Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

[Shintai]

AOTS shows the latest game update is 2.3 but the benches run on 2.2 is actually a newer update so it refutes the rubbish about 1.5.

The only rubbish is that you didn't get it the first time when pendragon1 gave you a massive hint with the clue stick. 1.5 was released in DECEMBER 2016!
http://steamcommunity.com/games/228880/announcements/detail/268359685620408459

Let me make it simple for you.

You can complain about:
- Possible fake.
- One CPU is over/underclocked.
- Benchmarks got variance.
- Possible difference in memory speed.
- One got twice the memory.

And that's it.

 

[ManofGod]

Don't slam your head against the wall. Hate for AMD goes a long way by some in this thread that they can't see past that lol.

Yep. That said, I am very much looking forward to this release, and true benchmarks will be interesting, to say the least.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I posted benches of stock clocked CPU's and they showed up results as being pretty much in line with what has been seen.

AOTS doesn't show overclocks but I found two benches with the same CPU showing low and high scores, implying that the 100+ scores are posted on high overclocks. The i5 6400 with 1080 only managed a paultry 47FPS meaning that AOTS loves clockspeed, a i5 6500 scored 61FPS with over 500mhz Base clock and Boost advantage. Without a baseline of similar clocks or an overclocked Zen benchmark you cannot compare performance, I posted enough that showed stock 6800K, 5930K, 6950X and 4790 non K all CPU's have a similar baseclock and it showed Zen faster than the Hex core Haswell and Broadwell E, and 9.7% slower than the 6950X.

The 7700K 119.6 is not 44% faster than a 6950X 77.7 clock for clock.

 

[ManofGod]

The only rubbish is that you didn't get it the first time when pendragon1 gave you a massive hint with the clue stick. 1.5 was released in DECEMBER 2016!
http://steamcommunity.com/games/228880/announcements/detail/268359685620408459

Let me make it simple for you.

You can complain about:
- Possible fake.
- One CPU is over/underclocked.
- Benchmarks got variance.
- Possible difference in memory speed.
- One got twice the memory.

And that's it.

Yawn dude, seriously yawn infesting the way you post. Please, just go and play on your 6700k and stop trying to feed your ego and feeling of superiority.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Yep. That said, I am very much looking forward to this release, and true benchmarks will be interesting, to say the least.

Very interesting to say the least, I am more curious now than ever before as it looks like things are going to turn out better than they tried to conceal. This AOTS leak actually shows good performance

 

[OrangeKhrush]

i5 6400 2.7Ghz - 3.3Ghz (boost max) GTX970 - 41.7 CPU score

i5 6500 3.3Ghz - 3.7Ghz (max) GTX 970 - 61.7 CPU score

That is a 38.68% difference on clockspeed. This is why I am not really interested in oveclock scores

i7 6700K GTX1080 - 82.4 CPU Score

This appears a more representative baseline of a 4Ghz i7 6700K (80-90)

 

[lolfail9001]

This appears a more representative baseline of a 4Ghz i7 6700K (80-90)

Bro, you are still bringing up oranges in comparison of 2 apples. Go and find proper 1.50 benches instead of wasting everyone's screen space with screens of 2.x versions that may perform however different they may. Or establish how different 2.x versions perform from 1.50 baseline first. Either way, go and find other 1.50 benches if you want to make a point. Heck, you are comparing different versions and then complain they bring vastly different results.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I don't think versions have that much of an imp

Bro, you are still bringing up oranges in comparison of 2 apples. Go and find proper 1.50 benches instead of wasting everyone's screen space with screens of 2.x versions that may perform however different they may. Or establish how different 2.x versions perform from 1.50 baseline first. Either way, go and find other 1.50 benches if you want to make a point. Heck, you are comparing different versions and then complain they bring vastly different results.

There are none so how can i? Versions do not result in huge performance leaps a le 6400 to 6500, clockspeed does

 

[pendragon1]

I think the issue is that the online browser shows different version numbers than the game does or they label it oddly. here is what I mean(taken from update log on feb 3) and I highlighted the part with conflicting/odd numbers. the Escalation DLC introduced numbers that seem closer to the results browser but the actual current version is 1.5xxxx.

## VULKAN ##

We have been working diligently on Vulkan support and I am pleased to tell you that we have it...mostly working. We are tentatively scheduled to release Escalation v2.1 (Ashes 1.51) on February 16. Unfortunately, Vulkan won't make it in there as it needs a little more time to bake.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I think the issue is that the online browser shows different version numbers than the game does or they label it oddly. here is what I mean(taken from update log on feb 3) and I highlighted the part with conflicting/odd numbers. the Escalation DLC introduced numbers that seem closer to the results browser but the actual current version is 1.5xxxx.

## VULKAN ##

We have been working diligently on Vulkan support and I am pleased to tell you that we have it...mostly working. We are tentatively scheduled to release Escalation v2.1 (Ashes 1.51) on February 16. Unfortunately, Vulkan won't make it in there as it needs a little more time to bake.

Either way, doubt it makes that much difference, clockspeed does though and since the online bench only shows base and not overclocked Results

 

[pendragon1]

yes that is true but I was addressing the version number confusion...

 

[lolfail9001]

I don't think versions have that much of an imp

Prove it, then.

There are none so how can i? Versions do not result in huge performance leaps a le 6400 to 6500, clockspeed does

You have evidence of 7700k having like 50% higher CPU framerate than your 6700k example right in front of you. Good luck explaining that with clock speed.

Okay, DLC should explain the variance in version numbers, then.

 

[NKD]

This just goes on to show how unreliable AOTS could get when you don't have same configurations on both systems. There is not anyway to be sure than to test them next to one another with similar configuration and same software version.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Prove it, then.

You have evidence of 7700k having like 50% higher CPU framerate than your 6700k example right in front of you. Good luck explaining that with clock speed.

Okay, DLC should explain the variance in version numbers, then.

if the 6700K was at 4Ghz and the 7700K was 5Ghz or higher that is a 1000mhz clock bump, 500mhz on a 6500 rendered 38% higher performance over a 6400 so it is not that difficult.

 

[SighTurtle]

Seen on /r/amd, from ISSCC, by EETimes with a small blurb for Zen.

Zen squeezes x86 area and power

In a separate paper, AMD said its upcoming Zen x86 core fits into a 10 percent smaller die area than Intel’s currently shipping second-generation 14nm processor. Analysts and even Intel engineers in the session said the Zen core is clearly competitive though many confidential variables will determine whether the die advantage translates into lower cost for AMD.

The paper detailed techniques AMD used to reduce switching capacitance by 15 percent compared to its existing chips. For example, Zen marked AMD’s first use of a metal-insulator-metal capacitor which helped lower operating voltages and provide greater per-core voltage and frequency control.

Engineers tracked on a weekly basis power benchmarks on high activity regions for more than a year to reduce switching capacitance. The company now has two eight-core designs running with simultaneous multithreading at 3.4 GHz.

So....anyone with more knowledge of ISSCC offer their opinion if this is the beginning of more information on Zen or is this it?

 

[lolfail9001]

if the 6700K was at 4Ghz and the 7700K was 5Ghz or higher that is a 1000mhz clock bump

Yep, 25% clock bump. Need at least 20% more.

500mhz on a 6500 rendered 38% higher performance over a 6400 so it is not that difficult.

Prove that 6500 sample was not OCd, and and prove that 6400 on same version does not post closer results... oh wait, your 6500 posts higher results than 4770k: http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/136a4f6c-6bc9-4ae3-b194-a2c4c88a896f

So think again if it was just 200mhz that is the difference between 6500 and 6400.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Yep, 25% clock bump. Need at least 20% more.

Prove that 6500 sample was not OCd, and and prove that 6400 on same version does not post closer results... oh wait, your 6500 posts higher results than 4770k: http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/136a4f6c-6bc9-4ae3-b194-a2c4c88a896f

So think again if it was just 200mhz that is the difference between 6500 and 6400.

cant overclock a 6400 or 6500 without a bios roll back and the issues that follow it I doubt that happened. A 4790(non K) refresh of a 4770K only got 61 with a 1080 so yes a Skylake is just more efficient than a Haswell...shock and horror.

 

[lolfail9001]

cant overclock a 6400 or 6500 without a bios roll back and the issues that follow it I doubt that happened. A 4790(non K) refresh of a 4770K only got 61 with a 1080 so yes a Skylake is just more efficient than a Haswell...shock and horror.

So, no evidence, got it.

 

[Shintai]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

I am going to address the big pink elephant in the room, the official ES is called engineering sample and the code ends in an N not Y which is for iGPU string, the AOTS is fake, sorry Razor/Shintai.

Myth busted

So after the latest leaked Ryzen information that presents itself the same way. Do you still think its fake?

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e3d4e1d8ead8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2fa&l=en

 

[OrangeKhrush]

So after the latest leaked Ryzen information that presents itself the same way. Do you still think its fake?

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e3d4e1d8ead8fe8cb181a7c2a79aaa8cffc2fa&l=en

Nope, Ryzen is competitive with intel Haswell and Broadwell in IPC clock for clock

Floating Point and Single thread scores at 3.4ghz no turbo is baseline Haswell level which is what i said all along.

 

[Shintai]

Nope, Ryzen is competitive with intel Haswell and Broadwell in IPC clock for clock

Floating Point and Single thread scores at 3.4ghz no turbo is baseline Haswell level which is what i said all along.

So the AOTS leak you raged on can now be considered real?

 

[OrangeKhrush]

So the AOTS leak you raged on can now be considered real?

1) Doesn't detect overclock states, It takes the standard string so there is no way of determining the clockspeed of the 7700K, which probably was running a high overclock. The 6950X bench I posted only scored 77.7 and we already know that IPC from Broadwell to Skylake was at best ~5% making clockspeed important. I further added the benches of stock clock 6800K and 5930K which was below Ryzen's perported score.

You are in possesion of a 6700K, you can alwasys clock it to 3.4Ghz flat and test the result yourself, at least that way we will have a baseline.

What I would like for you to explain is why there is no such thing as 1.5 on Metaverse but how 2.3 on metaverse is the new bench. Further why has that 7700K bench disappeared from the face of the earth?


Exhibit A: 7700K benchmark posted on 10 February 2017 surely if it was steam it would auto update, you can't enter a game without updates

Twin Titan X, full screen, 12million samples, half terrain on 78.4 Very interesting, quite far from the 116.

Exhibit B same version and API, not the same specs but a higher score, again nobody can tell what the clockspeed was.

This clown went windowed.

2) Going on how sabotaged the leaks have been with turbo disabled, bad memory timings in latency sensitive benches it almost seems like people are trying to kill anticipation. Don't hate my friend rather embrace a world where two companies offer quality parts.

 

[Shintai]

1) Doesn't detect overclock states, It takes the standard string so there is no way of determining the clockspeed of the 7700K, which probably was running a high overclock. The 6950X bench I posted only scored 77.7 and we already know that IPC from Broadwell to Skylake was at best ~5% making clockspeed important. I further added the benches of stock clock 6800K and 5930K which was below Ryzen's perported score.

You are in possesion of a 6700K, you can alwasys clock it to 3.4Ghz flat and test the result yourself, at least that way we will have a baseline.

What I would like for you to explain is why there is no such thing as 1.5 on Metaverse but how 2.3 on metaverse is the new bench. Further why has that 7700K bench disappeared from the face of the earth?


Exhibit A: 7700K benchmark posted on 10 February 2017 surely if it was steam it would auto update, you can't enter a game without updates

Twin Titan X, full screen, 12million samples, half terrain on 78.4 Very interesting, quite far from the 116.

Exhibit B same version and API, not the same specs but a higher score, again nobody can tell what the clockspeed was.

This clown went windowed.

2) Going on how sabotaged the leaks have been with turbo disabled, bad memory timings in latency sensitive benches it almost seems like people are trying to kill anticipation. Don't hate my friend rather embrace a world where two companies offer quality parts.

What are you rambling about? You still haven't discovered it is 2 different things? Even after being handed a dev journal, steam links and several posts? Holy crapper batman! Stop clowning around and get your shit together before your next post.




The 7700K is ~65% faster. Even if the Ryzen was running at 3.4Ghz and scaling was perfect. It would require it to be clocked at 5.6Ghz to match the 7700K result.

 

[lolfail9001]

) Doesn't detect overclock states, It takes the standard string so there is no way of determining the clockspeed of the 7700K, which probably was running a high overclock.

There is no such thing as "high overclock" on 7700k. Like, it is at most 20% higher than stock frequency on conventional cooling.

The 6950X bench I posted only scored 77.7

For all we know it could be entirely different benchmark sequence, explaining why it only lists 2.xx version on the web site. Until you find 1.50.xxx bench, your comparisons are irrelevant. Oh, and btw, 5960X in stock posts over 100 CPU fps on 1.xx versions, that was established back in the first AotS leak. Are you going to claim 6950X is now 30% slower than 3Ghz 5960X? Hahaha, my fucking sides. With all due respect: do your fucking research first. Source? Sure!
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-zen-engineering-sample-aos-further-analysis,5.html

Yes, it is 1080p. Are you going to claim CPU load will rise so drastically with higher resolution?

What I would like for you to explain is why there is no such thing as 1.5 on Metaverse but how 2.3 on metaverse is the new bench. Further why has that 7700K bench disappeared from the face of the earth?

Because metaverse is only functional for their new DLC thingy, pendragon gave you a viable explanation of why his version is 1.50 but metaverse only lists 2.xx now.

2) Going on how sabotaged the leaks have been with turbo disabled, bad memory timings in latency sensitive benches it almost seems like people are trying to kill anticipation. Don't hate my friend rather embrace a world where two companies offer quality parts.

You call it sabotaged? Oh, sweet summer child, enter the world of OEM PCs.

 

[razor1]

Nope, Ryzen is competitive with intel Haswell and Broadwell in IPC clock for clock

Floating Point and Single thread scores at 3.4ghz no turbo is baseline Haswell level which is what i said all along.

hmm can't extrapolate that way lol,

Sitting around trying to extrapolate based on clock frequencies of an unknown product, is just bad to do. We don't know anything about clock speed and specific tests unless you can take that test and test in on that hardware or similar hardware (same arch) to drawn a solid reasoning.

Now if we have 2 different architectures outside of say Ryzen and those both align to each other, then you can possible extrapolate, but I don't think you will find deltas across different architectures aligning to each other.

 

[pendragon1]

Because metaverse is only functional for their new DLC thingy, pendragon gave you a viable explanation of why his version is 1.50 but metaverse only lists 2.xx now.

yup I thought it was pretty clear....

 

[OrangeKhrush]

There is no such thing as "high overclock" on 7700k. Like, it is at most 20% higher than stock frequency on conventional cooling.

For all we know it could be entirely different benchmark sequence, explaining why it only lists 2.xx version on the web site. Until you find 1.50.xxx bench, your comparisons are irrelevant. Oh, and btw, 5960X in stock posts over 100 CPU fps on 1.xx versions, that was established back in the first AotS leak. Are you going to claim 6950X is now 30% slower than 3Ghz 5960X? Hahaha, my fucking sides. With all due respect: do your fucking research first. Source? Sure!
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-zen-engineering-sample-aos-further-analysis,5.html

Yes, it is 1080p. Are you going to claim CPU load will rise so drastically with higher resolution?

Because metaverse is only functional for their new DLC thingy, pendragon gave you a viable explanation of why his version is 1.50 but metaverse only lists 2.xx now.

You call it sabotaged? Oh, sweet summer child, enter the world of OEM PCs.

Do OEMs use octo core 100W CPUs these days?

I have already posted a 5960X score, also missed 100, I have a 5960X but I don't have AOTS, I can however assure you that a 3-3.3Ghz 5960X will not score 100pts

hmm can't extrapolate that way lol,

Sitting around trying to extrapolate based on clock frequencies of an unknown product, is just bad to do. We don't know anything about clock speed and specific tests unless you can take that test and test in on that hardware or similar hardware (same arch) to drawn a solid reasoning.

Now if we have 2 different architectures outside of say Ryzen and those both align to each other, then you can possible extrapolate, but I don't think you will find deltas across different architectures aligning to each other.

I posted two benches of 7700K's, same game version and the results were way to far from 116.

78 and 87 clearly shows that one CPU was running higher clocks than the other.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

What are you rambling about? You still haven't discovered it is 2 different things? Even after being handed a dev journal, steam links and several posts? Holy crapper batman! Stop clowning around and get your shit together before your next post.




The 7700K is ~65% faster. Even if the Ryzen was running at 3.4Ghz and scaling was perfect. It would require it to be clocked at 5.6Ghz to match the 7700K result.

You seemed to avoid the two 7700K benches, 87 and 78 respectively on the CPU. I am facinated as to how you came up with that 5.6Ghz.

 

[lolfail9001]

You seemed to avoid the two 7700K benches, 87 and 78 respectively on the CPU. I am facinated as to how you came up with that 5.6Ghz.

BECAUSE THEY USE DIFFERENT FREAKING GAME (until proven otherwise). Jesus, some people are just dense.

Since you fail to understand that basic point, we may as well ignore you from now on. Cya.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

So the AOTS leak you raged on can now be considered real?

I don't know if it is real or not, but either way, I know I don't care.

Ashes of the Singularity is a god awful unrepresentative benchmark, highly favoring AMD hardware, run on a game that abot 12 people in the world play at any given time in the Steam stats, and they are all just running benchmarks.

I'd like to see something more interesting.

Give me single threaded Cinebench results. Now that would be interesting.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

I don't know if it is real or not, but either way, I know I don't care.

Ashes of the Singularity is a god awful unrepresentative benchmark, highly favoring AMD hardware, run on a game that abot 12 people in the world play at any given time in the Steam stats, and they are all just running benchmarks.

I'd like to see something more interesting.

Give me single threaded Cinebench results. Now that would be interesting.

True, We do have passmark at least, doubt it would be to much difference.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

True, We do have passmark at least, doubt it would be to much difference.

True, but passmark is highly synthetic. As you can see above, it shows bulldozer outperforming Intel's Sandy Bridge chips which is a huge lol.

 

[razor1]

BECAUSE THEY USE DIFFERENT FREAKING GAME (until proven otherwise). Jesus, some people are just dense.

Since you fail to understand that basic point, we may as well ignore you from now on. Cya.

Told him that along time ago, just doesn't get it.

Its like trying to compare across different reviews that use different motherboards, different video cards and same CPU's or same GPU different CPU's, you just can't do it lol. Bottlenecks will shift from memory to CPU and video card and individual GPU elements hence giving different results.

Unless we can isolate what we are testing for and make sure that is the absolute only difference, the comparisons just don't work. Then you add in app variations on top of that well....

 

[razor1]

True, but passmark is highly synthetic. As you can see above, it shows bulldozer outperforming Intel's Sandy Bridge chips which is a huge lol.

Yep, some people just don't get it, different apps push hardware differently......

The good thing about synthetics is if you want to breakdown what is going on, its easier to see in synthetics that break down to different elements and push those various elements of the CPU or GPU, but can only use those as a guide to see what is going on in different apps.

 

[CSI_PC]

Told him that along time ago, just doesn't get it.

Its like trying to compare across different reviews that use different motherboards, different video cards and same CPU's or same GPU different CPU's, you just can't do it lol. Bottlenecks will shift from memory to CPU and video card and individual GPU elements hence giving different results.

Unless we can isolate what we are testing for and make sure that is the absolute only difference, the comparisons just don't work. Then you add in app variations on top of that well....

Which also makes the 3 pages arguing about Ashes of the Singularity pointless if one cannot tell what the actual clocks used in the online benchmark are
I think AoTS is fine if ONLY used by good review publications (where we can compare like-for-like in their review history) and we know what their HW environments and approach-methodology-tools are.
Outside of the good review publications it is meaningless (especially if going by the online Metaverse results), whether that is for dGPU or CPU.
WCCFT and other sites reporting 'leaks' of a new AoTS Metaverse benchmark result for product X always make me roll my eyes
Like when someone kept reporting on another forum about Vega and the ever increasing results every other day in AoTS online benchmark and tried to rationalise and correlate the results.

Cheers

 

[Shintai]

You seemed to avoid the two 7700K benches, 87 and 78 respectively on the CPU. I am facinated as to how you came up with that 5.6Ghz.

It doesn't matter what the 7700K was clocked at. It was a plain example. Even if the Ryzen was clocked at 3.6hz no boost and scaled perfectly, that it wont. It would need to clock at 5.94Ghz (I had used 3.4 and not 3.6 for Ryzen as it is)to reach that 7700K. How much do you think that 7700K was clocked at?

Even if we pretend it was 5Ghz. You end up with a factor of 0.84x just with base 4.2Ghz. That still means you still need a Ryzen at 5Ghz or more to match it. Or roughly putting SKL 20% a head per clock of Ryzen. Potentially more. And that's in a game that's supposed to scale well in cores.

Then you can post whatever irrelevant numbers you wish from other versions of the game.

 

[Factum]

It doesn't matter what the 7700K was clocked at. It was a plain example. Even if the Ryzen was clocked at 3.6hz no boost and scaled perfectly, that it wont. It would need to clock at 5.94Ghz (I had used 3.4 and not 3.6 for Ryzen as it is)to reach that 7700K. How much do you think that 7700K was clocked at?

Even if we pretend it was 5Ghz. You end up with a factor of 0.84x just with base 4.2Ghz. That still means you still need a Ryzen at 5Ghz or more to match it. Or roughly putting SKL 20% a head per clock of Ryzen. Potentially more. And that's in a game that's supposed to scale well in cores.

Then you can post whatever irrelevant numbers you wish from other versions of the game.

I would ignore him...he is already banned at one forum and by the looks of it more forums will follow

 

[OrangeKhrush]

True, but passmark is highly synthetic. As you can see above, it shows bulldozer outperforming Intel's Sandy Bridge chips which is a huge lol.

I don't see a bulldozer beating a sandy outside maybe being clocked higher. The 3.4ghz 8370 score is 1280 which is far off sandy 1700. Maybe it will win in integer ops which is its strength but beyond that i doubt it

 

[NKD]

It doesn't matter what the 7700K was clocked at. It was a plain example. Even if the Ryzen was clocked at 3.6hz no boost and scaled perfectly, that it wont. It would need to clock at 5.94Ghz (I had used 3.4 and not 3.6 for Ryzen as it is)to reach that 7700K. How much do you think that 7700K was clocked at?

Even if we pretend it was 5Ghz. You end up with a factor of 0.84x just with base 4.2Ghz. That still means you still need a Ryzen at 5Ghz or more to match it. Or roughly putting SKL 20% a head per clock of Ryzen. Potentially more. And that's in a game that's supposed to scale well in cores.

Then you can post whatever irrelevant numbers you wish from other versions of the game.

Lol. I am amazed at the hard on you have for Intel. Telling others to stop smoking shit, yet you know 7700k is not going to be that fast ipc wise, at least not as fast your numbers. So far I don't need to see any benches, I just need to see what intel does. And guess what? Them releasing new chips and bullshitting about canon lake performance tells me they know Ryzen is extremely competitive. When you have a competitive product you can bet your ass that your competition will show their hand. When was the last time we heard intel mention an amd chip? And build talk tracks around it lol and scramble to announce new products. Zen is competitive I know it because intel knows it.

 

[lolfail9001]

Telling others to stop smoking shit, yet you know 7700k is not going to be that fast ipc wise, at least not as fast your numbers.

That CPU fps is entirely reasonable in AotS for 5Ghz Skylake, actually.

Intel, however, did react, that is certain.