New Ryzen 2600 gets 17% single core performance boost

[EarthDog]

I highly doubt it will. Very few changes here.

 

[Vya Domus]

I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.

I personally look at this the other way around. I wouldn't support the company that literally bought market share with billions upon billions and pulled off god knows how many other illegal stunts to put a spanner in the works of their competitor. Other than that , I don't think neither AMD or Intel or anyone else for that matter care about their customers.

 

[HTC]

Let's say that @ the end, the new Ryzen refresh gives 10% better performance VS the current Ryzen: you dudes do realize that's actually better then what Intel has been offering for several generations, right?

That said, 10% doesn't seem that much, specially if it comes solely from increase in frequency. I'd much prefer it it came form something else, even if the frequency remained the same, but that's me.

If this 17% does turn out to be true (and i highly doubt it), that's actually quite good, IMO.

 

[Vayra86]

Let's say that @ the end, the new Ryzen refresh gives 10% better performance VS the current Ryzen: you dudes do realize that's actually better then what Intel has been offering for several generations, right?

That said, 10% doesn't seem that much, specially if it comes solely from increase in frequency. I'd much prefer it it came form something else, even if the frequency remained the same, but that's me.

If this 17% does turn out to be true (and i highly doubt it), that's actually quite good, IMO.

No, its nothing that special - Intel pushed that out on IPC improvements alone at the beginning of Core, until Haswell.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6

 

[HTC]

No, its nothing that special - Intel pushed that out on IPC improvements alone at the beginning of Core, until Haswell.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6

Exactly!

But, since then, it has been mostly frequency increase that accounts for total increase VS previous generation.

 

[Vayra86]

Exactly!

But, since then, it has been mostly frequency increase that accounts for total increase VS previous generation.

Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...

What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1

 

[Vya Domus]

Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...

What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1

There is a difference , Intel has had much smaller bumps in performance in the past couple of years on bigger node improvements. 17% increase in performance from clock speed on something that is effectively a refined node is impressive.

 

[HTC]

Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...

What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1

That would be a no, dude.

For starters, it's in a new process, which is where the small clock bumps come from, so it's not possible for it to be a re-badge. If it were the exact same CPUs but better binned, then it would be a re-badge.

Intel was so far ahead that they could afford to take the "let's just increase the performance of our new chips ever so slightly VS previous generation" and still be able to sell. We consumers fell for it because the alternative had too low performance.

That said, i really do hope the increase in performance for these new chips does NOT come solely from frequency increase, but i wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Don't matter where it comes from, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.

 

[IceScreamer]

I'd be happy with just ironed out kinks of the first gen. They did a pretty good job with the microcode updates, now to see that out of the box and with a small clock bump and it's all good.

Either a Ryzen 2600 or the 2200G is most likely my next CPU, or my brothers' to be more precise, so I can have the FX6300 all to myself.

 

[dj-electric]

To me, this sort of jump is required for a new yearly series. Jumps have to be made, otherwise Chipzilla will start chopping heads again.

 

[HTC]

Don't matter where it comes from, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.

It does because, if it doesn't come from frequency, then increasing frequency (overclocking) nets you even MORE performance.

If the increase in performance comes from frequency alone, then overclocking won't gain you as much.

I'd be happy with just ironed out kinks of the first gen. They did a pretty good job with the microcode updates, now to see that out of the box and with a small clock bump and it's all good.

Either a Ryzen 2600 or the 2200G is most likely my next CPU, or my brothers' to be more precise, so I can have the FX6300 all to myself.

That would be my hope but i have serious doubts: they may have improved some bits but most likely, the performance boost will come from frequency increase.

We shall see ...

 

[Melvis]

I am only curious to see if the min fps in games at all resolutions improves with this Ryzen refresh, because if Intel is still winning that battle at 10 fps better min across the board... in many cases much more... ugh... I know freesync and gsync change the ball game on what matters and what doesn't but still...

Are you sure about that? as pretty much all online reviews ive seen show the opposite that AMD has better 1% lows then intel does.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg

 

[phill]

I think the best thing for me to do is to just sit and wait.. Reviews are one thing, so I'll wait for those I just hope they can make the difference....

 

[newtekie1]

It does because, if it doesn't come from frequency, then increasing frequency (overclocking) nets you even MORE performance.

If the increase in performance comes from frequency alone, then overclocking won't gain you as much.

Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.

 

[HTC]

Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.

Indeed: that would make it even worse.

 

[eidairaman1]

Let's just wait until the parts are in our hands instead of speculating over all of it, it's pointless at this point.

 

[dirtyferret]

Don't matter where it comes from, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.

It's not a 17% increase on frequency or IPC. The 17% comes on a Geekbench test score going from 3636 to 4269. The issue is the ryzen 1600 OC to 3.9 gets a notch above 4300 on the same test so it makes sense the 2600 @ 3.8ghz would score 4269. It's the equivalent of a cinebench single core score going from 160 to 170 from the i5-6600k to i5-7600k. The IPC is the same and the chip received a small bump in frequency, the exact same bump you can give your current 1600.

 

[Vayra86]

Indeed: that would make it even worse.

You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes

 

[HTC]

You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes

Supposedly, we'll be getting higher base clock and turbo but also higher overclock ceiling. How much higher? Dunno

 

[evernessince]

Here's the feedback:
- Intel's processors keep selling regardless of TIM
- Intel still is single thread king
- Intel still holds the Ghz crown in current gen (by far)
- Intel still provides the highest in-game performance at every price point in midrange and high end
- Delidding has become its own separate business now
- Even with TIM, the hottest CPU of the current line up still remains within safe ranges with a decent OC.
- AMD's Ryzen CPU was openly declared by many not to be a stellar gaming CPU for high end systems

AMD doesn't care for gamers, they play into the PR for gamers. Vega is the ultimate example of how they do not care for gamers at all: almost all of the production capacity is going towards the non-gamer versions of this card. First in high end, now we have Vega on-die as an IGP. 'For the gamers'. Gaming GPU has been bleeding money for the past decade with hesitant signs of improvement that never make it to market or take ages to arrive in a small handful of games. Should I go on with facts? Or do you prefer marketing and emotion to decide.

1) And call of duty still continues to sell regardless that it's shit
2) Yep
3) Doesn't mean jack. AMD was able to reach 5GHz long before Intel and it didn't mean anything
4) This is the same as point 2, you are just inflating you list size
5) This is a negative point, not a positive. It represents the added time and money you need to spend to get the performance you paid for in addition to voiding your warranty
6) With the purchase of a good cooler. AMD Ryzen will OC with the stock cooler and still get lower temps
7) Who said this? TechSpot? TechPowerUp? No, I'm sure they said it was a good gaming CPU. No one is going to complain that they are getting 172 FPS instead of 189 FPS except for eSports gamers. If anyone is saying Ryzen isn't a good gaming architecture it's because they are chasing numbers and not real work performance, where 99% of PC gamers don't have a monitor capible of taking advantage of the framerates over 144FPS.

Facts

Ryzen is more power efficient than Coffee Lake
Ryzen runs cooler than Coffee Lake
Ryzen provides more performance per dollar
Ryzen provides 2 more cores compared to similarly priced Intel processors
Ryzen doesn't require a delid
Ryzen comes with a good stock cooler you can OC on
Ryzen's platform has an upgrade path, Coffee Lake does not
Ryzen isn't affected by the Meltdown security issue.
All Ryzen processors are unlocked

Also, on Vega, any company is going to go for the profit. It's why Nvidia isn't releasing Amprere/volta for gamers right now and it's why Intel waited for Ryzen to actually offer gamers true upgrade. Stop taking bullshit about not following marketing and emotion and actually do it. Nvidia has fucked over gamers, AMD has fucked over gamers, and Intel has fucked over gamers. They are companies, they want your dollars.

 

[heky]

Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.

Just like what Intel did with the 8700k. - the 2 more cores obviously.

You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes

You realize that is effectively what the 8700K`s at right now, yes?

 

[EarthDog]

Supposedly, we'll be getting higher base clock and turbo but also higher overclock ceiling. How much higher? Dunno

Zen2, not Zen+. 2019 is when we hope to see that.

Just like what Intel did with the 8700k. - the 2 more cores obviously.



You realize that is effectively what the 8700K`s at right now, yes?

?????

8700k will overclock all cores to 4.8-5GHz+ from a 3.7 ghz base with all cores running around 4ghz. AMD chips all top out at 4-4.1ghz typically 100-200 mhz over its own all core boost or maybe a few hundred mhz total over its base. Id call it plenty of headroom. Its more than amd chips from base or all core boost clocks to max overclock. You also have to consider the boost range is obviously different as well. 8700k and starts at 3.7 with a natural boost to 4.7 on one core. 1ghz. 1800x goes from 3.6ghz to 4ghz +100 mhz xfr single core if you are lucky. 500 mhz. And that is TOTAL. No mas for 95% of amd chips. According to silicon lottery, 72% of 8700k will hit 5ghz and be stable. 43% 5.1 ghz. Id say its pretty clear the total range is notably more. Amd cannot seem to get anything past xfr, while intel can get 300mhz+ if thats the way you want to slice you pie...a myopic take if anything.

 

[dirtyferret]

1) And call of duty still continues to sell regardless that it's shit
2) Yep
3) Doesn't mean jack. AMD was able to reach 5GHz long before Intel and it didn't mean anything
4) This is the same as point 2, you are just inflating you list size
5) This is a negative point, not a positive. It represents the added time and money you need to spend to get the performance you paid for in addition to voiding your warranty
6) With the purchase of a good cooler. AMD Ryzen will OC with the stock cooler and still get lower temps
7) Who said this? TechSpot? TechPowerUp? No, I'm sure they said it was a good gaming CPU. No one is going to complain that they are getting 172 FPS instead of 189 FPS except for eSports gamers. If anyone is saying Ryzen isn't a good gaming architecture it's because they are chasing numbers and not real work performance, where 99% of PC gamers don't have a monitor capible of taking advantage of the framerates over 144FPS.

Facts

Ryzen is more power efficient than Coffee Lake
Ryzen runs cooler than Coffee Lake
Ryzen provides more performance per dollar
Ryzen provides 2 more cores compared to similarly priced Intel processors
Ryzen doesn't require a delid
Ryzen comes with a good stock cooler you can OC on
Ryzen's platform has an upgrade path, Coffee Lake does not
Ryzen isn't affected by the Meltdown security issue.
All Ryzen processors are unlocked

Also, on Vega, any company is going to go for the profit. It's why Nvidia isn't releasing Amprere/volta for gamers right now and it's why Intel waited for Ryzen to actually offer gamers true upgrade. Stop taking bullshit about not following marketing and emotion and actually do it. Nvidia has fucked over gamers, AMD has fucked over gamers, and Intel has fucked over gamers. They are companies, they want your dollars.

You seem to be confusing facts with hyperbole, opinion, and biased marketing...

 

[ratirt]

Weird thing about that benchmark or report, whatever you wanna call it, they were done with different versions or am I missing something here? 4.1.4 vs 4.0.3. Does this matter and has anyone noticed that ?
Oh and one more thing. We don't know memory speed they used except for the amount which can also boost score I guess.