AMD Ryzen 8C/16T Cinebench R15 & Fritz Chess Scores

Rvenger said:
Lol, Cinebench scores argument. You guys must be bored or hoping AMD rebadged the 5960x or some shit. Its an entirely new architecture and its not going to be a power house at everything. It won't even have AVX 2 from what was said in the past. If it clocks well and competes in what matters and has Ivybridge IPC, it will be a good seller.
Click to expand...

It does have AVX/AVX2, but 256bit is 2 cycles like Carrizo, unlike 1 cycle on Haswell and Skylake.
FloatingPoint-Zen.png
 
Gideon said:
Where does this graphic point out it's at 2 cycles and not 1?
Click to expand...

If you can only move 128bits per cycle, how many cycles does it take to move 256bits? There is a reason why the cache speed is twice as fast on Haswell and Skylake compared to Ivy and Sandy. And it consumes a lot of power doing so.

sandra-bw.gif


Its also part of Zens instruction manuals.
 
Well that does make sense. I wonder if that will change with ZEN +, tho I dont think AVX is very widely used tho.
 
Well, there's always price to compete on. Mediocre single-threaded performance confirmed.
 
when's the embargo lift? not a time or day but like a quarter or a month maybe when we should see proper benchmarks from reputable places?
 
gigatexal said:
when's the embargo lift? not a time or day but like a quarter or a month maybe when we should see proper benchmarks from reputable places?
Click to expand...

Some rumors have pointed to Jan 17th, but I dont think anything official is out there and I doubt Kyle can tell us that.
 
stock.jpg stock2.jpg overclock.jpg
stock.jpg
stock2.jpg
overclock.jpg
stock.jpg
stock2.jpg
overclock.jpg



I apologise for the image quality as it was a cellphone snap.

Anyways a i7 4960X at 4.5Ghz scores 1225

worked back to its 3.6ghz base clock:

1225*3.6/4.5= 980

I then did a stock only bench and low and behold at 3.6ghz no turbo the i7 4960X scores a grand total of 988/987.
 

Attachments

  • stock.jpg
    stock.jpg
    128.7 KB · Views: 29
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1029

So anandtechs database has my very 4960X with a score of 1097 and this is why:

980 (we know this is a base clock score give or take) x 4 (this is the turbo clock) / 3.6 (base clock) = 1088 (less than 1% so well inside margin of error) this is down to anything from NB fluctuations, Bus fluctuations, RAM timings, SPD, Voltages fluctuating

Someone forgot to turn off the turbo so the score is actually not a base clock score, it is a turbo score.

Anandtech has a 5960X at 1337 and again it is just mathematics:

1552990.jpg


1701 x 3 (I want a base) / 4.5 = 1175 (this is what the CPU will score at 3Ghz lock give it a sway of 20pts due to the above factors)

1337 x 3.4 (because I worked it out already) / 3 = 1330 for reference sake at 3.5ghz its highest turbo it scores 1370 so the 100mhz has roughly a 20-30pt improvement.

Maybe someone can inform the all knowing Anandtech crowd that it is a fantastic idea to give a base clock score, just for accuracy.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
It is impossible to make out what the overclock was or anything for that matter.

CPU:
Frequecy: (overclock)
Score:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize that, but I was out of time. I'm not very well versed in posting screen shots and the 4K monitor makes stuff really small. Anyway, it was a 5960X @ 4.6, 1846/185 single thread. I usually get mid 1850s, but I started the run right after it got to the desktop, not sure if that made any difference.
 
Dullard said:
Yeah, I realize that, but I was out of time. I'm not very well versed in posting screen shots and the 4K monitor makes stuff really small. Anyway, it was a 5960X @ 4.6, 1846/185 single thread. I usually get mid 1850s, but I started the run right after it got to the desktop, not sure if that made any difference.
Click to expand...

Just for fun:

1846 x 3 / 4.6 = 1203

you will score somewhere between 1180-1200 if you turned off turbo and locked it at 3Ghz which is the true score a i7 5960X gets locked at 3Ghz no boost to get a base line score which represents Cinebenches representation of cycles

1203 x 3.4/3 = 1363.

The score is inside margin of error for anandtech's database score of 1337 and 1370 (3.4-3.5 which is the turbo clock)
 
That chinese leak can have a few implications and it is unfortunate that it was not a full verification:

But to consider both sides of the coin:

1) If the 1188 includes boost then:

1188*3.1/3.4 = 1100

This is about on par or slightly faster than an IB Xeon 8/16 E5 1680V2 clocked similarly at 3.1Ghz.

2) If it is a base clock only score:

1188*3.1/3.1 = 1188

If that is the outcome then it equals the same baseclock score as an i7 5960 Haswell.

Somehow I feel that the truth lies somewhere between the two. AMD's front end looks very much the same as an SB/IB CPU so in theory the IPC should be similar, granted it is on a more refined process and will have other resources bolted on that IB didn't have it may be able to pull away on a representative IPC over similar cored and clocked IB parts.

IPC is also not linear and factors play into it, I do feel that AMD will have a very good product nevertheless, it will game well, it will be a very fast generation of CPU, certainly more than doubled that of the BD family and the last outcome is it may force Intel to deliver a better range of product. In some ways zen has done that, intel have finally released a i3 unlocked CPU for a lower cost market.
 
Gideon said:
Well that does make sense. I wonder if that will change with ZEN +, tho I dont think AVX is very widely used tho.
Click to expand...

The question is a lot more complicated than that. A Zen+ on "7nm" with 256bit paths could end up with the same regular non AVX performance as Zen in the same SKU TDP. The cache structure would also need more work and so on. But if you want more performance, you need new instructions and to execute them faster.
 
Let me make it simple. I know intelligent brains have a hard time being simple minded! This is all customers want to know, is AMD faster than Intel and cheaper? Can i game with 300 fps at 1440 resolutions?
 
Nobified[H] said:
Let me make it simple. I know intelligent brains have a hard time being simple minded! This is all customers want to know, is AMD faster than Intel and cheaper? Can i game with 300 fps at 1440 resolutions?
Click to expand...

Its not what consumers what, its what OEM's system builders want that is where AMD will make the most sales, upgraders like us, that put our PC's together, is just a hand full of people comparative to the rest of the market. This will drive the consumer to their purchases.

What do these people look at,

Price based on Performance, Power usage, stability, etc, based on potential sales and its not just for the CPU, its for the entire platform. So there are many questions unanswered at this point.
 
razor1 said:
Its not what consumers what, its what OEM's system builders want that is where AMD will make the most sales, upgraders like us, that put our PC's together, is just a hand full of people comparative to the rest of the market. This will drive the consumer to their purchases.

What do these people look at,

Price based on Performance, Power usage, stability, etc, based on potential sales and its not just for the CPU, its for the entire platform. So there are many questions unanswered at this point.
Click to expand...

Okay, I predict a major flop with oem manufactures. Intel will dominate oem manfactures of pc systems. AMD should just focus on server platforms and graphics cards.
 
Nobified[H] said:
Okay, I predict a major flop with oem manufactures. Intel will dominate oem manfactures of pc systems. AMD should just focus on server platforms and graphics cards.
Click to expand...

Sever market is more cut through, the cost of server markets is not the CPU's its the entire infrastructure, software and services, so I don't see them doing much there. Personally I think its going to be a hit for upgraders lol, The people that are on 4 year old AMD comps that are looking to upgrade with out breaking the bank.
 
razor1 said:
Sever market is more cut through, the cost of server markets is not the CPU's its the entire infrastructure, software and services, so I don't see them doing much there. Personally I think its going to be a hit for upgraders lol, The people that are on 4 year old AMD comps that are looking to upgrade with out breaking the bank.
Click to expand...

Wow! If that is the case, roi for AMD is going to be low.

Its like mowing 5 acres with a push mower. Weedeating and trimming the bushes and only have a $5 profit!
 
Server market is hit or miss. If lots of companies are looking to upgrade the servers next year then AMD may make some inroads. A lot of that will depend on clock speeds and wattage used, this is the one area I expect Intel to fight pretty hard for, I dont think Intel really cares about the desktop market much anymore.
 
Gideon said:
Server market is hit or miss. If lots of companies are looking to upgrade the servers next year then AMD may make some inroads. A lot of that will depend on clock speeds and wattage used, this is the one area I expect Intel to fight pretty hard for, I dont think Intel really cares about the desktop market much anymore.
Click to expand...

It also depends on core performance, due to licensing per core and so on.
https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-zen-performance-preview.1908926/page-20#post-1042718232

People forget how cheap CPUs are in servers.
 
yeah a server cpu can be a single drop in the bucket when you factor in all the other amazingly expensive server equipment!
 
In some servers, CPU cost isn't even 1% of the total cost. And that's with 2K$ CPUs.
 
Shintai said:
In some servers, CPU cost isn't even 1% of the total cost. And that's with 2K$ CPUs.
Click to expand...

True but if your other hardware is getting up there in years, then your looking for all new stuff and that is who I think AMD will push hard to get business from. They got people to try their Opteron out I am sure Zen will find some homes as well.
 
Gideon said:
True but if your other hardware is getting up there in years, then your looking for all new stuff and that is who I think AMD will push hard to get business from. They got people to try their Opteron out I am sure Zen will find some homes as well.
Click to expand...

Even Opterons could find homes. But dont expect anything changing in terms of server share. AMD will still be at 5% or less.

The server platform is much worse than the desktop platform for AMD. Even if we just look at CPUs only, you got AMD with 4 MCM dies on a package with poor scaling clocked at 1.45Ghz for 32 cores vs Skylake-EP with 32 cores clocked at 2.4Ghz in a single die all in the same TDP, tho Skylake-EPs actual TDP will be much lower than Zen when 256bit AVX or AVX512 isn't used.

There is no TSX support and so on in Zen either.

Their claim is no different than the one with Bulldozer:
http://techreport.com/news/10610/amd-aims-for-40-server-market-share-by-2009
 
Last edited:
I love how these threads are dominated by the same two or three people who all speculate against AMD and 10000000% for Intel. Its absolutely hilarious. /e is eating popcorn and drinking a movie priced beer
 
tangoseal said:
I love how these threads are dominated by the same two or three people who all speculate against AMD and 10000000% for Intel. Its absolutely hilarious. /e is eating popcorn and drinking a movie priced beer
Click to expand...

As an intel user, I find it funny and typical fanboy behaviour. Can't even accept reality when there are emperical numbers to suggest otherwise, cherry pick the one in 10 bench that supports them (like who gives a crap about project cars lol, when Witcher, Civilisations, Tomb Raider etc are against it). Still no reply to my bench above with my 4960X where I had proven the linear nature of Cinebench and how easy it is to calculate base clock IPC per CB15. It is just just fear that AMD may have reproduced the hammer.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
As an intel user, I find it funny and typical fanboy behaviour. Can't even accept reality when there are emperical numbers to suggest otherwise, cherry pick the one in 10 bench that supports them (like who gives a crap about project cars lol, when Witcher, Civilisations, Tomb Raider etc are against it). Still no reply to my bench above with my 4960X where I had proven the linear nature of Cinebench and how easy it is to calculate base clock IPC per CB15. It is just just fear that AMD may have reproduced the hammer.
Click to expand...

Last time AMD was competitive this forum had arguments all over the place and people cherry picking benchmarks to prove their chip was faster, some people are just very insecure and need many others to reassure them that they made the right choice. But yes the bickering is not healthy for the forum, but sometimes when someone posts absolute BS it's hard to not post against it.
 
Last edited:
I7 6800K air cooled running at 4110 MHz 16GB 2133 MHz GTX 960 Windforce. I ran all three Blender test with these results 100 - 28.71 sec, 150 - 42.22 sec and 200 - 55.95 sec.
 
Yet this is how it actually turned out, funny looking back on this thread and what people predicted on this supposed leak.

Bench Run 3.9.png
 
We'll that's not fair, the nature of leaks is that they are unreliable, unverifiable, and not finalized, usually with incomplete info accompanying it. You can't just expect people to jump from what arguably is worse performance to "its fake" without more information. A cursory look over the thread says that this info is all we had.
 
SighTurtle said:
We'll that's not fair, the nature of leaks is that they are unreliable, unverifiable, and not finalized, usually with incomplete info accompanying it. You can't just expect people to jump from what arguably is worse performance to "its fake" without more information. A cursory look over the thread says that this info is all we had.
Click to expand...

No, that is entirely fair, is as much as those who kept painting AMD in a bad light but where straight up wrong. Still amazes me that there are folks around who are unable to see beyond their nose when it comes to this stuff. Perhaps there really are some here who are being paid to do so, it is entirely possible. (No, I am not trolling nor being negative, just saying.)
 
everyone should be pulling for amd to bring back competition not sure why all the hate i see sorta lame imo
 
SighTurtle said:
We'll that's not fair, the nature of leaks is that they are unreliable, unverifiable, and not finalized, usually with incomplete info accompanying it. You can't just expect people to jump from what arguably is worse performance to "its fake" without more information. A cursory look over the thread says that this info is all we had.
Click to expand...

I posted it to show how it turned out, not my fault some were so certain that the leak was real. AMD gets accused all the time of not meeting the Hype and their products under performing. My system runs at 3.9 ghz and my memory is running at 2666, pretty much a number anyone with a Ryzen chip can hit and it looks like it exceed what people thought by quite a bit and did not under perform. So I wanted to share the actual real results compared to the leak and it shows why one should not read too much into leaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top