Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

I
razor1 said:
You don know Intel's iGPU is like 40% of its die right? I'm not impressed with Ryzen's die size, but again, people that need only CPU's because they use discrete GPU anyways its better for them.
Click to expand...
Don't think you are impressed with anything from ryzen truth be told
 
I cant even listen to that guy. something aboot his voice just makes want to punch him through the internet!
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I

Don't think you are impressed with anything from ryzen truth be told
Click to expand...


Why don't we look at transistor for transistor performance, once they are released, I think you will see if what is being shown right now as end results, Ryzen's performance per transistor will be lower than Intel's offerings, and that will tell us right off the bat AMD still has a lot of work cut out for them to catch up to Intel.

That will tell us cost per mm^2, cost per wafer is on Intel's favor. And when that happens, AMD can't go into a price war with Intel. Intel just needs to respond with a new architecture (which they are way over due for) to put AMD back to where it was with BD.
 
Ill run my 5960 with dual channel, see if Ryzen is limited by Max bandwidth. I know super pi and aida64 show dual channel getting murdered in performance.
 
razor1 said:
You are right, cause AMD hasn't given us anything we haven't seen before either in CPU's or GPU's lol.
Click to expand...

yeah they've given a lot of ppl a lot of reason to be unimpressed. some ppl hold hope for them and some want to see them burn for it. its just retarded(oh noes!) how some ppl, on both sides, act! like someone attacked their family or religion or something...
 
concerning die size and performance per transistor this is Ryzen 4 core die size: 44mm
this is Skylake 4 core die size: 49mm2

Sky lake has 40% of its die size allocated to an iGPU.

This is impressive for you OrangeKhrush?

To me that is straight out 45% advantage for Intel when it comes to cost of current products (if they decide to remove the IGP). All this without factoring GF's profits.

Then lets look at performance per mm^2 shell we?

Or performance per transistor?

There is pretty difference in Intel's architecture when you look at purely the CPU side of things and remove the iGPU.
 
Last edited:
but on the other hand intel/nv haven't given enough incentive for some ppl to change from amd. why would, some ppl me included, want to pay the premium when an amd system does everything I need/want it to do. personally ive seen no point for me to replace my system, yet.
 
razor1 said:
concerning die size and performance per transistor this is Ryzen 4 core die size: 44mm
this is Skylake 4 core die size: 49mm2

Sky lake has 40% of its die size allocated to an iGPU.

This is impressive for you OrangeKhrush?

To me that is straight out 45% advantage for Intel when it comes to cost of current products. All this without factoring GF's profits.
Click to expand...

just curious, since you are anti AMD, and want Ryzen to fail why do you keep posting? Seriously this whole thread knows you and CSI want it to fail.

Just go make a thread about Intel in the Intel sub forum. This is no longer a discussion, it is you guys trolling AMD fans.
 
Brackle said:
just curious, since you are anti AMD, and want Ryzen to fail why do you keep posting? Seriously this whole thread knows you and CSI want it to fail.

Just go make a thread about Intel in the Intel sub forum. This is no longer a discussion, it is you guys trolling AMD fans.
Click to expand...


Brackle I can pull up posts from you from 10 years ago, that are truly AMD fanatic posts all the way up till now, what me to do that, or are you going to try to come into this discussion with a level head?
 
pendragon1 said:
but on the other hand intel/nv haven't given enough incentive for some ppl to change from amd. why would, some ppl me included, want to pay the premium when an amd system does everything I need/want it to do. personally ive seen no point for me to replace my system, yet.
Click to expand...


Ryzen might drive incentive for Intel to push things and it rightfully should, Its close to Intel but because of what Intel has been saying so far with Coffee lake, I don't expect Intel to have a real response for another 3 years, they do seem to have gotten complacent.

AMD so far hasn't been able to show anything on the graphics card front, nV is all alone and are pushing themselves.
 
razor1 said:
Brackle I can pull up posts from you from 10 years ago, that are truly AMD fanatic posts, what me to do that, or are you going to try to come into this discussion with a level head?
Click to expand...

I am not an AMD fanatic. I am fanatic of Hardware in general regardless of the company. It is the reason I went with X58 Intel over AMD. Faildozer. I also own an 980ti....why? Amd has no competition.

If my sig is showing me an AMD Fanatic I sure am I poor one.

I am fanatic of new hardware. I might be a fan of Ryzen, but right now there are no reviews. Wait for Kyles review, just like we all do.

Also if I am an AMD fanatic I would of never bought a 8800GT, or a 7800 GTX, or a 970 GTX, or own a 670 GTX.
 
Brackle said:
I am not an AMD fanatic. I am fanatic of Hardware in general regardless of the company. It is the reason I went with X58 Intel over AMD. Faildozer. I also own an 980ti....why? Amd has no competition.

If my sig is showing me an AMD Fanatic I sure am I poor one.

I am fanatic of new hardware. I might be a fan of Ryzen, but right now there are no reviews. Wait for Kyles review, just like we all do.

Also if I am an AMD fanatic I would of never bought a 8800GT, or a 7800 GTX, or a 970 GTX, or own a 670 GTX.
Click to expand...


Well your post history is quite to contrary.

What did you say about Polaris? remember what I stated and then you stated, then I called you what you were when you couldn't understand why I was going to be right, course I got banned for calling you that lol, but keep this in mind, up coming hardware still are bound by what happened before and what processes are set in stone.

You don't throw up a hail mary and just expect things to fall into place because AMD marketing says so.
 
razor1 said:
Ryzen might drive incentive for Intel to push things and it rightfully should, Its close to Intel but because of what Intel has been saying so far with Coffee lake, I don't expect Intel to have a real response for another 3 years, they do seem to have gotten complacent.

AMD so far hasn't been able to show anything on the graphics card front, nV is all alone and are pushing themselves.
Click to expand...
yes true.
that is subjective and totally depends on needs/wants. yes high end amd is absent right now but low/mid amd is there and doing good.
 
razor1 said:
Well your post history is quite to contrary.

What did you say about Polaris? remember what I stated and then you stated, then I called you what you were when you couldn't understand why I was going to be right, course I got banned for calling you that lol, but keep this in mind, up coming hardware still are bound by what happened before and what processes are set in stone.
Click to expand...

I do remember, I also remember saying it was speculation, since....."The hardware wasn't released". Thats the kicker, I might have speculatied and talked about a product, but when reviews comes out speculation is thrown out the window, and the [H]ard truth comes out.
 
A
razor1 said:
Ryzen might drive incentive for Intel to push things and it rightfully should, Its close to Intel but because of what Intel has been saying so far with Coffee lake, I don't expect Intel to have a real response for another 3 years, they do seem to have gotten complacent.

AMD so far hasn't been able to show anything on the graphics card front, nV is all alone and are pushing themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't know if all ryzen die is allocated, ie APUs are coming, unless they are seperate SOC.

Vega, nobody knows a thing, so hopefully the x500 series is good
 
even in the low end midrange, (outside of the rx470 which has a clear price/performance advantage but that is it) I don't see any cards good on AMD side.
 
Brackle said:
I do remember, I also remember saying it was speculation, since....."The hardware wasn't released". Thats the kicker, I might have speculatied and talked about a product, but when reviews comes out speculation is thrown out the window, and the [H]ard truth comes out.
Click to expand...


yes do you remember what I stated, I'm was not speculating because I didn't buy into many of the "rumors" I only took stuff that came out of AMD's mouth that could be quantified.
 
razor1 said:
even in the low end midrange, (outside of the rx470 which has a clear price/performance advantage but that is it) I don't see any cards good on AMD side.
Click to expand...

There isn't, but again this is a thread about CPU's and Ryzen, not Polaris or Fury.
 
razor1 said:
yes do you remember what I stated, I'm was not speculating because I didn't buy into many of the "rumors" I only took stuff that came out of AMD's mouth that could be quantified.
Click to expand...

Alright man :) you keep swinging things your way. Just know that everyone knows you are anti AMD. You posting in an AMD Thread just gets old.

We get it man you want Ryzen to fail. It wont live up to your standards, we really do not need 12+ pages of you bashing it in anyway you can. Wait for reviews, than go ahead and bash it all you want, because right now it is all speculation.
 
razor1 said:
Current Rzyen's don't have an APU.
Click to expand...

So tell me on the 4C dies where are the other 4 given the 1800 and 1100 families are the same size. Amd have targeted high end features on mainsteam level and costs, best of both.
 
Brackle said:
Alright man :) you keep swinging things your way. Just know that everyone knows you are anti AMD. You posting in an AMD Thread just gets old.

We get it man you want Ryzen to fail. It wont live up to your standards, we really do not need 12+ pages of you bashing it in anyway you can. Wait for reviews, than go ahead and bash it all you want, because right now it is all speculation.
Click to expand...


I'm sitting here bashing when others can't read or listen what seems like credible rumors from multiple sources?

Brackle, you just made it to my ignore list, you are the sole person on it for now.
 
razor1 said:
I'm sitting here bashing when others can't read or listen what seems like credible rumors from multiple sources?

Brackle, you just made it to my ignore list, you are the sole person on it for now.
Click to expand...

Alright it means that I was right. You are using rumors as facts! Can't handle the truth...put people on ignore.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
So tell me on the 4C dies where are the other 4 given the 1800 and 1100 families are the same size. Amd have targeted high end features on mainsteam level and costs, best of both.
Click to expand...


That is not best of both, that is getting the best out of yields, if AMD was able to get all 8 core dies they would make a separate CPU with only 4 cores, that would be price beneficial for them, they will end up with more margins.

These are the kind of things Pendragon1 and Brackle (you are in the same category in my book as these new guys worse yet you have been year for numerous years and you just don't know any better), that you guys are talking with. People that don't understand what yields are, why companies cut down chips etc. God yes it takes more than one to tango, but when you have people that make statements like this, it only takes one, because of the ineptitude of understanding what they type and the reasoning behind it.

Brackle said:
Alright it means that I was right. You are using rumors are facts! Can't handle the truth...put people on ignore.
Click to expand...

Ah got a post in there before I put you on ignore. PS I will take you off if I don't put you on now I will call a spade a spade, and we all know how that goes.

You weren't right, go back and check, you were so far off base it wasn't funny. My speculation based on what AMD stated was spot on. I knew where its performance was going to hit, I knew where its power draw was going to hit, it actually hit higher than what I was expecting. I knew they were going to be farther behind this gen than they were last gen when it came to most metrics.


When I speculate, I don't take one person's word for it, but if many people say something, and they have been right in the past, I will take all of their words for consideration.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
That is not best of both, that is getting the best out of yields, if AMD was able to get all 8 core dies they would make a separate CPU with only 4 cores, that would be price beneficial for them, they will end up with more margins.

These are the kind of things Pendrangon1 and Brackle, that you guys are talking with. People that don't understand what yields are, why companies cut down chips etc. God yes it takes more than one to tango, but when you have people that make statements like this, it only takes one, because of the ineptitude of understanding what they type and the reasoning behind it.



Ah got a post in there before I put you on ignore.

You weren't right, go back and check, you were so far off base it wasn't funny. My speculation based on what AMD stated was spot on. I knew where its performance was going to hit, I knew where its power draw was going to hit, it actually hit higher than what I was expecting. I knew they were going to be farther behind this gen than they were last gen when it came to most metrics.


When I speculate, I don't take one person's word for it, but if many people say something, and they have been right in the past, I will take all of their words for consideration.
Click to expand...

We were not talking about salvaging, AMD has 8 cores on less die space. That is all it was about. You spinning off into yields would only be relevant if we were talking about that.

If yield was the talking point, yes AMD but more GF has yield issues but i was told that as GF matures the yields better, the clocks improve.
 
razor1 said:
concerning die size and performance per transistor this is Ryzen 4 core die size: 44mm
this is Skylake 4 core die size: 49mm2

Sky lake has 40% of its die size allocated to an iGPU.

This is impressive for you OrangeKhrush?

To me that is straight out 45% advantage for Intel when it comes to cost of current products (if they decide to remove the IGP). All this without factoring GF's profits.

Then lets look at performance per mm^2 shell we?

Or performance per transistor?

There is pretty difference in Intel's architecture when you look at purely the CPU side of things and remove the iGPU.
Click to expand...

Uhh Razor? Are you drunk?

This 44mm^2 die size is only referring to the area of the cores + L2 and L3 cache... not at all related to any other parts of the full silicon like memory controllers or the additonal SoC features on Ryzen.

That 49mm^2 for the Intel chips doesn't include the iGPU or memory controller or anything else besides the compute cores and cache...

I think you're the one here with reading comprehension issues you keep accusing others of suffering from.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
We were not talking about salvaging, AMD has 8 cores on less die space. That is all it was about. You spinning off into yields would only be relevant if we were talking about that.

If yield was the talking point, yes AMD but more GF has yield issues but i was told that as GF matures the yields better, the clocks improve.
Click to expand...

Also need to bring up is AMD is using new Technology making the CPU's (infinity fabric). You have to bring that into account. Of course all speculation, but it is possible that is why the CPU power rating is so low being an 8c/16t design. Hopefully it helps with overclocking too? Feb 28th can't come soon enough.
 
razor1 said:
really a sinker, yeah can better than that, that was a redirect on his short comings.
Click to expand...

I was more a cutter, two seam, circle change and euphus guy, until i had to medically stop and got cut the next day by that organisation.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Uhh Razor? Are you drunk?

This 44mm^2 die size is only referring to the area of the cores + L2 and L3 cache... not at all related to any other parts of the full silicon like memory controllers or the additonal SoC features on Ryzen.

That 49mm^2 for the Intel chips doesn't include the iGPU or memory controller or anything else besides the compute cores and cache...

I think you're the one here with reading comprehension issues you keep accusing others of suffering from.
Click to expand...


My mistake, you are correct, ok yeah so they do seem to have a small advantage that is good for them.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
That 49mm^2 for the Intel chips doesn't include the iGPU or memory controller or anything else besides the compute cores and cache...
Click to expand...
On another point Intel could actually make a 130mm^2 eight core if they wanted to get rid of iGPU. What is die size of Ryzen again?
 
OrangeKhrush said:
I was more a cutter, two seam, circle change and euphus guy, until i had to medically stop and got cut the next day by that organisation.
Click to expand...

That is a difficult pitch to hit, Also uses a butt load of shoulder. haven't played baseball since high school but I was no slouch, was better at other sports though ;)
 
lolfail9001 said:
On another point Intel could actually make a 130mm^2 eight core if they wanted to get rid of iGPU. What is die size of Ryzen again?
Click to expand...

Broadwell-E 10 cores 14nm = 243mm^2 - (49mm^2 x 1/2) = ~220mm^2 reduce PCI-E lanes and memory controller to dual channel, yeah you could probably hit 180mm^2 - 200mm^2 easy.

Ryzen with SoC elements is rumored to be anywhere from 185mm^2 to 200+mm^2 with no confirmation yet. Keep in mind that extra space also reduces motherboard costs so it's not 100% apples to apples comparison.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Broadwell-E 10 cores 14nm = 243mm^2 - (49mm^2 x 1/2) = ~220mm^2 reduce PCI-E lanes and memory controller to dual channel, yeah you could probably hit 180mm^2 - 200mm^2 easy.

Ryzen with SoC elements is rumored to be anywhere from 185mm^2 to 200+mm^2 with no confirmation yet. Keep in mind that extra space also reduces motherboard costs so it's not 100% apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...


Which is the only advantage Ryzen has right now, is the motherboard cost, something Intel can't counter till Cannon Lake and its platform is ready. I think we talked about this awhile back, oh three or four pages ago.
 
razor1 said:
That is a difficult pitch to hit, Also uses a butt load of shoulder. haven't played baseball since high school but I was no slouch, was better at other sports though ;)
Click to expand...
Was in a car accident while on short season assignment in Australia with an affiliate. Back then 92-94, played some CF too.

Started throwing again, got up to low to mid 80's which is good for beer league, they can't catch up
 
razor1 said:
What about the single threaded performance?

The leak came from a system builder, Boost Boxx, they used a motherboard without boosting capabilities.

As far as synthetics go, Physics is important as its testing game like physics simulations so that should also factor in single thread performance quite a bit.

Integer math is multi threaded dependent, and that should be good for Ryzen.

Prime numbers the amount of data needed, shuffling between the memory and cpu is going to be an issue with the memory type used, not sure if its the memory or motherboard (cause we don't know what are the requirements of Ryzen when it comes to memory) or just something not so good with Ryzen when it comes to memory, AMD in the past has had these issues with memory too.
Click to expand...

The memory timings were very loose in that test and the board had no support over 2400MHZ so that definitely had a role in the poor result on per core physics. Their could even be issues withother factors of the motherboard the A320 chipset may have some bottlenecks it is a very low-end product. We will need reviews done on optimized hardware to have a better picture.
 
razor1 said:
concerning die size and performance per transistor this is Ryzen 4 core die size: 44mm
this is Skylake 4 core die size: 49mm2

Sky lake has 40% of its die size allocated to an iGPU.

This is impressive for you OrangeKhrush?

To me that is straight out 45% advantage for Intel when it comes to cost of current products (if they decide to remove the IGP). All this without factoring GF's profits.

Then lets look at performance per mm^2 shell we?

Or performance per transistor?

There is pretty difference in Intel's architecture when you look at purely the CPU side of things and remove the iGPU.
Click to expand...

Yes , you are absolutely right the die size craziness was pushed by the media who like WCCFTECH. It gives no real advantage to AMD at all. There are however some major impressive innovations that AMD has employed in their architecture like their cache logic, improved L2 cache size, shortening of their pipelines, etc that have lowered latencies in a dramatic manner. I am sure you can appreciate that. On the gpu front if you have read much on the Vega architecture it is game changing , excuse the double entendre. Industry dynamics are changing in AMD 's favor. If there is no major stumble they will win some mind share as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top