Leaked AMD Ryzen Benchmarks?

SighTurtle said:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-and-discussion.2499879/page-32#post-38758265
Click to expand...
Seems the utility can replicate forcing applications to use X number of cores, so interesting they can really force a high single core score in a similar way as those using Driver-utility that hooks into the Intel's Boost Max Tech 3.0 such as Asus AI Suite on Broadwell-E that can go well above 4GHz.
Just the AMD OC utility is designed to assign X cores and not necessarily just 1 from what I can tell.

If that vid is completely accurate with no exagerations, the OC utility is shaping up for some interesting functionality and CPU capability.

Thanks for the link.
 
Yeah yeah, WCCFTECH.... but... It looks like what many of us expected. Excellent value for multi-threaded applications, and a big leap, but behind in single threaded applications. These were at stock clocks (didn't mention if it was locked at base or locked at turbo frequencies). Assuming they were locked at base (4.2 GHz and 3.4 GHz on the 1700X) that would make the Zen core about the same clock for clock as Kaby Lake. Then there is the issue of average/max overclocks. If Kaby Lake holds a GHz advantage it should still be a measurably superior chip in single thread performance. The real question is how well will Ryzen overclock.

From what it looks like Ryzen is beat but still performs reasonably well in single threaded applications, however Ryzen buries a similarly priced chip from Intel. To me that makes it an overall better chip (again from what we have seen so far). Ultimately it will come down to your workloads which is the better chip for you.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-leaked/

Cinebench-R11.5-Multi-Threaded.png
Cinebench-R15-Single-Threaded.png
 
TordanGow said:
Yeah yeah, WCCFTECH.... but... It looks like what many of us expected. Excellent value for multi-threaded applications, and a big leap, but behind in single threaded applications. These were at stock clocks (didn't mention if it was locked at base or locked at turbo frequencies). Assuming they were locked at base (4.2 GHz and 3.4 GHz on the 1700X) that would make the Zen core about the same clock for clock as Kaby Lake. Then there is the issue of average/max overclocks. If Kaby Lake holds a GHz advantage it should still be a measurably superior chip in single thread performance. The real question is how well will Ryzen overclock.

From what it looks like Ryzen is beat but still performs reasonably well in single threaded applications, however Ryzen buries a similarly priced chip from Intel. To me that makes it an overall better chip (again from what we have seen so far). Ultimately it will come down to your workloads which is the better chip for you.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-leaked/

Cinebench-R11.5-Multi-Threaded.png
Cinebench-R15-Single-Threaded.png
Click to expand...

Those single thread scores are with turbo activated and surely XFR activated, which could mean 4.1 or 4.2GHz for the 1800X.
 
TordanGow said:
Yeah yeah, WCCFTECH.... but... It looks like what many of us expected. Excellent value for multi-threaded applications, and a big leap, but behind in single threaded applications. These were at stock clocks (didn't mention if it was locked at base or locked at turbo frequencies). Assuming they were locked at base (4.2 GHz and 3.4 GHz on the 1700X) that would make the Zen core about the same clock for clock as Kaby Lake. Then there is the issue of average/max overclocks. If Kaby Lake holds a GHz advantage it should still be a measurably superior chip in single thread performance. The real question is how well will Ryzen overclock.

From what it looks like Ryzen is beat but still performs reasonably well in single threaded applications, however Ryzen buries a similarly priced chip from Intel. To me that makes it an overall better chip (again from what we have seen so far). Ultimately it will come down to your workloads which is the better chip for you.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-1700-benchmarks-leaked/

Cinebench-R11.5-Multi-Threaded.png
Cinebench-R15-Single-Threaded.png
Click to expand...
That's not too bad especially when you are looking at those prices and in multithread that chip at the top is a 10 core. Ryzen is pretty much delivering what I hoped it would. A chip that's competitive and cheap. If I can get 8 cores at half the price and performance that's within a percentage or two then it's good enough. The choice seems to be if your workload is more single threaded then go with the 7700K however if you have multithreaded apps or applications which benefit from more cores then AMD is a pretty damn good choice and even when it comes to single core performance you aren't going to be dying for more comparatively.
 
juanrga said:
Those single thread scores are with turbo activated and surely XFR activated, which could mean 4.1 or 4.2GHz for the 1800X.
Click to expand...

Juan, we need you over at Anandtech. The resident trolls/shills like Shintai, Sweepr, and their ilk have moved over here to [H] (good lord, mercy on you all, ban them while there's time) to continue their quest to vanquish AMD and probably to help you get on your feet after getting kicked out of Semiaccurate.

Come stir the pot over there! Having adult conversations in most threads without people providing irrational arguments is getting boring.

We need your insight on Zen ~ Sandy Bridge IPC and Phenom I frequency range statements to keep the ball rolling!

thesmokingman said:
How many forums have you joined recently to battle this disease known as Ryzen?
Click to expand...

I've missed the count. What I do know is that Anandtech craves him. Wants to tear down every one of his arguments down to nothing, watch them crumble under their own weight. Semiaccurate has had too much fun with him, it's time someone else gets to do it.


----------------------------------------------------

On a more serious note, March 2 or 3 is going to be SO much fun with all those overly positive Ryzen reviews!!

...Or is it?


Daddy Intel is already trying to shut people up else they lose "preferential treatment", as reported by Charlie over at SA. Classic blackmailing. That's when we'll see who's bought and who's still able to provide conditions-free, objective reviews with independent thought.


Not to mention Daddy Intel going back to its old time tactics of "don't buy AMD, buy intel or else you don't get discounts and preferential treatment", fearmongering and soon strongarming/bribing OEMs not to buy Naples as it approaches launch mid year. You can't teach an old decadent dog new tricks, they've been caught red handed back in the 2000s where we all weren't 24/7 connected to news feeds and the like, it's going to be much worse this time. AMD has seen this coming and will take every measure needed for it not to happen again. I hope, for everyone's sake.

There's already a $1100 -> $700 price cut incoming for the 6900k, I wonder how all those customers that got scammed off $350-400 are going to feel about that...?



Gotta love competition. Thanks AMD, hope you can power through Intel's bullshit this time and not get squished as you did back in 2004-2006, hope your current administration doesn't pull another idiotic move like buying ATI for the overpriced, almost bankrupting sum of $5.4 billion with all the cash you're gonna get from Ryzen! We need a 50/50 market here in the long term.



Get the word out, stop Intel from stagflating the market even more than it already has these past 5 years since Ivy Bridge



I'll show myself out. No need to lay the banhammer down on me.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
09c5ae911a59fc510a89dd3b166441c531e74f7dadf149484c365d66647fbca7.png


Didn't take Intel long did it
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't they?

Last time they got a $1billion slap on the wrist settlement to AMD for their improprieties when they probably did $100 billion in long term damage to the company.

They will keep doing it, and take the fines and settlements they receive as a cost of doing business.

Intel has been doing shit like this their entire existence.

This older article in the Harvard Law review is very relevant.

The fact that I had to get it from the Internet Archive Way Back Machine is distressing, because the world can not be allowed to forget how shitty of a company Intel really is.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there was a question there? We all know, or should how evil Intel is or were or can be. It's ironic though given Intel's public face and what they do behind closed doors.

OrangeKhrush said:
09c5ae911a59fc510a89dd3b166441c531e74f7dadf149484c365d66647fbca7.png


Didn't take Intel long did it
Click to expand...

Yea, it didn't take long at all. Intel is back at it bribing, paying off, making secret illegal deals again. Let's hope ppl remember history so they can see their part in it as it repeats itself.
 
thesmokingman said:
I'm not sure there was a question there? We all know, or should how evil Intel is or were or can be. It's ironic though given Intel's public face and what they do behind closed doors.



Yea, it didn't take long at all. Intel is back at it bribing, paying off, making secret illegal deals again. Let's hope ppl remember history so they can see their part in it as it repeats itself.
Click to expand...

Who is that? What company does he work for?

Now dont get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened....but...honestly anyone could have fucking wrote that. I could have. Why put stock into it?
 
SighTurtle said:
Who is that? What company does he work for?

Now dont get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened....but...honestly anyone could have fucking wrote that. I could have. Why put stock into it?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be surprised if it happened but are so pissed off that you can't fucking believe anyone would put stock into it.

Are you ok??
 
JustReason said:
I would be wary of extreme statements like this. It goes both ways. It is possible and at the same time could be someone stirring the pot. I believe Intel would do this, but am wary enough to wait for real or more evidence before jumping on that wagon.
Click to expand...

You know back in the 2000s, I bet no one believed AMD then either until... it was too late.
 
 
Last edited:
SighTurtle said:
Who is that? What company does he work for?

Now dont get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened....but...honestly anyone could have fucking wrote that. I could have. Why put stock into it?
Click to expand...

you surprised? Intel will and continue to do so. If they can damage amd 10 billion in sales and pay a 2 billion dollar fine. Its a win lol. Its not about offering rebates and promotions its about locking competition out. you can offer all rebates but as soon as you make a company keep AMD out and only deal with intel and in return get rebates and cash back and shit. That is whats wrong, not the part that they give rebates. Everyone does that.
 
thesmokingman said:
You know back in the 2000s, I bet no one believed AMD then either until... it was too late.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean anyone should blindly believe a random poster on the internet.

Theres tons of people right now saying we never landed on the moon, lets believe them too!
 
NKD said:
you surprised? Intel will and continue to do so. If they can damage amd 10 billion in sales and pay a 2 billion dollar fine. Its a win lol. Its not about offering rebates and promotions its about locking competition out. you can offer all rebates but as soon as you make a company keep AMD out and only deal with intel and in return get rebates and cash back and shit. That is whats wrong, not the part that they give rebates. Everyone does that.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing people are getting approached by Intel already. AMD doesn't have anything coming out soon for data centers or work stations so I doubt they will be strong arming sellers yet, if they actually plan to do it this time around.
 
juanrga said:
Those single thread scores are with turbo activated and surely XFR activated, which could mean 4.1 or 4.2GHz for the 1800X.
Click to expand...

But the overclock, even if what you are saying is true could only lead to 10% performance improvement. So to beat the I7 7700k in IPC that would mean the 1800k at stock would have an IPC of about 10% less than Kaby Lake. That would be between Broadwell and Star Lake. Now you are trapped in your own misrepresentations. If this report is true you have been far off for the third time on Ryzen. You are worse than a slippery eel. You keep changing and molting skin like a lizard. When will you admit you are wrong about the IPC to a larger extent than you have admitted (Ivy Bridge)???? Something has to be at the bottom of your cesspool of " mistakes". You owe it to everyone here to come clean. You insisted vehemently for months Ryzen would never have a base frequency over 3.0 GHZ because of the limitations of the 14LPP process. When that was proven wrong you said the 1800K would never overclock above 4.0 GHZ due to problems with the process. Now that the staffer on overclock.uk has done 4.05 GHZ on all 8 cores with a cheap Aestek 240mm AIO cooler on a lowly Ryzen1700 without XFR you drop the overclocking argument and now attack IPC again, in spite of numerous verifiable sources showing IPC is at least Haswell to Broadwell. Well this Turkish team is obviously credible otherwise you would not have resorted to your XFR and overclock argument to account for IPC. So now we can rightly assume the IPC on AVERAGE is Broadwell or a drop better. You really do not belong here pushing one deception after another. Just admit you are wrong instead of trying to use a wrecking ball against AMD Ryzen. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRON!G!!
 
os2wiz said:
But the overclock, even if what you are saying is true could only lead to 10% performance improvement. So to beat the I7 7700k in IPC that would mean the 1800k at stock would have an IPC of about 10% less than Kaby Lake. That would be between Broadwell and Star Lake. Now you are trapped in your own misrepresentations. If this report is true you have been far off for the third time on Ryzen. You are worse than a slippery eel. You keep changing and molting skin like a lizard. When will you admit you are wrong about the IPC to a larger extent than you have admitted (Ivy Bridge)???? Something has to be at the bottom of your cesspool of " mistakes". You owe it to everyone here to come clean. You insisted vehemently for months Ryzen would never have a base frequency over 3.0 GHZ because of the limitations of the 14LPP process. When that was proven wrong you said the 1800K would never overclock above 4.0 GHZ due to problems with the process. Now that the staffer on overclock.uk has done 4.05 GHZ on all 8 cores with a cheap Aestek 240mm AIO cooler on a lowly Ryzen1700 without XFR you drop the overclocking argument and now attack IPC again, in spite of numerous verifiable sources showing IPC is at least Haswell to Broadwell. Well this Turkish team is obviously credible otherwise you would not have resorted to your XFR and overclock argument to account for IPC. So now we can rightly assume the IPC on AVERAGE is Broadwell or a drop better. You really do not belong here pushing one deception after another. Just admit you are wrong instead of trying to use a wrecking ball against AMD Ryzen. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRON!G!!
Click to expand...
The best prediction he made was Sandy Bridge IPC. I found that one to be hilarious because in certain instances (yes they are few) BD can match SB. So why in the world would AMD spend all of that effort only to gain SB in IPC for single thread? It would be pointless.
 
Last edited:
lolfail9001 said:
I don't recall a single similar account to that one. Needless to say i remain skeptical. Mind sharing?
Click to expand...

Skeptical is ok. I am sure you are more receptive to the likelihood that Ryzen may be your future cpu. I believe you are a scientist in the sense you like to see the full story before dumping Intel, a platform you have accustomed to its face. Take your time that Intel is already planning to cut the 6900K to $700 tells me they know Ryzen is for real. You know a few of the reviewers or during the engineering sample phase some let Intel get their hands on the chips. They have run their diagnostics. That is how the big corporations work. So if they are in fact lowering the 6900k price that is quid pro quo in my books that Intel knows that Ryzen technology and performance is a threat they can not ignore.
 
kac77 said:
The best prediction he made was Sandy Bridge IPC. I found that one to be hilarious because in certain instances (yes they are few) BD can match SB. So why in the world would AMD spend all of that effort only to gain SB in IPC for single thread? It would be pointless.
Click to expand...
Actually the guy vacillates he has said IB on occasion, but then drops back to his bunker for SB. It would be hilarious if not for the reality some still believe him. He is more like a swami, a snake charmer with a veneer of science. I believe once that he was intent on an engineering career, but something went awry. That is pure conjecture on my part. I wish my wife who is a clinical psychiatric social worker could analyze him. She is one sharp cookie. Unfortunately she has no interest in computers and technology.
 
os2wiz said:
Skeptical is ok. I am sure you are more receptive to the likelihood that Ryzen may be your future cpu. I believe you are a scientist in the sense you like to see the full story before dumping Intel, a platform you have accustomed to its face. Take your time that Intel is already planning to cut the 6900K to $700 tells me they know Ryzen is for real. You know a few of the reviewers or during the engineering sample phase some let Intel get their hands on the chips. They have run their diagnostics. That is how the big corporations work. So if they are in fact lowering the 6900k price that is quid pro quo in my books that Intel knows that Ryzen technology and performance is a threat they can not ignore.
Click to expand...
That sorta says nothing, especially since the Turks like to BS around apparently. Also, source for 6900k price cuts, even if i find that likely.
 
lolfail9001 said:
That sorta says nothing, especially since the Turks like to BS around apparently. Also, source for 6900k price cuts, even if i find that likely.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of the Turks BS around as you say. And yes the $700 price for 6900k is hardly official, but if it materializes that would validate that Intel knows Ryzen is for real, not hype. I trust you are not a believer in superstition , but in science and logic. So I presume once the reviews come and if they are thumbs up for the most part after diligent testing, you will no longer be skeptical.
 
Last edited:
OrangeKhrush said:
09c5ae911a59fc510a89dd3b166441c531e74f7dadf149484c365d66647fbca7.png


Didn't take Intel long did it
Click to expand...
Complete fabrication.

The opportunity cost of an OEM to complement their offerings with, much less switch to, AMD in a market already long-dominated by Intel is already high as-is and the idea that Intel would offer an exclusivity rebate to an IT department for each CPU they've already sold to said OEM is doubly ridiculous.
 
NKD said:
you surprised? Intel will and continue to do so. If they can damage amd 10 billion in sales and pay a 2 billion dollar fine. Its a win lol. Its not about offering rebates and promotions its about locking competition out. you can offer all rebates but as soon as you make a company keep AMD out and only deal with intel and in return get rebates and cash back and shit. That is whats wrong, not the part that they give rebates. Everyone does that.
Click to expand...


Intel doesn't sells to to IT departments, outside of hosting providers (large) and Data cetners, and volume buyers. You are talking about a tens of thousands of chips per year ;), if you aren't one of those people, they tell ya to go to OEM's and 3rd party and get from them. They will help you as in when you go to those people, they will tell that OEM, or 3rd party, they can give discounts to the OEM to pass along to the buyer. But the OEM still gets their cut.

I am very doubtful of people that say Intel rep came to me, cause if you aren't the guy that signed the contract or in the same room, you aren't going to know what the actual price that Intel is quoting the company. As I stated, most xeons aren't sold at Ark prices anyways, they sell for around 60% less to volume buyers. Factor that in to Ark prices, this guy is talking crap.
 
razor1 said:
Intel doesn't sells to to IT departments, outside of hosting providers (large) and Data cetners, and volume buyers. You are talking about a tens of thousands of chips per year ;), if you aren't one of those people, they tell ya to go to OEM's and 3rd party and get from them.
Click to expand...
I applaud you for also being a voice of reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top