Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

thehoj said:
That's what I'm hoping for.. I had an Opteron 165 (1.8Ghz) which I believe I was able to overclock to around 2.8Ghz or just under. I was using one of those jet engine sounding coolers though, with a Delta 60mm (7000rpm) fan I think... No fan curves, just full throttle all the time :D Obscenely loud.
Click to expand...
I remember those too, mine was on a T-bird with zalman heatsink with the delta 60mm fan 7K+ rpm, damn jet engine!
 


4.1 water cooling all cores, crash. End of video 19 minutes or so

So thinking 4.1 on air anyone? Who was that?
 
I couldn't tell, but people wishing for crazy overclocks on Ryzen on Air, that is wishful thinking. The team they had there were also testing with LN2 at tech day, they know what they are doing.
 
razor1 said:


4.1 water cooling all cores, crash. End of video 19 minutes or so

So thinking 4.1 on air anyone? Who was that?
Click to expand...

Too early to say if that is the issue or a combination of the AMD tool+motherboard (with the microcode controlling core behaviour).
Fingers crossed reviewers try it just with BIOS and then the tool so we get a clearer picture if something unexpected is happening when OCing.
Or it could be other parameters not aligned for the OC.
I think most here are expecting conservative clocks on air, 4.2GHz maybe and a few lucky ones 4.3Ghz both with the best air cooler.
Cheers
 
Not seen it mentioned.
Llooks like reviewers are receiving the Noctua NH-U12S for normal and also Predator 240 for overclocking.
So it seems they do think the smaller Noctua is enough normally, which is a good sign (reviews will tell us soon).

Cheers
 
razor1 said:


4.1 water cooling all cores, crash. End of video 19 minutes or so

So thinking 4.1 on air anyone? Who was that?
Click to expand...


are you really jumping on these too? So you got your tweaks right the first time. Remember they were using the windows utility I believe. I could counter your argument by showing you MSI game boost dial picture that sets 1800x to 4.4ghz if you put the dial to number 11. I can assure you took a few tries to get my 6850 stable at 4.4ghz.

Now they also did a run at 4.1ghz on all cores with XFR working. This was while tweaking it with the utility. I am seriously starting to believe you are losing objectivity because I doubt this is the first time you saw a failed overclock. Hey atleast AMD didn't bullshit you lol..

how, and what and where it clocks to is anyones guess and I will wait for the reviews to come around.

I am not expecting it to clock to 4.4 ghz, if it clocks to even 4ghz on high end air. I think thats a plus for first gen Zen chips.
 
juanrga said:
Using the Intel compiler doesn't mean anything per se. AMD uses the Intel compiler in its own SPEC submission because it extracts the maximum performance from AMD hardware compared to other compilers as GCC.

Also The Stilt said something about Cinebench being a best-case for RyZen performance or something like that. Anyone remember his exact words?
Click to expand...
I know what Stilt said and also others on other forums that went into more detail, furthermore my point is it does also improve for AMD CPUs but not necessarily with the greatest gains for Ryzen.

While it was somewhat tongue in cheek, it is relevant when some on here are going to over the top lengths of critique against Ryzen, and so seems only right this should be brought up against Intel as it fits well with their approach.
Anyway here is a piece from PCWorld:
Cinebench carries significance as a benchmark because it's long been considered an Intel-friendly test. In 2009, the FTC said CineBench used Intel compiler optimizations that hobbled competing CPUs on programs that were created with it. The FTC said of Cinebench: “In truth and in fact, the benchmark did not reliably measure the speed of digital content creation.” Intel settled the FTC suit in 2010.

Maxon, the maker of Cinema4D and Cinebench, has long maintained there was no funny business. “MAXON does use the Intel compiler on Windows. However, they use a specific (and fixed) instruction set for the compiler which is supported by AMD and Intel. Additionally, they do not use any compiler options that employ CPU identifiers at runtime,” Maxon told PCWorld through a spokeswoman. “This is where Intel could gain some advantage (support for newer features that are not available for AMD CPUs). This was part of the FTC investigation but has never been an issue with CineBench.”

Maxon says the Intel compiler is simply faster—for both companies' CPUs. ”Comparing the speed Intel or AMD CPUs achieve with code created by the Microsoft compiler, the Intel compiler not only achieves higher absolute speed on those CPUs, but AMD CPUs actually show a larger relative gain than Intel CPUs."

"The fact that the pre-Ryzen AMD CPUs are not benchmarking as well is not a software or compiler problem,” Maxon said. “MAXON has a good relationship with both AMD and Intel. They regularly work with them on new processors and prototypes. AMD actually met with the MAXON developers at the end of last year. One of the changes to CineBench 15.038 was a result of this meeting.”

Maxon declined to say what exactly the changes were with the new version, but the spokeswoman did say performance is comparable. Interestingly, demonstrations by AMD used a slightly older version of CineBench, which would not contain the fixes in the program.
Click to expand...
So there you go, one aspect of improvement missing in the AMD event, and Maxon still refuse to clearly state what the changes are and we take it at face value what Maxon says.
And before you mention higher gain for AMD in the past it is relative with no independent verification as to how Maxon approached this, well apart from when FTC challenged Intel/Maxon.
The quote context is about the benchmark utility.
So fits with those going over the top critique of Rysen, just this is one against Intel :)
Although I bet any responses will not be taking my context into consideration...
Cheers
 
Last edited:
THUMPer said:

DDR4 - 3400 @ 1t? What about those RAM issues?
Click to expand...

Suggests to me what Overclockers experienced is true, they said you could go above 3000 with that specific motherboard but only with 2 DIMMs and not 4.
Only a couple of other boards I think managed this from their experience, cannot remember what they said about trying 4 DIMM at 2400.
If anyone has a pre-order also with memory probably best to go for just 2 sticks.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
Suggests to me what Overclockers experienced is true, they said you could go above 3000 with that specific motherboard but only with 2 DIMMs and not 4.
Only a couple of other boards I think managed this from their experience, cannot remember what they said about trying 4 DIMM at 2400.
Cheers
Click to expand...

I picked up an asus Z77 on day one. DDR3 support on that was lacking. I had to go to an MSI board with a beta BIOS to get stable DDR3 1600 at CL8. I've always only used 2 sticks when building systems for the fact of stability. This is no different. However some people have 4 sticks, and I'm sure support for higher speed RAM will be there.
 
THUMPer said:
I picked up an asus Z77 on day one. DDR3 support on that was lacking. I had to go to an MSI board with a beta BIOS to get stable DDR3 1600 at CL8. I've always only used 2 sticks when building systems for the fact of stability. This is no different. However some people have 4 sticks, and I'm sure support for higher speed RAM will be there.
Click to expand...
I do agree it will be fixed and possibly similar way we saw as you say with Z77 and also early days with the DDR4 on Intel platform, just that it does have an impact and consideration for some now with their pre-order.
Cheers
 
NKD said:
are you really jumping on these too? So you got your tweaks right the first time. Remember they were using the windows utility I believe. I could counter your argument by showing you MSI game boost dial picture that sets 1800x to 4.4ghz if you put the dial to number 11. I can assure you took a few tries to get my 6850 stable at 4.4ghz.

Now they also did a run at 4.1ghz on all cores with XFR working. This was while tweaking it with the utility. I am seriously starting to believe you are losing objectivity because I doubt this is the first time you saw a failed overclock. Hey atleast AMD didn't bullshit you lol..

how, and what and where it clocks to is anyones guess and I will wait for the reviews to come around.

I am not expecting it to clock to 4.4 ghz, if it clocks to even 4ghz on high end air. I think thats a plus for first gen Zen chips.
Click to expand...


They specifically stated XFR @ 4.1 was on One Core. This has nothing to do with AMD or Ryzen or how good it is, its just a nameless (mindless) person in this thread stated something that will NOT HAPPEN on most Ryzen 8 core CPU's. His sources are crap, well not really crap they just didn't expound upon exactly what they were talking about, which well, was pointed out to him and I'm reiterating what I stated, base clocks for Ryzen 8 core CPU's above 4.0 GHZ with AIR is a pipe dream.

And NKD, please don't go down that road with me again. Cause I'm kinda loosing patience with you subtle elbow to ribs, well not so subtle. So if you don't know where this started from, just go back 7 pages or so.

If jumping the gun is having your PRO overclock team to the right of your camera and screwing up the overclock is jumping the gun, guess someone didn't test out the hardware or the overclock team is crap? What so AMD's CPU is capable, but their team or themselves are incompetent?
 
razor1 said:
They specifically stated XFR @ 4.1 was on One Core. These has nothing to do with AMD or Ryzen or how good it is, its just a nameless (mindless) person in this thread stated something that will NOT HAPPEN on most Ryzen 8 core CPU's. His sources are crap, well not really crap they just didn't expound upon exactly what they were talking about, which well, was pointed out to him and I'm reiterating what I stated, base clocks for Ryzen 8 core CPU's above 4.0 GHZ with AIR is a pipe dream.

And NKD, please don't go down that road with me again. Cause I'm kinda loosing patience with you subtle elbow to ribs, well not so subtle. So if you don't know where this started from, just go back 7 pages or so.

If jumping the gun is having your PRO overclock team to the right of your camera and screwing up the overclock is jumping the gun, guess someone didn't test out the hardware or the overclock team is crap? What so AMD's CPU is capable, but their team or themselves are incompetent?
Click to expand...
I actually think it is likely to hit above 4.0ghz on air or else AMD would have sent reviewers an AIO instead. That being said it may only be 100mhz-200mhz max on air. The botched overclock during the demo can be due to numerous reasons because i guarantee they tested it and it worked before demoing it.
 
Presbytier said:
I actually think it is likely to hit above 4.0ghz on air or else AMD would have sent reviewers an AIO instead. That being said it may only be 100mhz-200mhz max on air
Click to expand...


Not sustained base clocks. I think only gold samples are going to be able to do that on Air and not all cores.
 
razor1 said:
Not sustained base clocks. I think only gold samples are going to be able to do that on Air and not all cores.
Click to expand...
Again they would not have sent out air coolers to reviewers if they thought it was not going to work. They can't be that incompetent.
 
Presbytier said:
Again they would not have sent out air coolers to reviewers if they thought it was not going to work. They can't be that incompetent.
Click to expand...


Well not going to pull out the "overclockers dream" here but there ya go... no has been talking about crazy overclocks from AMD, outside of few people (think its six different sources now) that most of them stated up to 4.0 air, above that water and LN. So outside of one guy who is reputable saying above 4 less than 4.4 he hasn't stated with what though.

And no AMD wouldn't send out a AIO with their review kit, everyone would be thinking Fury X again. And that would just not be good.
 
razor1 said:
Well not going to pull out the "overclockers dream" here but there ya go... no has been talking about crazy overclocks from AMD, outside of few people (think its six different sources now) that most of them stated up to 4.0 air, above that water and LN. So outside of one guy who is reputable saying above 4 less than 4.4 he hasn't stated with what though.

And no AMD wouldn't send out a AIO with their review kit, everyone would be thinking Fury X again. And that would just not be good.
Click to expand...
My point is they have been saying it is cooling dependent, so i do not expect more that 100mhz above max clock on air either, but they want reveirs to be able to see XFR working and if it cant boost at least 100mhz on air it would seem prudent to send an AIO.
 
razor1 said:
They specifically stated XFR @ 4.1 was on One Core. This has nothing to do with AMD or Ryzen or how good it is, its just a nameless (mindless) person in this thread stated something that will NOT HAPPEN on most Ryzen 8 core CPU's. His sources are crap, well not really crap they just didn't expound upon exactly what they were talking about, which well, was pointed out to him and I'm reiterating what I stated, base clocks for Ryzen 8 core CPU's above 4.0 GHZ with AIR is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify as it is an important consideration and probably applies to Ryzen as well, a 6950X can do all 10 cores at 4GHz on air with the Noctua D15, temps varied 65-78c across the cores, but that is probably the ceiling as next voltage bump would be too much.
De8auer who is an international OCer showed this and it was a standard 6950X, not delidded and tested with Cinebench benchmark.
So there is probably still a little leeway with air for Ryzen 1800X, when it is a very good air cooler.
Just how much leeway, going to be interesting to see.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Presbytier said:
I actually think it is likely to hit above 4.0ghz on air or else AMD would have sent reviewers an AIO instead. That being said it may only be 100mhz-200mhz max on air. The botched overclock during the demo can be due to numerous reasons because i guarantee they tested it and it worked before demoing it.
Click to expand...
Well Hilbert at Guru3D showed he received both the Predator 240 AIO and the smaller Noctua U12S air solution.
We need to see just how well Ryzen holds up as that combo can have many different interpretations and assumptions on Ryzens core-frequency behaviour.
If AMD is right with their spec on supplying the U12S, it does seem positive to me with the larger good air coolers albeit still with limitations of course.


Cheers
 
Last edited:
CSI_PC said:
Well Hilbert at Guru3D showed he received both the Predator 240 AIO and the smaller Noctua U12S air solution.
We need to see just how well Ryzen holds up as that combo can have many different interpretations and assumptions on Ryzens core-frequency behaviour.
If AMD is right with their spec on supplying the U12S, it does not seem that bad to me with the larger good air coolers albeit still with limitations of course.


Cheers
Click to expand...



Did they run out of wooden boxes lol, must of just been at the press event ;)

oh nm it came up later on it the video.
 
juanrga said:
Using the Intel compiler doesn't mean anything per se. AMD uses the Intel compiler in its own SPEC submission because it extracts the maximum performance from AMD hardware compared to other compilers as GCC.

Also The Stilt said something about Cinebench being a best-case for RyZen performance or something like that. Anyone remember his exact words?
Click to expand...

In single threaded apps with XFR enabled Ryzen can overclock a single core to the point it can outperform a Kaby Lake 7700 in single thread. I saw the stats over on that forum you no longer post on.
 
CSI_PC said:
Well Hilbert at Guru3D showed he received both the Predator 240 AIO and the smaller Noctua U12S air solution.
We need to see just how well Ryzen holds up as that combo can have many different interpretations and assumptions on Ryzens core-frequency behaviour.
If AMD is right with their spec on supplying the U12S, it does not seem that bad to me with the larger good air coolers albeit still with limitations of course.


Cheers
Click to expand...





This is live.
 
CSI_PC said:
Just to clarify as it is an important consideration and probably applies to Ryzen as well, a 6950X can do all 10 cores at 4GHz on air with the Noctua D15, temps varied 65-78c across the cores, but that is probably the ceiling as next voltage bump would be too much.
De8auer who is an international OCer showed this and it was a standard 6950X, not delidded and tested with Cinebench benchmark.
So there is probably still a little leeway with air for Ryzen 1800X, when it is a very good air cooler.
Just how much leeway, going to be interesting to see.
Cheers
Click to expand...

on the best aircoolers like a Noctua D15 or Thermal Right Silver Arrow, or Master Maker 8 I am positive we will see 4.2 GHZ on all 8cores. On liquid coolers that are better than the Corsair H100i I expect up to 4.4 to 4.5 GHZ on all cores. Butas I have mentioned in another post XFR has the capability of overclocking a single core if you are running a single threaded app. Those overclocks can be somewhat higher than 4.4 or 4.5 GHZ and put Ryzen 1800X up to and a little better than Kaby Lake single thread performance. This has been demonstrated on some of those single thread results you are seeing on Ryzen that many disbelieve. Most are REAL not faked.
 
os2wiz said:
on the best aircoolers like a Noctua D15 or Thermal Right Silver Arrow, or Master Maker 8 I am positive we will see 4.2 GHZ on all 8cores. On liquid coolers that are better than the Corsair H100i I expect up to 4.4 to 4.5 GHZ on all cores. Butas I have mentioned in another post XFR has the capability of overclocking a single core if you are running a single threaded app. Those overclocks can be somewhat higher than 4.4 or 4.5 GHZ and put Ryzen 1800X up to and a little better than Kaby Lake single thread performance. This has been demonstrated on some of those single thread results you are seeing on Ryzen that many disbelieve. Most are REAL not faked.
Click to expand...
I think that might be wishful thinking, but it does not matter as we will definitely get to know for certain in just a few days.
 
Yes it will become apparent in 3 days. I expect no egg in my face. The hints from several posts of people on NDA's are all very positive.
 
os2wiz said:
Yes it will become apparent in 3 days. I expect no egg in my face. The hints from several posts of people on NDA's are all very positive.
Click to expand...
I think it will be positive I just don't expect an 8 core CPU to OC that high
 
Remember when Athlon XP competed with P4 cpus @ ~77% of the CPU clock?

Why people hung up on clock for clock still I will never understand.
 
Why people hung up on clock for clock still I will never understand.
Click to expand...

Because Zen will still be a little behind in IPC and frequency but not cores.

The AthlonXP was ahead in IPC by a large margin but also behind in frequency by a large margin.
 
drescherjm said:
Because Zen will still be a little behind in IPC and frequency but not cores.

The AthlonXP was ahead in IPC by a large margin but also behind in frequency by a large margin.
Click to expand...
Actually if all the leaks are to be believed it may not actually be behind in IPC but equal.
 
razor1 said:
They specifically stated XFR @ 4.1 was on One Core. This has nothing to do with AMD or Ryzen or how good it is, its just a nameless (mindless) person in this thread stated something that will NOT HAPPEN on most Ryzen 8 core CPU's. His sources are crap, well not really crap they just didn't expound upon exactly what they were talking about, which well, was pointed out to him and I'm reiterating what I stated, base clocks for Ryzen 8 core CPU's above 4.0 GHZ with AIR is a pipe dream.

And NKD, please don't go down that road with me again. Cause I'm kinda loosing patience with you subtle elbow to ribs, well not so subtle. So if you don't know where this started from, just go back 7 pages or so.

If jumping the gun is having your PRO overclock team to the right of your camera and screwing up the overclock is jumping the gun, guess someone didn't test out the hardware or the overclock team is crap? What so AMD's CPU is capable, but their team or themselves are incompetent?
Click to expand...

I don't think I said anything that was worth losing patience over but I do apologize if you felt that way. But I don't understand this obsession with high overclocks. I am sure you agree. I have a 6 core intel, and it wouldnt do anything above 4.4ghz and I have it on water. Anything higher its not worth the headache for me to find it stable. It just ticks at 4.4ghz and keeps me happy.

Now here is a review at Toms for 6900k from intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-9.html

max 4.3ghz. Now I expect intel to be have better clock speed advantage but if AMD can land 4.1ghz on 8 core chip or even 4ghz with the shitty R&D they have and type of failures they have had in the past. I say that is not bad. Hardly fair to knock at AMD for not hitting intel overclocks. I am sure zen+ will improve that.

But when I saw that video, the idiots so called pros just bumped the clock speed on all clocks to 4.1 and hit apply. WTF? I mean I have never had a successful overclock that easy just adjusting the clock up like an idiot and not touching anything else lol.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
I don't think I said anything that was worth losing patience over but I do apologize if you felt that way. But I don't understand this obsession with high overclocks. I am sure you agree. I have a 6 core intel, and it wouldnt do anything above 4.4ghz and I have it on water. Anything higher its not worth the headache for me to find it stable. It just ticks at 4.4ghz and keeps me happy.

Now here is a review at Toms for 6900k from intel.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-broadwell-e-6950x-6900k-6850k-6800k,4587-9.html

max 4.3ghz. Now I expect intel to be have better clock speed advantage but if AMD can land 4.1ghz on 8 core chip or even 4ghz with the shitty R&D they have and type of failures they have had in the past. I say that is not bad. Hardly fair to knock at AMD for not hitting intel overclocks. I am sure zen+ will improve that.
Click to expand...


I don't really care about the clocks, I have already stated numerous times IPC might be on Intel's side, but SMT performance evens the scales for AMD, so end results Intel and AMD should be on equal footing for the most part (win some loss some depending on the application and what the application needs are based on IPC or multi-threaded performance). If Intel doesn't cut prices, Intel is going to to have a tough time convincing people to stay away from AMD for ALL their desktop i7, i5, i3 procs.

They probably tested it before hand, I'm sure they just didn't expect it to happen or expect it to crash, ya don't go in a promotional setting for new hardware, without testing that hardware first. So its not about the crash per say, its about are most samples going to be stable above 4.0 ghz without water.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top