Thursday, August 11th 2016

AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU at 2.80 GHz Beats 3.40 GHz Core i5-4670K

According to performance numbers of an AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU engineering-sample put out by WCCFTech, AMD's claims of IPC gains are gaining credibility, and showing signs of the gaming PC processor market warming up again. An engineering sample featuring 8 cores and 16 threads (via SMT), beat Intel's Core i5-4670K processor. This sample featured clock speeds of 2.80 GHz, with 3.20 GHz boost.

The "Summit Ridge" sample provided 10 percent higher frame-rates than a Core i5-4670K, in the "Ashes of the Singularity" 1080p benchmark. The chip is still convincingly beaten by 12 percent, by a Core i7-4790 (non-K), running at 3.60 GHz, with 4.00 GHz boost. This shows that AMD could leverage the new 14 nm FinFET process to crank up clock-speeds, and produce SKUs competitive with current Intel "Skylake-D" Core i5 and Core i7 processors.

Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

126 Comments on AMD "Summit Ridge" ZEN CPU at 2.80 GHz Beats 3.40 GHz Core i5-4670K

#2
Dr_M
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
Posted on Reply
#3
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
Dr_M said:
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
My thoughts exactly. I'd like to see a game benchmarked that can only use 4 threads.
Posted on Reply
#4
Dragonsmonk
Dr_M said:
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
If it turns out to be competition... it is good news for everyone.
Posted on Reply
#5
Vayra86
When will AMD stop benching every piece of hardware on AoTS and start doing it on actually USED applications now?

At that point I'll start paying serious attention. AotS is already pretty much abandoned, and its a pretty shitty RTS too.
Posted on Reply
#6
laszlo
if price will be lower than i5 nobody will care if can't beat it using only 4c/4t
Posted on Reply
#7
brian111
Vayra86 said:
When will AMD stop benching every piece of hardware on AoTS and start doing it on actually USED applications now?

At that point I'll start paying serious attention. AotS is already pretty much abandoned, and its a pretty shitty RTS too.
I don't think it was a case of AMD benching anything. As far as I know it was a user who deleted the benchmarks once they were discovered.
Posted on Reply
#8
IceScreamer
Since it's from WCCFTech I wouldn't hold my breath, and even if true it's not that impressive actually.
Posted on Reply
#9
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
If it still benches like this in formal reviews then AMD have got something and competition will start up once again which will be good for us. Can't wait.
Posted on Reply
#10
Caring1
Most games don't use all cores, they rely on clock rate/ MHz speed and the GPU.
I'd like to see a firestrike comparison of a range of CPU's.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
Dr_M said:
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
No one said this is a flagship model. Also, have you seen the clocks?
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
Are those "real" 8 cores?
Sorry, couldn't help it. :D
Posted on Reply
#13
okidna
There are 2 AoTS benchmark results with this "Zen ES CPUs", one which beats i5-4670K and the other one which didn't even come close to 8350 performance.

Beating i5-4670K :



Didn't even beat 8350 :



Note the difference in processor code/product number.
Posted on Reply
#14
AsRock
TPU addict
Dr_M said:
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
Which makes me all so wounder what power usage as well.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
Dr_M said:
New 8C/16T cpu is slightly faster than old 4C/4T. What a shocker.
It also depends on how many core AotS can put to good use. I don't know, I haven't paid much attention to this title.

Edit: I do see a (potential) upside in all this: whenever AMD underdelivered, they always kept performance numbers under a tight lid. If they let stuff leak this time, maybe the story is different. Maybe.
Posted on Reply
#16
the54thvoid
Maths.... (relative to Intel as base measurement)

i7 4790 is 29% faster frequency, 50% less threads = 11% faster in fps

i5 4670 is 21% faster frequency, 75% less threads = 10% slower in fps

so the frequency isn't relevant, the core count is but the 4 core/thread part is pretty much 10% slower and the 8 thread part is 10% faster. The 8% speed discrepancy between i5 & i7 seems to have little outcome effect. AotS is using threads better but it must tank at some point between 4 - 8 threads.

A better 'leak' would be a down clocked 8 core (16 thread) Sandybridge Enthusiast chip (given how old it is).

Edited for maths......
Posted on Reply
#17
Caring1
the54thvoid said:
Maths.... (relative to Intel as base measurement)

100% less threads =
Hu?
Wouldn't that mean no threads?
Posted on Reply
#19
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
If it's as fast has Haswell clock for clock, then I would say it's a success. They still won't beat Intel though. They never will.
Posted on Reply
#20
Assimilator
If this is valid, excellent news. But as per normal, will wait for review samples before passing judgement.
Posted on Reply
#21
RejZoR
Frick said:
If it's as fast has Haswell clock for clock, then I would say it's a success. They still won't beat Intel though. They never will.
Who cares, really? I used to think that way, but if you're realistic, there is 7fps difference. Sounds a lot. But when you look at framerate, 58 vs 65 ? Does it really make any kind of real difference? Especially if AMD is priced a bit lower, it doesn't even need to be king of the hill. Those who plan on tossing 500€ into CPU won't care either way, they just want best of the best (while still not going at highest end extreme). But those that care about price, every € counts.
Posted on Reply
#22
AsRock
TPU addict
Assimilator said:
If this is valid, excellent news. But as per normal, will wait for review samples before passing judgement.
I see some thing good but it's no excellent, looks pretty sub par so far. I do know that i have less hope due to this news.

Price is were it's going matter for a lot of people.

RejZoR said:
Who cares, really? I used to think that way, but if you're realistic, there is 7fps difference. Sounds a lot. But when you look at framerate, 58 vs 65 ? Does it really make any kind of real difference? Especially if AMD is priced a bit lower, it doesn't even need to be king of the hill. Those who plan on tossing 500€ into CPU won't care either way, they just want best of the best (while still not going at highest end extreme). But those that care about price, every € counts.
You could all so look at that as 30 playable and 23fps not playable and some 60 playable and 53 not.
Posted on Reply
#23
Basard
It's hard to tell anything from a single benchmark, especially one that's more GPU dependent. If you put it together with the old AIDA benchmark we saw a few months ago, it's not going to be so bad of a chip. Crappy clocks is it's main problem so far.
Posted on Reply
#24
Caring1
So far we have only seen the result of one benchmark that favours AMD's moar cores philosophy.
That also highlights how poorly this E.S. of Zen will do in normal benchmarks that can use only 4 cores or less, clock speeds will be their downfall again, they need to ramp them up.
Posted on Reply
#25
WaroDaBeast
Caring1 said:
So far we have only seen the result of one benchmark that favours AMD's moar cores philosophy.
That also highlights how poorly this E.S. of Zen will do in normal benchmarks that can use only 4 cores or less, clock speeds will be their downfall again, they need to ramp them up.
I don't get it. FX CPUs have high clocks; the area they lack in is IPC...


the54thvoid said:
i5 4670 is 21% faster frequency, 100% less threads = 10% slower in fps
I stopped reading after that "100 % less" part.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment