Does Ryzen really have Broadwell level IPC

[R4k4n0th]

I keep reading that Ryzen has Broadwell level IPC. Is this really true? I remember that clock for clock Haswell is better than Ryzen in games. How do conclude that? My second question: how do they compare IPC? Do they benchmark the CPUs clock for clock?

 

[dj-electric]

Compering IPC between two completely different architectures is kinda wrong IMO. Every game engine works vastly differently on each

 

[er557]

you can get a ballpark of IPC by looking in cpuz single thread result benchmark, Indeed my haswell-ep xeon gets about what ryzen has in single thread. As for games, they are beginning to be multi core aware, so less important for IPC ,except old games, and those dont pose a problem or bottleneck. I play gta v with 72 threads and it runs just fine nicely

 

[Bill_Bright]

Compering IPC between two completely different architectures is kinda wrong IMO. Every game engine works vastly differently on each

I agree.

I would also say it is wrong to compare an entire family of CPUs to an entire family from a different maker. It is more proper to select a specific model from Brand A and compare it to a specific model from Brand B.

In the end, the specific program/game being run is a factor too.

 

[Tomgang]

clock for clock ryzen/threadripper is a bit slower than Intels newest cpu line up when it comes to IPC. Here are some Cinebench R15 results from intel and AMD CPU´s.

Intel CPU´s.

First my own I7 980X @ 4.25 Ghz and 4.75 GHz. Single core score is 131 and 144.

I7 6900K Broadwell @ 4.2 GHz and a single core score of 176.

I7 8700K stock and a single core score of 193

And a haswell cpu with I5 4670K and single core score of 157

AMD R7 1700 @ 4 GHz single core score is 163.

AMD threadripper 1950X @ 4.1 GHz and a single core score of 164

Based on these results, i will say its not far of that AMD ryzen/threadripper has a IPC some where between Haswell and broadwell. Its of cause depends om how high the cpu is overclock also. but its not far of. Broad well I7 6900K @ 4.2 GHz score in single 176 and AMD Ryzen/threadripper with clocks about 4 GHz scores single around 163/164. So if broadwell runs stock, i think is very close to neck and neck.

 

[phanbuey]

every benchmark is going to be slightly different, but on average i think its about where haswell was (just looking at the reviews).

 

[eidairaman1]

What everyone doesn't understand is that AMD played catch up, now there is Ryzen+ Parts on the way Q1 2018...

 

[cadaveca]

What everyone doesn't understand is that AMD played catch up, now there is Ryzen+ Parts on the way Q1 2018...

What most don't understand is that we do not want AMD to win in CPU performance, or the prices and availability will be horrible. It's the same as it is for GPUs... AMD GPUs work great for coin mining, so they are hard to come by. You want the same in CPUs? Why, so you can never buy one of those, either?

IPC is really so close that AMD and Intel are on par right now for most needs. Intel has higher clocks, so single-thread goes there, but multi-thread is still AMD's win. Yet because so few users are into multi-threaded workloads, CPU availability is good. If Ryzen plus is what some hope, it'll be terrible for consumers. I am expect more something along the lines of Zen+ for Ryzen+.

 

[Vya Domus]

What most don't understand is that we do not want AMD to win in CPU performance, or the prices and availability will be horrible. It's the same as it is for GPUs... AMD GPUs work great for coin mining, so they are hard to come by. You want the same in CPUs? Why, so you can never buy one of those, either?

Not only that makes absolutely no sense , it may very well be the worst attempt at trying to be anti-AMD while also trying to sound legit. Seriously , what you described is nowhere near the reality of how this particular market works.

 

[Melvis]

 

[Deleted member 50521]

What most don't understand is that we do not want AMD to win in CPU performance, or the prices and availability will be horrible. It's the same as it is for GPUs... AMD GPUs work great for coin mining, so they are hard to come by. You want the same in CPUs? Why, so you can never buy one of those, either?

IPC is really so close that AMD and Intel are on par right now for most needs. Intel has higher clocks, so single-thread goes there, but multi-thread is still AMD's win. Yet because so few users are into multi-threaded workloads, CPU availability is good. If Ryzen plus is what some hope, it'll be terrible for consumers. I am expect more something along the lines of Zen+ for Ryzen+.

Man I remember the initial Athlon FX days and Athlon X2 days before Core series came out. Their price were just, outrageous.

 

[cadaveca]

Not only that makes absolutely no sense , it may very well be the worst attempt at trying to be anti-AMD while also trying to sound legit. Seriously , what you described is nowhere near the reality of how this particular market works.

AMD simply does not make enough CPUs to be able to supply the global marketplace. They don't have access to the fabs to be able to do so. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand... "supply and demand" dictates that should they have a CPU that performs better than anything else on the market, everyone will want it, which will increase demand, supply will be very limited because of their lack of capacity to produce chips, and both of those will increases prices. This is pretty basic stuff.

What they have is great already. I have rigs from both sides, and can't tell the difference between them for my uses, as I have said. That's being honest, not being anti-AMD.

Man I remember the initial Athlon FX days and Athlon X2 days before Core series came out. Their price were just, outrageous.

Yeah, AMD had some good chips, and they weren't cheap. At the end, AMD was charging just as much as Intel for their CPUs. That's how business works... it's about making as much profit for as little expense as possible, and even more so for AMD, since they run an "asset-light" management system.

 

[R0H1T]

I agree.

I would also say it is wrong to compare an entire family of CPUs to an entire family from a different maker. It is more proper to select a specific model from Brand A and compare it to a specific model from Brand B.

In the end, the specific program/game being run is a factor too.

I wouldn't say comparing IPC between Ryzen or Broadwell is wrong, basing your estimates on games is bad though because GPU does the heavy lifting, in 3D intensive applications like games. For instance some games run better with Ryzen+AMD GPU even though Nvidia is generally faster, so there's far more too many factors to consider before we even get to IPC.

 

[newtekie1]

AMD simply does not make enough CPUs to be able to supply the global marketplace. They don't have access to the fabs to be able to do so. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand... "supply and demand" dictates that should they have a CPU that performs better than anything else on the market, everyone will want it, which will increase demand, supply will be very limited because of their lack of capacity to produce chips, and both of those will increases prices. This is pretty basic stuff.

What they have is great already. I have rigs from both sides, and can't tell the difference between them for my uses, as I have said. That's being honest, not being anti-AMD.


Yeah, AMD had some good chips, and they weren't cheap. At the end, AMD was charging just as much as Intel for their CPUs. That's how business works... it's about making as much profit for as little expense as possible, and even more so for AMD, since they run an "asset-light" management system.

Heck, AMD was charging MORE than Intel at the time. Intel's pricing, with the exception of the Extreme Edition chips, were pretty reasonable. AMD were charging stupid amounts of money for locked standard desktop chips. I mean, the 4800+ came out at like $1000. And then when Intel came out with the Core 2 series they could have easily priced them close to what AMD was pricing their chips, but instead decided to price them a heck of a lot lower. The E6600 was faster than the 4800+, and was released at the $300 price point.

But anyway, as for the supply issues, you are spot on there. IIRC, back in the Athlon 64 x2 days, AMD still had their own fabs, which they don't anymore. So supply is even more of an issue for AMD today than it was back when they had $1000 desktop CPUs. But even if supply wasn't an issue, we've seen from AMD that if they do get the lead, pricing will be horrible.

 

[RejZoR]

Man I remember the initial Athlon FX days and Athlon X2 days before Core series came out. Their price were just, outrageous.

Aaaand we're back with the people who expect AMD to give everything away almost for free even when they are dominating the performance, but when Intel is dominating with performance, it's totes fine for them to charge outrageous prices. If AMD has excellent products, they have every single right to charge more. And if you believe they shouldn't, then you're a cretin. That's how market works and if you only allow it for Intel, then you're a masive Intel fanboy and a massive hypocrite as well.

@Tomgang
That's rather pointless test. You test IPC by running single core test at exactly the same clock. Which should be 4GHz in your case. Only this way you can get any meaningful numbers about IPC. Because that's what IPC means, Instructions Per Clock. If one has more "clocks" (higher frequency), you're measuring something you then can't compare because you have apples and oranges in the end.

 

[cucker tarlson]

That'll depend on the application. In games - yes, it'll lose to Broadwell clock for clock, even more so OC vs OC. But Ryzen is really an A+ productivity chip that is also decent for gaming.

Productivy, 1700 goes head to head with 6900K at similar clocks so it really blows it out of the water in terms of price/performance

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,10
https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,9


but in gaming, oc vs oc, it gets beaten badly when single thread performance matters

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/test_procesora_intel_core_i7_8700k_premiera_coffee_lake?page=0,34

so all in all, it might have lower single threaded performance but better multi threaded performance, that's why it catches up with intel's HEDT in productivity workloads. For high refresh gaming scenario, it'll lose to 8600K 10 times out of 10. For video editing, it'll smoke it 10 out of 10.

 

[notb]

What everyone doesn't understand is that AMD played catch up, now there is Ryzen+ Parts on the way Q1 2018...

What you don't understand is that Intel will have an answer for Ryzen+ just like they had for Ryzen.
And while AMD will be limited by this arch for some time, about a year from now Intel should launch Ice Lake. And since you're one of the people that criticize them for recycling the same arch for half a decade, just think how big the performance jump might be.

And this is all very good news.
@cadaveca is on money with his thesis - an issue that we don't think about often enough. Whenever AMD makes a very good / leading product, it ends up with supply issues and disturbance of the market. They're offer is too small and pricing is too aggressive for what they can supply.

The reason why Intel makes so many products and why the top-end prices are so high, is that they actually understand economy. They have sales data, they look at the demand curve and they try to optimize sales with their product lineup. So yes, you can mock them for having priced 6900K at $1000, but simple fact is: there was a group willing to pay that much for this CPU. And if there was, why would they price it lower?

AMD simply isn't on this level. They always come up with weird pricing that doesn't hold for long. They never meet their financial plans and they make hardly any money. Just making a good product (like Ryzen) won't change that.
If we assume Intel has the optimal business model (maximizing long-term profit), AMD should be drifting towards a similar idea. But they don't.

 

[agent_x007]

clock for clock ryzen/threadripper is a bit slower than Intels newest cpu line up when it comes to IPC. Here are some Cinebench R15 results from intel and AMD CPU´s.
I7 6900K Broadwell @ 4.2 GHz and a single core score of 176.

And a haswell cpu with I5 4670K and single core score of 157

AMD R7 1700 @ 4 GHz single core score is 163.

AMD threadripper 1950X @ 4.1 GHz and a single core score of 164

Based on these results, i will say its not far of that AMD ryzen/threadripper has a IPC some where between Haswell and broadwell. Its of cause depends om how high the cpu is overclock also. but its not far of. Broad well I7 6900K @ 4.2 GHz score in single 176 and AMD Ryzen/threadripper with clocks about 4 GHz scores single around 163/164. So if broadwell runs stock, i think is very close to neck and neck.

To make a better perspective :
My Ivy Bridge E (Core i7 4960X) @ 4,5GHz has 164 score in Single Thread and 171 @ 4,73GHz

That means, Ryzen/TR @ 4GHz have 12,5% faster platforms @ Single Thread, than my top of the line IB-E @ 4GHz (from math point of view).
Of course this is only one program, IPC value depends mostly on programs you run through CPU (and their optimisation), and not only on architecture of CPU.

Last thing : Actual End Performance, is always IPC x Frequency.
So, even if IPC is better, if CPU with worse IPC can clock higher - it can make higher IPC kinda pointless.
In my case, I can offset Ryzen vs. Ivy B. E performance gap without any problem because my CPU clocks simply that much higher without too much of an effort (ie. going crazy on Vcore/Power consumption).