Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by HardOCP News, Dec 26, 2016.

  1. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Just went back through Linus vid and the Handbrake also included Blender at same time, also was the 1700X.
    The 1700 was shown with games at the end of his vid, where in BF1 the test compared the 1700 against the 6800K.

    LN2, well that needs extensive monitoring to compare different CPUs and their core behaviour/performance.
    Cheers
     
  2. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    You accept recent Xeon CPUs can run all cores up to 10C at near full boost?
    What are the HEDT based upon?
    Cheers
     
  3. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Oh, so it was not Linus one. Mirror of the vid i am talking about is above your post, though.
    He actually compared 3.6Ghz base clock QS against 6800k in that vid, but he was too dumb to notice the QS name.
    There was like 10 CB results, trust me, these guys can find the frequency wall on LN2 in 10 attempts. Mirror of vid i am talking about above.
     
  4. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    A 5960X for example runs all cores at 3.3Ghz.
    http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000006652.html

    So what Xeon did you talk about with full boost up to 10 cores? The single one that's the exception? But even that one had to drop 200mhz after 2 cores.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-9.html
    You were saying?
     
  6. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
  7. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    That was not active:
    Evidently, neither was driver :)
     
    CSI_PC likes this.
  8. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Yeah agreed.
    Unfortunately the vid compared Intel 4/8 to the 8/16 and then shows the LN2 world record.
    My point is when a couple here are trying to compare to Intel CPUs and correlate also with LN2, LN2 makes this very tricky as the silicon behaviour-performance can also change with such low temps (in fact it does), and should be treated as a separate aspect.
    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  9. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Then it cant be true can it. If it hit 4Ghz without its either OCed or someone is drunk.

    This is what is required.
    [​IMG]

    XFR on the other hand works automatically without this added layer. Much more elegant in that regard.
     
  10. FrgMstr

    FrgMstr Just Plain Mean Staff Member

    Messages:
    48,506
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
  11. lolfail9001

    lolfail9001 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,509
    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    I don't own 6900k to verify it, ya know.
    Eh, the point of it was to establish clocks the 8 core was running in Handbrake, comparison itself is lame, i agree.
    It may change silicon performance, but i highly doubt it can change architecture throughput out of thin air. Besides, the irony of 5.14Ghz or something Ryzen beating 6Ghz Haswell-E is delicious.
     
  12. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Part of what I am thinking comes back to the motherboards and microcode in some examples for the past.
    The exception you noted in the E7 and also in E5 (where drops by I think only 100MHz) shows can run at near max even without motherboard support.

    A fair few of motherboards do support running the 6900K/etc enhanced (couple reviews noted all cores at or near to max boost frequency)
    Also possibly thinking of Haswell Xeon parts can up to 10 cores full boost before dropping depending upon the microcode, there is a glitch that enables up to 15C to run at full boost if the motherboard and cooler can handle it but it has issues being a glitch.
    Also the 5930 dropped 100mhz for all cores probably was in the back of my mind.

    Anyway as Lolfial9001 showed it is possible to run all cores for the Broadwell-E at near boost max without OC, Tom's from what I remember were not the only one.
    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  13. Brackle

    Brackle Old Timer

    Messages:
    7,264
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    So 1 thing I hope [H] explains is...I keep reading that they can clock as high as cooling can go.....So does this mean even though they are unlocked, there will be a point where the software stops overclocking? I mean this is [H] where they test to that limit and even make it crash....curious if the Software would prevent that.

    Is it confirmed that there is no Bios overclocking with Ryzen? All Software?
     
  14. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    Magic Hate Ball likes this.
  15. Schmave

    Schmave [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,719
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Ryzen is looking good...if I were in the market for a new PC I'd probably go with a 1700X. Aside from gaming I do a fair amount of photo and video editing on my computer so the 8 cores would be awesome.
     
  16. SighTurtle

    SighTurtle [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,412
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    According to Mr. Gibbo (seemingly the mouthpiece) of OCUK, the 1700, 1700X and 1800X all have XFR, the X means only that they are binned for higher boost clocks.

    Also, people expecting these chips to overclock a lot more should naturally temper their expectations, wait for reviews.

    Now, the third link apparently refers to this post where the poster states that the X means something a little more.

    Now, I used Google Translate, so could be wrong, but the poster is saying the X is something still under NDA.
     
    muxr likes this.
  17. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,817
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
  18. Sparky

    Sparky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,207
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Why compare it to a processor that came out in 2014 and is 3 generations ago?
    Apples to oranges sounds like to me.
     
  19. ir0nw0lf

    ir0nw0lf [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,327
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    ^^ The Excel test video, the guy pooched it on the C/T count on the 1700, "8 core 8 thread" he said. :eek:

    right around the 0:28 'ish mark.
     
  20. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    I think most are now expecting at best 4.4GHz and probably the 4.2GHz with the 1800X and great air cooling, which seems pretty reasonable to me if it can.
    It will be interesting to see if the 1700X matches the 1800X with OC.
    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  21. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,553
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Those AMD numbers don't agree much with reviews

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  22. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    I doubt the AMD machines used in the demo are identical to the ones in the Anandtech database, memory is one aspect that comes to mind.
    But they were identical in the AMD event for both AMD Ryzen and Intel 6900K so no unfair advantage, and in fact the Single threaded score was higher for the 6900K at the AMD event.
    The difference is not enough to really debate as an issue unless you know for sure the system-environment for both the Anandtech score and AMD event.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  23. samm

    samm [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,757
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Damn AMD back at it again with them low low prices.

    Honestly if this thing turns out to be half as good as it seems, Intels got to restructure the future lineup (i dont see them doing a full drop pricing until the next release).

    BTW anyone looking a the Linus video and knowing how XFR/tb 3.0 works tell me the weird clock frequency noted on the BF1 demo specifically as he pulls up both task managers.

    Framerate achieved was

    Intel 88 AMD 93

    Task manager from Intel was 3.06 clock vs AMDs TM showing 3.64 clock

    mind you the game is minimized, but do we assume that since he minimized both game windows Intel turbo boost down clocked for efficiency or lack of thermal headroom while XFR remained at the given frequency due to cooling headroom/granularity (linus hints at)? Or do we assume that the Intel chip was clocked at 3.06 during in game and minimized game window and the AMD remained pegged at 3.64?
     
  24. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,552
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    are you the real juanrga ppl have been talking aboot? or are you someone stealing a username?
     
  25. SighTurtle

    SighTurtle [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,412
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016


    Q2 for Ryzen 5, Ryzen 3 in 2H 2017.

    http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1331380&page_number=2

    I wonder if Project Scorpio affects timetables for the other chips beyond using GF/Samsung's manufacturing capacity.
     
  26. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,817
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
  27. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,919
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    It's a damn shame the 1600X isnt launching sooner: this looks like the People's champ. Essentially a 6800k for ~$250... I wonder if AMD's lag time between the R7 and the R5 releases will allow Intel a timely counterattack and remove all advantage...
     
    cageymaru likes this.
  28. juanrga

    juanrga Pro-Intel / Anti-AMD Just FYI

    Messages:
    2,553
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    We have to wait to reviews for proper comparisons.
     
    Shintai and KazeoHin like this.
  29. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    And yet ironically it was you who provided the Anandtech Cinebench result to say AMD's results are wrong.....
    Even reviews will have some variance between sites as they are not all using identical machines, to repeat the variance in this case is NOT enough to infer as you did that AMD is doing something wrong unless you knew the exact environments of both AMD and Anandtech.
    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
    JustReason, Gideon and Ieldra like this.
  30. CombatChrisNC

    CombatChrisNC [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,136
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Dumb to be R3, R5, and R7, vs Intel's i3, i5, i7. Wouldn't have made more sense to be R4, R6, and R8? It matches core count AND it's ONE BIGGER!!!!!11!!!
     
    funkydmunky likes this.
  31. sover

    sover Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    [​IMG]
     
    RAutrey likes this.
  32. Spirit_Retro

    Spirit_Retro Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    My brother's sister's gardener's cousin has a friend who knows a dude who's sister is dating the guy who landscapes the AMD campus. HE smokes pot with this janitor who's friends with one of the girls who dates the boyfriend of an engineer at nVidia who knows a guy who cleaned the gutters of an AMD engineer.

    HE said: Zendozer.
     
  33. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    AMD numbers on Intel performance simply do not agree with what i have been testing. I noticed that AMD crippled Intel platform by switching from quad memory channel to dual memory channel, also running Intel CPU at stock which make Ryzen look even worse knowing that intel parts run low clock speed and still achieve pretty much same numbers.

    Here are some benches i did on my Xeon 10/20@3.2@3.5 Ghz in 3DMark....

    http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11790011

    http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1259762

    It is extra 2 cores but also 800Mhz disadvantage over 1800x Ryzen and it will still come out better.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
    buttons likes this.
  34. CSI_PC

    CSI_PC 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    It is in the BIOS without the driver-application and will detect strongest core, as long as it is on a motherboard (and microcode) supporting this or has its firmware upgraded if older.
    That app-driver enables you to have greater control and in it specifically force applications to a single core (makes it easier for end users) and importantly also allows to set the Max Boost 3.0 above the rated frequency spec given by Intel - other utilities hook into this and can set higher such as Asus AI Suite.
    Without the app it is just more general and cannot exceed the Max Boost 3.0 Intel spec of the CPU.
    Anyway like I said it comes down to the motherboard/microcode and most will have this function if supporting Broadwell fully, same way it is the motherboard that controls all cores up to but not beyond the max boost frequency spec for the CPU unless one actually OCs - context though are CPUs greater than 4-cores and so Intels HEDT/extreme and their expensive motherboards that push the features by default.
    But then would one run a PC without going into the BIOS to check XMP profile and right settings for their decent memory.

    Here is a classic example where they compare performance of the 6950X against the driver-application set to 4.6GHz single core and forcing Cinebench through it.
    Notice that the scores mean without the Max Boost 3.0 driver-app it must be boosting near to the 4.0GHz by default as the scores would be further apart as the max turbo frequency for the 6950X is 3.5GHz.
    They also comment the BIOS detected strongest core.
    https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2016/05/31/intel-core-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-review/2
    Their score pretty much aligns with other Cinebench results from other sites, suggesting Boost 3.0 is hitting 4GHz or close to it by default even without driver-utility; 158 default, 185 set to 4.6GHz with driver-utility.
    Before anyone posts, the Cinebench score where it mentions Turbo Boost 3.0 is with the driver-utility and 4.6GHz, the other is without and defaults but it is still hitting near 4GHz.

    Anyway the driver-app is more to make an end-users life easier/greater flexibility, and that bit-tech review score of 158 fits reasonably well trend scores of AMD event/other sites while also being around the score point for 4GHz relative to the 4.6GHz test result of 185.
    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
    JustReason likes this.
  35. GroundZero

    GroundZero n00b

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2017
    OMG he's here....where is the ignore button?

    *edit* Found it.
     
    JustReason, Gideon and THUMPer like this.
  36. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Intel is faster per clock, and in all these benchmarks AMD forgot that Intel runs easily at 4.4Ghz
     
  37. GroundZero

    GroundZero n00b

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2017
    Doesn't matter when everything is moving toward multithreading. Even a Ryzen 1400X 4C/8T probably gives Intel quads a run for their money in MT, while being adequate in ST.
     
    muxr likes this.
  38. Tyns

    Tyns Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    313
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Are any Time Spy CPU scores for Ryzen posted? I only saw FS
     
  39. os2wiz

    os2wiz Gawd

    Messages:
    558
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Juanrga, the troll?
     
    Simplyfun likes this.
  40. Luka

    Luka Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Didn't see any scores for Time Spy on Ryzen.