $150 last week.

They're not huge, but they are significant. I believe that this is due to the 'leaks' of Ryzen performance we've seen lately. I do believe they'll drop lower, too.
Click to expand...
AMD must have been putting the pressure on back in November, when MC dropped the price of the 6700K to $260 /s. I think it's just a Presidents' Day sale, but what do I know? Monoprice had the 7700K on eBay for $310 a little bit ago, which coincided with a (targeted) 10% eBay Bucks promotion, so it had a "net price" of like $279. Again, I think it was just a random sale, as the price went back up.
 
finally getting closer to launch. Finally I will get to decide between Ryzen, and Broadwell-E.

Now if they could release Vega and the 1080ti so I can decide which new gpu to get.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It is about Ryzen feature if that is working or not. If XFR allows higher peaks within thermals and beyond TDP you could sustain a better score while using water cooling. If you are talking about a single core performance there is a lot of headroom for this feature to perform.
Click to expand...
Yes it remains to be seen if XFR will offer some sort of significant advantage with better cooling or even stock HSF's.

I don't think the WCCF article specified what HSF was in use for the Ryzen system. So we can't draw any conclusions yet really there.
 
I want to upgrade my CPU. my 3570k is now @ 4.5ghz. It will be a toss up between used x99 6core/12t or what ever ryzen can spit out. I would love to buy AMD.
 
dgingeri said:
From what I've read, SkyLake-X (the official name change for SkyLake-E) has been leaked as only having 28 PCIe lanes on all chips except the high end.,,,,,,,, So, we'd have to spend $1000 just to get the 44 PCIe lanes, plus >$300 for motherboards to support it. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
Yeah but its the very high end Sky Lake E's that people will be comparing top Ryzen's too so look at the 10C20T Sky Lake E's. Intel's enthusiast top tier platform has been a questionable buy at best since its introduction IMO too not just with Sky Lake E.

Kaby Lake X is a pure shit show. I don't know why anyone would actually want to buy one. Certainly no clue why anyone would need on vs existing 8C16T Intel chips or a 8C16T Ryzen. Maaaybe to get a toe hold into the 2066 socket platform with a cheaper "starter" CPU but I don't really think that make sense either.
 
dgingeri said:
The 7700k dropped by $40 down to $299, while the 7600k dropped $30 to $199 compared to last week's prices. The 6700k was running $329 last week and is now $279, a drop of $50.

In addition, the Asus Z270-AR (not listed in this link, but listed in the email I received) has dropped to $125, down from $150 last week.

They're not huge, but they are significant. I believe that this is due to the 'leaks' of Ryzen performance we've seen lately. I do believe they'll drop lower, too.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing $339-$360 on the 7700k via PCpartspicker.

If I was building a new pc this summer I'd likely take AMD (based on what we know at this time) Just because it should be similar performance for less money and I like to support the underdog. I won't hamstring my system so it needs to be competitive.
 
CentroX said:
Sit down and read about intels anti-competitive practices in the past.
Click to expand...

You mean being competitive by offering rebates on volume sales? Seems like you have read rehashed information on all of that and not followed the actual court rulings and what happened. The very same actions Intel did, AMD did as well, however, when AMD lower prices or offers discounts and rebates, it's competitive pricing, when Intel does it, it's predatory pricing. Give me a break with this old rehash already.

shad0w4life said:
You never said intel overcharges like crazy, my i5 3570 is and always has been a sack of crap, same goes for the i7 in my MSI dominator. 8350 in my htpc cost way less and i haven't been pissed off at it once yet sure seems to handle multicore apps a lot better.
Click to expand...

Intel does not over charge, they have the top of the line product and prices are supported by the market, they have zero issues moving chips at their current prices. Sack of crap in what way? If you are having issues might I suggest a setup problem or faulty hardware that you might have wanted to RMA. As for enjoying the AMD CPU, congrats?

dgingeri said:
The 7700k dropped by $40 down to $299, while the 7600k dropped $30 to $199 compared to last week's prices. The 6700k was running $329 last week and is now $279, a drop of $50.

In addition, the Asus Z270-AR (not listed in this link, but listed in the email I received) has dropped to $125, down from $150 last week.

They're not huge, but they are significant. I believe that this is due to the 'leaks' of Ryzen performance we've seen lately. I do believe they'll drop lower, too.
Click to expand...

The prices do that all the time, as I said, $279 is the normal sale price, as I bought the 6700k several months ago, this is normal pricing for MC.
 
LurkerLito said:
And you are @ 4.5Ghz while the Ryzen pictured looks like it's running @ 3.56ghz (an approx 25% higher clock).

It looks like it will run somewhere between the i7-59## and the i7-69## series chips which IMHO would be good enough for people to switch to assuming the numbers hold up in future reviews and should have Intel worried given how they are seemingly standing still with the processors. IMHO it's been pretty pathetic that I have had no desire to even upgrade to a new processor for the past 5 years while I have had 2 graphic card upgrades in the same time period.
Click to expand...

Ryzen looks like a decent offering. I'm curious to see what happens when a new revision comes out this year. Let's hope there won't be any major bugs. I've picked up different parts here and there on the cheap and have little to no incentive to upgrade.
 
BlueFireIce said:
You mean being competitive by offering rebates on volume sales? Seems like you have read rehashed information on all of that and not followed the actual court rulings and what happened. The very same actions Intel did, AMD did as well, however, when AMD lower prices or offers discounts and rebates, it's competitive pricing, when Intel does it, it's predatory pricing. Give me a break with this old rehash already.



Intel does not over charge, they have the top of the line product and prices are supported by the market, they have zero issues moving chips at their current prices. Sack of crap in what way? If you are having issues might I suggest a setup problem or faulty hardware that you might have wanted to RMA. As for enjoying the AMD CPU, congrats?



The prices do that all the time, as I said, $279 is the normal sale price, as I bought the 6700k several months ago, this is normal pricing for MC.
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-court-eu-idUSKBN0EN0M120140612
 
Ryzen looks amazing to me. It's not gonna beat kabylake, but it's competitive, and beats haswell. It also lets me get a proper 8 core / 16 thread CPU for 350? This seems like a total home run.
 
Cali3350 said:
Ryzen looks amazing to me. It's not gonna beat kabylake, but it's competitive, and beats haswell. It also lets me get a proper 8 core / 16 thread CPU for 350? This seems like a total home run.
Click to expand...
Ryzen aims for 6900k while almost keeping up with 7700k. Atleast the 1800X model will do.
 
nightanole said:
Meh we are like 25-33% faster than the 2600k. So in all those years all intel did was lower my utility bill by $50 a year, and that is assuming i was maxing the cpu 365.

$100-200 is the meat and potatoes section of by cpu buyer list. If i spend $400 for cpu/mobo/ram, and its only 33% faster than the 5 generation old cpu i have now, i will be pissed. At least video cards get better bang for your buck each year.
Click to expand...

That's my view, too. However, if I were building a new PC and not just upgrading, it'd be worth it for sure. There are a few other upgrades I want to do, so upgrading to a new MB with features that support the other upgrades makes sense.

$400 is a bit low for CPU/MB/RAM. I was looking more at $600-$650 for that. Another $250 for a good SSD (Samsung Pro, I believe). GPU is $400ish for the 1070. So, over a grand for that setup so far. Just for the upgrade. I can't justify that for an upgrade from the 2600K I have. Like you said - upgrading the GPU would give me the most bang for my buch.

Ryzen looks good. I expect to see it in the "cheap" laptops and desktops that are for the mass consumer (Best Buy, Costco, etc.).

I'm curious as to how it would run with a home server configuration (well, Server 2012R2 with multiple VM's but not a whole lot of use as it's only for my family and home lab). I really need to upgrade that, and the more cores for the lowest price, the better.
 
mesyn191 said:
That isn't what happened at all. Intel had to pay AMD damages multiple times for a reason.
Click to expand...

The antitrust court battles were not with AMD and AMD was paid nothing, fines are political and go to the government. Other court battles with AMD and Intel have been back and forth since the start when AMD sued Intel to be able to manufacture Intel's IP with a royalty free license, and when AMD lobbied the government to stop cheap import of chips into the US, but hey, no one wants to talk about the back handed stuff AMD has done, because sacred underdog!

CentroX said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-court-eu-idUSKBN0EN0M120140612
Click to expand...

So I take that as a no you have not followed the actual court battle or documents, where the EU's own investigation team found and reported to the court that no damage was done, but the EU fined them anyway, against their own investigation! If that is not political or a money grab, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vegeta535 said:
The thing is Ryzen might be good now but what does AMD have for the future? Intel could easily crush Ryzen now with dropping their 8 core processor to match AMD 8 core price if they wanted. What would AMD have to counter it? Drop their price and fall back into nothing again like with Bulldozer? As much as I want AMD to succeed they still behind Intel in everything. Sure Intel would lose a lot of profit short term but long term they would make a killing if they completely knock AMD out of business. It would be decades before any there competitor would come forth and challenge Intel if ever.
Click to expand...

Intel doesn't want AMD out of the market completly, otherwise anti trust legislation in the US would kick in, which could lead to a split up of Intel or other nasty stuff that isn't in Intels interest (x86 license up for grabs). With AMD in the market Intel (and share holders) knows where they stand - in seas of cash.
 
Me thinks there be stock holders in this thread... Regardless, my money goes to whoever can give me the most for $300-350. No brand loyalty.
 
Folterknecht said:
Intel doesn't want AMD out of the market completly, otherwise anti trust legislation in the US would kick in, which could lead to a split up of Intel or other nasty stuff that isn't in Intels interest (x86 license up for grabs). With AMD in the market Intel (and share holders) knows where they stand - in seas of cash.
Click to expand...
True but AMD not doing themselves a favor. They could fold even without Intel interference. They are at least a generation behind the competition in GPU and cpu segments.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Scammers? Intel is totally open about performance, costs and features, you know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy an Intel chip, how exactly is that scamming? Take your fanboyism and sit back down please.
Click to expand...
You really want to pick your battles man, this thread is going to get pretty damn long and not end well for you if you are trying to say Intel hasn't historically or currently acted like shady underhanded twats.

That said, consumers don't give a shit about processors, they care about price and what their computer savvy friends / coworkers tell them. If word gets out amd is better bang for your buck eventually that's going to disseminate to the mainstream.
 
BlueFireIce said:
The antitrust court battles were not with AMD and AMD was paid nothing, fines are political and go to the government.
Click to expand...
Hahahah I hope you're getting paid by Intel to post this stuff.

And Intel paid AMD $1.2 billion in 2009 for antitrust issues. The $1.4 billion EU suit was different. There have been others as well. Intel is quite well known for flexing its monopoly muscles in the industry. Hell it used to be mobo manufactures had to release their (edit) AMD stuff in unmarked white boxes for fear of some sort of retribution by Intel back in the early Athlon days.

You want to keep white knighting abusive monopolies go right ahead but you're not going to change anyone's mind here and you'll only look like a fool for trying.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 04_13_intel_banner.jpg
    04_13_intel_banner.jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 31
Folterknecht said:
Intel doesn't want AMD out of the market completly, otherwise anti trust legislation in the US would kick in,
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't.

And its not the 80's or even 90's anymore. Hell even in the late 90's they were bending the anti trust rules to let the mega banks merge. Nothing will happen to Intel if AMD went out of business tomorrow.

Even if the govt. was willing to really enforce the anti trust laws strongly they'd be safe. The anti trust laws are for when a company abuses its monopoly position or breaks the laws to become a monopoly. If AMD went out of business because their products failed fair and square Intel would be allowed to have their monopoly without issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top