Tuesday, February 21st 2017

AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Glorious Benchmarks Leak; IHS, Pin Layout Photographed

Another day, another leak: the folks at XFastest have indeed been the fastest to leak images of an actual Ryzen 7 1700X processor, with pictures of the processor's IHS and pin area running rampant throughout the Internet (the Ryzen chip is located to the right in both pictures, with a sample of AMD's previous-generation FX CPUs on the left side for comparison sake).

While revealing shots may have their appeal, it's the benchmarking portion that most of us are expectant about. Until actual reviews are out, we're left nothing more than these leaks (which should be taken with appropriate amounts of salt). In this case, benchmarks of AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 1700X have been released, showing just how the upcoming CPU delivers in 3D Mark Fire Strike, CPU Mark and Cinebench R15.
Let's take it from the top: on Fire Strike's Physics test, the Ryzen 7 1700X scores a grand total of 17,916 points. CPU-Z screenshots running alongside the completed benchmark show us a 3.89 GHz clockspeed (up 400 MHz from the chip's base speed, at 3.4 GHz). The multiplier is set at 39x (4 units higher than the base 35x), though for now it is unclear if this was done through manual overclocking (remember, all Ryzen CPUs will come multiplier unlocked,) or through the chip's own XFR automated overclocking.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this is XFR working as it should - remember, rated XFR speeds for the Ryzen 7 1700X are of 3.8+ GHz, meaning it can hit the mentioned 3.89 GHz by itself, provided sufficient cooling is at hand. CPU voltage in this test appears at 0.672 V. In this test, like in all others from this leak, the CPU was running with 16 GB of DDR4 memory running at 2132 MHz frequency.
Moving on to the CPU Mark portion of the leaked benchmarks, we see a couple differences from the Fire Strike test. For one, the CPU clockspeed as reported by CPU-Z fell by 400MHz towards 3.49 GHz, with the multiplier taking a proportionate hit (35x). The voltage has also gone down though, from the previous 0.672 V to a more conservative 0.536 V - another circumstantial piece of evidence that we are looking at XFR toying with voltage and multiplier values. On this test, the 1700X scores 583 points.
Now on to one of the kings on multi-threaded and single-threaded benchmarking: Cinebench R15. Here, the 1700X is shown as achieving 1537 points on the multi-threaded test, and 154 points on the single-threaded one. It is worth noting that Cinebench R15 reports the 1700X's base clock speed of 3.40 GHz, while again CPU-Z reports 3.49 GHz with a 0.672 V.
Let me just take a slight tangent here whilst saying that this variation in clockspeeds and voltages is probably revealing of the leak's source screenshotting results after different time intervals have elapsed since a given test's completion. Soon enough for the clockspeeds to remain at the XFR frequency (Fire Strike's 3.89 GHz); when both clockspeed and voltage have already decreased (CPU Mark); and when the boost clocks decrease but voltage lingers (Cinebench R15).

Let's just take a little more critical approach regarding these Cinebench results; compare the 1700X's scores with these, taken from Anandtech:
Some comments: AMD's 1700X achieves virtually identical scores to Intel's 6900K CPU on both tests (loses slightly on the multi-threaded test, but eeks out a win on the single-threaded one) once you take variabilty into account. We also can't forget how the test systems differ in terms of memory specs and all those other small things, which still end up affecting the final score. Whether you think this variability favors AMD's 1700X or Intel's 6900K in this particular scenario, there is one thing variability can't account for: the 55 W difference between rated TDP on AMD's 1700X (95 W) and Intel's 6900K (140 W).

Another thing that can't (apparently) be denied is the enormous leap in performance compared to AMD's now defunct Bulldozer architecture (and later refinements). The 1700X at 95 W TDP scores the vaunted 40% more in the single-threaded test than AMD's FX 9590 running at 5 GHz and at 220 W (!!) TDP, with 154 points against the FX 9590's tiny 110. This, allied to the 1700X's use of SMT with its 16 logical threads, also helps put into perspective how AMD managed to achieve a 111% boost in the multi-threaded score compared to the FX 9590 (1537 on the 1700X, 728 on the FX 9590). And this happens, again, despite the 9590 running at 4.7 GHz base and 5 GHz boost, whilst having a TDP rated at 125W more than the 1700X. You don't have to ask me for evidence. Look here:
However one cuts this, these leaks (assuming they're remotely accurate) truly bring to light the enormous engineering challenge AMD had to surpass on its way to Ryzen: the enormity of the task for Jim Keller and company in bringing a competitive, efficient architecture to market despite AMD's inherent difficulties in funding, manufacturing... And on and on. That they managed to engineer an architecture such as this, which apparently gives Intel a run for its money even on the efficiency metrics, is nothing short of extraordinary. Add to that the potential for a many-core democratization even on the entry-level, and we could also see an important push towards more parallelized applications, taking advantage of 4-core solutions at the entry level, finally doing away with the overreaching dual core, four-thread CPUs that have more than outstayed their welcome.Source: XFastestSource: Anandtech
Add your own comment

115 Comments on AMD's Ryzen 7 1700X Glorious Benchmarks Leak; IHS, Pin Layout Photographed

#1
the54thvoid
I for one see no reason to disbelieve the torrent of info appearing from so many different sources but...
But... If it's all untrue, I will actually be very deflated.
Posted on Reply
#2
Raevenlord
News Editor
the54thvoid said:
I for one see no reason to disbelieve the torrent of info appearing from so many different sources but...
But... If it's all untrue, I will actually be very deflated.
Amen.
Posted on Reply
#3
Manu_PT
Meh single core IPC still behind what intel offers and that's what I care about. Multi thread useless for my gaming needs. Nice try tho and massive improvement from bulldozer
Posted on Reply
#4
alucasa
That cinebech score is indeed glorious.

Again, if that is true. Nowdays, people will do pretty much anything to get 5 days of internet fame.
Posted on Reply
#5
kruk
Single thread performance might be on Haswell level, but the multithread performance is at Broadwell level probably because AMDs SMT seems better than Intels HT. With the pricing strategy AMD will be able to sell a lot of CPUs - I hope they prepared enough stock :).
Posted on Reply
#6
TheLaughingMan
Manu_PT said:
Meh single core IPC still behind what intel offers and that's what I care about. Multi thread useless for my gaming needs. Nice try tho and massive improvement from bulldozer
I disagree to a point. Most games now are built with a focus on 4 cores as a minimum and scaling up to 6 cores. So far any more than that has yielded little to no return in most AAA titles; however this also has slowly been changing and will continue to do so with a lot of titles like Ashes of the Signularity and City Skylines pushing for as many threads as you will give them.

Setting that aside, that we can't expect AMD to jump from as far behind as they were to first place in one revision. They seemed to have achieved their 40% IPC target and that put them right around the 4770K and 6900K in single threaded performance. That is damn impressive. I am sure they have Ryzen+ design already in the works for further refinement. Is it the best for gaming? No. Well what if we consider that price thou!
Posted on Reply
#7
N3M3515
If this is true.......wow

And that's not even the flagship :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#8
Patriot
Cinebench is a memory whore... run higher frequency or lower cas and you will dominate. 2133 keeping up is a win. Strap some higher end memory in there and it will win.
Posted on Reply
#9
NdMk2o1o
Manu_PT said:
Meh single core IPC still behind what intel offers and that's what I care about. Multi thread useless for my gaming needs. Nice try tho and massive improvement from bulldozer
its the same as the 4770k at a lower clock speed?

What's going on with the core voltage though.... can these really be as low as 0.5/0.6v that's crazy right there, and even more reason to think I will be getting an R5 1600 :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#10
TheGuruStud
Manu_PT said:
Meh single core IPC still behind what intel offers and that's what I care about. Multi thread useless for my gaming needs. Nice try tho and massive improvement from bulldozer
I have bad news for you....it's basically the same.
Posted on Reply
#12
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Just ran my own Cinebench and i score 1159 which puts it around the same performance as an i7 6850k :p

Theres still life in old bessie :p
Posted on Reply
#13
Patriot
FreedomEclipse said:
Just ran my own Cinebench and i score 1159 which puts it around the same performance as an i7 6850k :p

Theres still life in old bessie :p
I was worried to test my baby but you gave me courage ;)
1346 :)
Posted on Reply
#14
lexluthermiester
TheLaughingMan said:
I disagree to a point. Most games now are built with a focus on 4 cores as a minimum and scaling up to 6 cores. So far any more than that has yielded little to no return in most AAA titles; however this also has slowly been changing and will continue to do so with a lot of titles like Ashes of the Signularity and City Skylines pushing for as many threads as you will give them.

Setting that aside, that we can't expect AMD to jump from as far behind as they were to first place in one revision. They seemed to have achieved their 40% IPC target and that put them right around the 4770K and 6900K in single threaded performance. That is damn impressive. I am sure they have Ryzen+ design already in the works for further refinement. Is it the best for gaming? No. Well what if we consider that price thou!
Both of those main points are excellent. The gaming industry is learning to shape the framework of games to use what is available to them. Been a long time coming. Back in the Athlon days, AMD was the best bang for buck option. Then the Core2 happened and they never caught up. Now comes Ryzen and they seem to be shaking things up again. This can only be good for the industry as a whole as the performance/cost ratio seems to again swing in favor of AMD. The next few years are going to become exciting again in the PC arena.
Posted on Reply
#15
medi01
the54thvoid said:
I for one see no reason to disbelieve the torrent of info appearing from so many different sources but...
But... If it's all untrue, I will actually be very deflated.
Power consumption difference is clearly untrue.
95w vs 145w in blender demo gave under 10w actual power consumption difference. (XFR I guess)
Posted on Reply
#17
Slizzo
FreedomEclipse said:
Just ran my own Cinebench and i score 1159 which puts it around the same performance as an i7 6850k :p

Theres still life in old bessie :p
1301 on my OC'd to 4.2GHz 6800K.

http://imgur.com/5730skD

:)
Posted on Reply
#18
m1dg3t
Patriot said:
Cinebench is a memory whore... run higher frequency or lower cas and you will dominate. 2133 keeping up is a win. Strap some higher end memory in there and it will win.
All the leaks I've seen for Ryzen have been with this sad RAM, let's see some 3000/3200 with decent timings ;) ;)
Posted on Reply
#19
TheGuruStud
m1dg3t said:
All the leaks I've seen for Ryzen have been with this sad RAM, let's see some 3000/3200 with decent timings ;) ;)
14-14-14-34 please
Posted on Reply
#20
lexluthermiester
TheGuruStud said:
14-14-14-34 please
12-12-12-28 would be better.
Posted on Reply
#21
gdallsk
Just scored 1215 with 5820k at 4.5...
this thing is making my cpu nervous...
Posted on Reply
#22
TheGuruStud
lexluthermiester said:
12-12-12-28 would be better.
Good luck at 3000/3200 lol
Posted on Reply
#23
TheLaughingMan
I know the rumors say that Ryzen has a memory issue when it comes to clock speed, but I hope it is not as bad as these test are making it look. I though AMD's target was 2400 MHz standard with up to 3200 MHz supported. Not one of these leaks shows memory clocked past 2400 MHz and most are well below that mark. Hoping that is just them being ES revisions prior to final silicon.
Posted on Reply
#24
Wattery Fowls
SimpleTECH said:
Looks like a bent pin on the left CPU (near the top).
I count 3 or 4 bent
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment