Monday, December 26th 2016
AMD Ryzen Performance Review Leaked: Promising
French tech print magazine "Canard PC" is ready with early benchmarks of an AMD Ryzen 8-core processor. The scan of a page from its Ryzen performance review article got leaked to the web, revealing three key performance takeaways. In the first selection of tests, Canard PC put Ryzen through synthetic CPU-intensive tests that take advantage of as many CPU cores/threads as you can throw at them. These include the likes of H.264 and H.265 video encoding, WPrime, Blender, 3DSMax 2015, and Corona. Ryzen was found to be faster than the quad-core Core i7-6700K, and the six-core i7-6800K, but somewhere between the i7-6800K and the eight-core i7-6900K.
The next selection of tests focused on PC gaming, with a list of contemporary AAA titles, including "Far Cry 4," "Battlefield 4," "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt," "Anno 2070," "GRID: Autosport," and "ARMA III." Here, the Ryzen sample was found to be underwhelming - it was slower than the Core i5-6600 quad-core chip clocked at 3.30-3.90 GHz; but faster than the i5-6500, clocked at 3.20-3.60 GHz. The fastest chip in the table is the i7-6700K (4.00-4.20 GHz). The reviewer still notes that Ryzen has a decent IPC gain unseen from the AMD stable in a while.
In the final segment, the reviewers tested the power-consumption of the processor. AMD rates the TDP of the Ryzen 8-core chip at 95W, which was desperately needed from a chip built on the 14 nm node. Here it was noted that Ryzen made a tremendous performance/Watt leap over the 32 nm FX-8370 "Vishera." It consumes 93W, just under the 96W consumed by the Core i7-6900K eight-core chip, and slightly more than the 85W consumed by the 22 nm Core i7-4790K "Devil's Canyon" quad-core chip. The 14 nm i7-6800K six-core chip draws 83W, and the quad-core 14 nm i7-6700K draws 62W.
In all, the reviewer concludes that Ryzen could give the DIY performance CPU market the stir it badly needed, and could give Intel a shake-down, but it boils down the pricing.
Source:
Reddit
The next selection of tests focused on PC gaming, with a list of contemporary AAA titles, including "Far Cry 4," "Battlefield 4," "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt," "Anno 2070," "GRID: Autosport," and "ARMA III." Here, the Ryzen sample was found to be underwhelming - it was slower than the Core i5-6600 quad-core chip clocked at 3.30-3.90 GHz; but faster than the i5-6500, clocked at 3.20-3.60 GHz. The fastest chip in the table is the i7-6700K (4.00-4.20 GHz). The reviewer still notes that Ryzen has a decent IPC gain unseen from the AMD stable in a while.
In all, the reviewer concludes that Ryzen could give the DIY performance CPU market the stir it badly needed, and could give Intel a shake-down, but it boils down the pricing.
118 Comments on AMD Ryzen Performance Review Leaked: Promising
Low power consumption, check
Last thing on the checklist is the price
1. The tests were performed with an engineering sample AMD Ryzen-cpu;
2. The sample had a base clock of 3.15 GHz, whereas AMD already confirmed that the official product will have a base clock of 3.4 GHz (with higher turbo).
As for game performance, take into consideration that PC games do not fully use 16 threads, and very few use 8 threads. Most probably the quad core variants for the Ryzen will be higher clocked and they will get very close to Intel quad cores in gaming.
2.\ Yes, baseclock plays a major role, and for avg fps for gaming for the average consumer for a 4 thread game, 6 core bests higher clocked 4 core for common people as background tasks is very inefficient.
That old flash game you never stopped playing, those TechPowerup tabs, youtube tabs etc, usually swallows two cores alone!
Either way, if AMD gets it pricing right and Vega does what it is supposed to, 2017 could become a VERY good year for some upgrades, no matter which brand you prefer!
This no competition is just downright disgusting, same with the midrange GTX1080... (by design a midrange card just made big cause marketing")
Ryzen will have a turbo mode like intel, not conclusive data.
4C 8T 6700K > 8C\16T 3.?ghz ryzen - in gaming
will,
6C\12T ryzen 3.?ghz +300-400Mhz > 4C 8T 6700K - in gaming at 350$?
We'll wait to see
I hope they can recoup R&D costs with a strategy like that, for all our sakes.
It isn't setting-the-world-on-fire performance, but it is better than what a majority of realistic people expected.
Most realistic people were expecting total performance to be in the Haswell range when it comes to lightly-threaded workloads.
It's world's ahead of anything Bulldozer and it's ilk could ever imagine accomplishing, and if the ES 8C/16T chip can land there, think what the 4C/8T chips could do.
Its not even the same chip that was in the announcement stream. Its not even a released chip. Its also been said that the clocks are lowered during the pre-release. Far as I'm concerned, its a bogus review of a stolen prototype, so not a review worth its salt.
So that raises the bar on its clock speed needed.