Ryzen Leaks - Coolers and Benchmarks

[FYFI13]

Stop spreading misinformation.

That's why i said "in most". There are very few games that can utilize CPU as good as BF1 does. And i was wrong only about DX11 part - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476891(v=vs.85).aspx Until DX11 this was impossible.

It makes perfect sense if the all use xfr and are running at a hype train level of 4.0+

On the picture they state CPU's were running at 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4GHz. If that was with XFR, than... Results are pretty low I'd say.

 

[cdawall]

On the picture they state CPU's were running at 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 4GHz. If that was with XFR, than... Results are pretty low I'd say.

Results are pulled from the futurmark server and there is literally zero proof of speed. That is all guesstimate based off of model numbers.

So your i7-6850K 6 core/12 thread CPU Physics score of 20,057 @ ~4.5GHz is higher than the AMD Ryzen: ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y 6 core/12 thread CPU Physics score of 15,271 @ 3.3GHz.

Which proves what? You should compare yours at the same clock at least. If you want to make a fair comparison anyway.

EDIT: It looks like @ 3.8GHz it's a much closer race. So it would probably be interesting to see what it does @ 3.3GHz. Before you can claim it's much better or worse.
View attachment 84083

Apples to apples people.

Use the graph below and my per core is 3342, none of the AMD chips are exceeding 2600 even at a supposed 4ghz, add some apples in there and per clock AMD is going to be balls ass slow if this is actually at 4ghz. That is why I have ALREADY SAID this is pure conjecture from a known web page that is full of it.

 

[yogurt_21]

hype train must have run off the tracks...

AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?

compared to what? I get 4GHZ xfr is likely on in those tests which is why the 3 come back the same per core...but how is an AMD chip at 4GHZ beating a 6900k at 3.7GHZ bad?

I don't get where this argument is going at all. The physics test apparently favors the hell out of clock speed...and apparently has the lower/cheaper 6800k give more performance per core at 3.6 than the 6900k does at 3.7? Perhaps we're seeing a test that can only max quads and can deal with hex's but doesn't properly allocate octa's.

I don't know about the validity of the bench, but the AMD results there are NOT "Balls Ass Slow" not by any means, not by overall performance, not by price per performance, not by multi-threaded performance. 3dmark cpu tests are notorious core clock whores. They matter not a bit in a real worth comparison and this is a case where synthetics would actually tell more. But even if they did matter, I'd take these results from AMD's necromancy event. Especially now that a cpu core on AMD pretty much matches one on the Intel side. The fact that you can even compare per core performance between the 2 is a massive leap forward for AMD.

 

[the54thvoid]

Reviews out on 28th apparently, so one way or another hype train will be boarding on platform zen soon enough.

 

[EarthDog]

hype train must have run off the tracks...

AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?

compared to what? I get 4GHZ xfr is likely on in those tests which is why the 3 come back the same per core...but how is an AMD chip at 4GHZ beating a 6900k at 3.7GHZ bad?

I don't get where this argument is going at all. The physics test apparently favors the hell out of clock speed...and apparently has the lower/cheaper 6800k give more performance per core at 3.6 than the 6900k does at 3.7? Perhaps we're seeing a test that can only max quads and can deal with hex's but doesn't properly allocate octa's.

I don't know about the validity of the bench, but the AMD results there are NOT "Balls Ass Slow" not by any means, not by overall performance, not by price per performance, not by multi-threaded performance. 3dmark cpu tests are notorious core clock whores. They matter not a bit in a real worth comparison and this is a case where synthetics would actually tell more. But even if they did matter, I'd take these results from AMD's necromancy event. Especially now that a cpu core on AMD pretty much matches one on the Intel side. The fact that you can even compare per core performance between the 2 is a massive leap forward for AMD.

The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.

It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.

 

[cdawall]

hype train must have run off the tracks...

AMD's first stab at competing with Intel comes close bit slower in some tests and suddenly that's "Balls Ass Slow" ? wtf?

4ghz+ for XFR all of them score the same regardless to number of cores when broken down per core, that score is 800 points lower than my absolutely average 6850k and requires a 4ghz XFR chip to compete

compared to what? I get 4GHZ xfr is likely on in those tests which is why the 3 come back the same per core...but how is an AMD chip at 4GHZ beating a 6900k at 3.7GHZ bad?

XFR exceeds 4ghz, 4ghz is normal turbo.

I don't get where this argument is going at all. The physics test apparently favors the hell out of clock speed...and apparently has the lower/cheaper 6800k give more performance per core at 3.6 than the 6900k does at 3.7? Perhaps we're seeing a test that can only max quads and can deal with hex's but doesn't properly allocate octa's.

I don't know about the validity of the bench, but the AMD results there are NOT "Balls Ass Slow" not by any means, not by overall performance, not by price per performance, not by multi-threaded performance. 3dmark cpu tests are notorious core clock whores. They matter not a bit in a real worth comparison and this is a case where synthetics would actually tell more. But even if they did matter, I'd take these results from AMD's necromancy event. Especially now that a cpu core on AMD pretty much matches one on the Intel side. The fact that you can even compare per core performance between the 2 is a massive leap forward for AMD.

Anything that is only competitive with stagnant intels from 3 generations ago frustrates me especially when people hype up a product like it is gods gift to the CPU world. I will happily wait until real benchmarks and clockspeeds show up, but as it sits color me completely and utterly unimpressed that AMD can keep up with the 6900K.

The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.

It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.

Even with an absolutely dicked OS (work PC) the 5960X I am using still scales with 8 cores...

 

[phanbuey]

i might have to throw another rad in the loop and get one of these... really looking forward to the OC potential

 

[yogurt_21]

The physics of the bench is fine. It scales WELL over 8 cores just fine. The physics test (not PhysX from nvidia mind you) responds well to cores and clockspeeds.

It is a notorious thread whore...clocks do matter but cores outweigh it in most cases.

that doesn't correlate to the results AT ALL. either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.

it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.

4ghz+ for XFR all of them score the same regardless to number of cores when broken down per core, that score is 800 points lower than my absolutely average 6850k and requires a 4ghz XFR chip to compete



XFR exceeds 4ghz, 4ghz is normal turbo.



Anything that is only competitive with stagnant intels from 3 generations ago frustrates me especially when people hype up a product like it is gods gift to the CPU world. I will happily wait until real benchmarks and clockspeeds show up, but as it sits color me completely and utterly unimpressed that AMD can keep up with the 6900K.

Even with an absolutely dicked OS (work PC) the 5960X I am using still scales with 8 cores...

? there you go with the crazy talk again... "Absolute Average" 9 month old 600$ cpu... right... if you don't even know what average is, your parents, teachers, and workplace are terrible terrible educators. I'm pretty sure my 7 year old could properly teach someone that. Average cpu's do not cost 600$. They cost 150-200$ and come pre-assembled into whatever you're buying. Your cpu is 9 months old and expensive. Your expectations are moronic AT BEST. you have guzzled too much Kool Aid.

Also you're completely ignoring the Intel results.

There's more than one Intel cpu in that chart. And I hate to break it to yah, but they do not make any sense whatsoever if the bench is legit. 8 core scales terribly, yet 6 runs better? Even despite a core clock deficiency? I smell bullshit.

Speaking of, your assertion that beating a 1100$ 9 month old cpu is unimpressive is bullshit. you either need to get laid or need to lay off something, but your attitude here is bullshit.

also 4GHZ is only turbo for the 8 core 1800X which I did not see listed. All others turbo below that. So the XFR is likely 4GHZ. Running tests at 4.5 almost 4.6 isn't apples for apples at all. Post your 4GHZ numbers or don't bother posting anything at all.

and ffs try to thing about price. Expecting a 300-500$ cpu to topple the best Intel has to offer is pointless. The days of AMD's Althon 64 besting Intel ended over a decade ago. This is a necromancy event, nothing more.

Too much hype in your head, not enough logic.

 

[cdawall]

that doesn't correlate to the results AT ALL. either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.

it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.




? there you go with the crazy talk again... "Absolute Average" 9 month old 600$ cpu... right... if you don't even know what average is, your parents, teachers, and workplace are terrible terrible educators. I'm pretty sure my 7 year old could properly teach someone that. Average cpu's do not cost 600$. They cost 150-200$ and come pre-assembled into whatever you're buying. Your cpu is 9 months old and expensive. Your expectations are moronic AT BEST. you have guzzled too much Kool Aid.

Also you're completely ignoring the Intel results.

There's more than one Intel cpu in that chart. And I hate to break it to yah, but they do not make any sense whatsoever if the bench is legit. 8 core scales terribly, yet 6 runs better? Even despite a core clock deficiency? I smell bullshit.

Speaking of, your assertion that beating a 1100$ 9 month old cpu is unimpressive is bullshit. you either need to get laid or need to lay off something, but your attitude here is bullshit.

also 4GHZ is only turbo for the 8 core 1800X which I did not see listed. All others turbo below that. So the XFR is likely 4GHZ. Running tests at 4.5 almost 4.6 isn't apples for apples at all. Post your 4GHZ numbers or don't bother posting anything at all.

and ffs try to thing about price. Expecting a 300-500$ cpu to topple the best Intel has to offer is pointless. The days of AMD's Althon 64 besting Intel ended over a decade ago. This is a necromancy event, nothing more.

Too much hype in your head, not enough logic.

ALL of the amd chips scored the same per core a normal logical person would assert that means they are all at the same clock speed. Oddly enough searching futuremarks database isn't the most reliable place to get unreleased cpu clockspeed.

ALL of the amd chips scaled perfectly to 8 cores, yet again showing this bench scales fine.

ALL of the amd chips are clocked higher (if we assume 4ghz) than the Intel counterparts. AMD also has XFR which means if that is enabled we have NO idea what maximum clockspeed is.

Also my $500-600 cpu was less than half that price at purchase. Not my fault you don't have the ability to buy them cheaper.

Look at the per core stuff again and notice that the 3.6 and 3.7ghz Intel chips are besting the 4ghz amd model per core. I'm tired of this damn hype train every single benchmark released should come with a dump truck full of salt for the fanatics that assume this will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm betting performance similar to ivy bridge e. Huge step forward for amd, not much of a threat to Intel. Hopefully it means Intel drops prices some.

 

[eidairaman1]

ALL of the amd chips scored the same per core a normal logical person would assert that means they are all at the same clock speed. Oddly enough searching futuremarks database isn't the most reliable place to get unreleased cpu clockspeed.

ALL of the amd chips scaled perfectly to 8 cores, yet again showing this bench scales fine.

ALL of the amd chips are clocked higher (if we assume 4ghz) than the Intel counterparts. AMD also has XFR which means if that is enabled we have NO idea what maximum clockspeed is.

Also my $500-600 cpu was less than half that price at purchase. Not my fault you don't have the ability to buy them cheaper.

Look at the per core stuff again and notice that the 3.6 and 3.7ghz Intel chips are besting the 4ghz amd model per core. I'm tired of this damn hype train every single benchmark released should come with a dump truck full of salt for the fanatics that assume this will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm betting performance similar to ivy bridge e. Huge step forward for amd, not much of a threat to Intel. Hopefully it means Intel drops prices some.

That's all we can hope for is to bring competitive prices back where all end users win.

 

[alucasa]

Nobody pays full price for xeons.

Well, corporations do, I suppose. Then, for them, few grands is gum change.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I bought all three Xeons I had at retail.

 

[cdawall]

That's all we can hope for is to bring competitive prices back where all end users win.

Dump Intels 6 core lineup prices down to $3-400 and its a whole new ballgame.

 

[EarthDog]

that doesn't correlate to the results AT ALL. either your post is bullshit or the bench is. there is no way an 8 core with 16 threads from intel would have less performance per core despite higher clocks than the 6 core variant of the same gen otherwise.

it either scales terribly or the test is random and thus useless.

Or maybe just the result you see is bullshit... we are taking these results as The Gospel without any confirmation its actually true. I hear what you are saying, it doens't make sense. But its not the benchmark itself that is the problem here.

The benchmark scales well with 10c/20t. It also scales with clockspeed.

 

[alucasa]

Just wait few more weeks and all these nutshows will be over.

 

[m1dg3t]

Dump Intels 6 core lineup prices down to $3-400 and its a whole new ballgame.

Intel can not do this over night, they would have to make cuts over, I think, at least 2 gens. Such a big slash in prices would be extremely difficult to absorb all at once.

*Note*: This is conjecture, i'm a fool.

Edit: I been trying to watch this the last couple days

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

If I can figure out how the HELL FreeNAS works, this may go into that build...

 

[cdawall]

Or maybe just the result you see is bullshit... we are taking these results as The Gospel without any confirmation its actually true. I hear what you are saying, it doens't make sense. But its not the benchmark itself that is the problem here.

The benchmark scales well with 10c/20t. It also scales with clockspeed.

Wait you mean a russian video card page reposted by WCCF isn't the most reliable source? Say it ain't so.

Intel can not do this over night, they would have to make cuts over, I think, at least 2 gens. Such a big slash in prices would be extremely difficult to absorb all at once.

*Note*: This is conjecture, i'm a fool.

Edit: I been trying to watch this the last couple days

Intel could absorb it easily they posted AMD's net worth in profits for the last quarter. It just means less profit, guarantee at that price they are still making a good bit on each CPU.

 

[m1dg3t]

Intel could absorb it easily they posted AMD's net worth in profits for the last quarter. It just means less profit, guarantee at that price they are still making a good bit on each CPU.

You honestly believe that an instant reduction in ASP of ~30% will have little to no financial effect? HaHaHa

You think they can maintain healthy margins on such large dies, as compared to Zen? Honestly?

 

[alucasa]

Nope, but they can take the hit if required. They've been making insane profits for how many years?

 

[m1dg3t]

Nope, but they can take the hit if required. They've been making insane profits for how many years?

Really, you think instantly devaluing your product line by such a significant amount will have no affect to your stock value? Lol

 

[alucasa]

They've done it before. Remember Netburst era? How did that pan out?

 

[eidairaman1]

They've done it before. Remember Netburst era? How did that pan out?

Amd Seriously needs to get on the program with 1 tv commercial and tons of ads online, they have enough on Social Media.

 

[phanbuey]

Really, you think instantly devaluing your product line by such a significant amount will have no affect to your stock value? Lol

I would guess that most of the controlling shareholders would rather take a price hit now than lose market share and collapse slowly like a flan.

Also they have had no competition in the space for so long that the current prices are inflated and unclear how low they can go before it no longer becomes efficient with in terms of manufacturing costs. They're probably charging a pretty healthy margin.

 

[cdawall]

You honestly believe that an instant reduction in ASP of ~30% will have little to no financial effect? HaHaHa

You think they can maintain healthy margins on such large dies, as compared to Zen? Honestly?

So I take it you have no idea what intel values those chips at internal of the company? You do know they sold the 6700K fur sub $200 and 6850K for sub $300 this year on retail edge...Intel can comfortably drop prices on them they do it every single time they release a new chip. Do you really think Intel makes that much money on consumer grade shit?