New Ryzen 2600 gets 17% single core performance boost

[R4k4n0th]

As you guys know, AMD is to release the Ryzen 2000 or let's just call it Zen+ In April. In January the Ryzen 5 2600 already surfaced in the SiSoft Sandra database. The entry showed a processor called Ryzen 5 2600, which obviously is Zen+, the model listed is a six-core twelve threaded processor.

The very same processor once again has surfaced and seems to be the counterpart of the Ryzen 5 1600. The Ryzen 5 1600 shows Family 23 Model 1 Stepping 1, the new Ryzen 2600 reads out as Family 23 Model 8 Stepping 2.

The entry within the SiSoft database is:

ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y (6C 12T 3.4GHz, 1.1GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3).

And yes you can deduct anything and pretty much everything from that, including a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz turbo. The new leak was spotted at GeekBench and seem to be interesting as it shows that exact same product code, the single core score returns a 4269 points and the multicore score now sees 20102 points. So let's call that a ~10% performance increase. Obviously, we will still need to learn if the new Ryzen 2000 series can tweak higher compared to its predecessor.

Now I know, it's not much to look at and Geekbench most definitely is not definitive and all saying, but I made the following comparison. BTW I assume the Ryzen 2600 is a non 'X' model much like a Ryzen 1600, and as such compared based on that being the fairest baseline. Note, the L 1/2/3 caches on the original Ryzen 5 1600 entry seems to be messed up, for the Ryzen 5 2600 they seem spot on. Also, the Insyde Software BIOS for Ryzen 5 2600 might seem weird, but that is a UEFI Firmware & Engineering Services Provider, indicating this test was using an engineering sample motherboard.

Source: http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_ryzen_2600_benchmark_spotted.html

Please look at the images at the link. I could not copy the images here as I was rushing to post this awesome news.

Old Ryzen 1600 score: 3636
New Ryzen 2600 score: 4269 !!!!!

The boost: 17% !!! Wow wow wow

 

[phanbuey]

Niiice.

10%ish though - the clockspeed diff is making up the rest.

That cache reading looks funky AF

 

[cucker tarlson]

Lol.
17% would be nice if it came from just 200MHz higher frequency but keep your pants on dude, this is just a leak.

 

[Hockster]

Uhhh, it's not even a test, it's a report in a database.

 

[dirtyferret]

the 1600x @ 3.9ghz does 4300 single core on the same test so the 2600 is pretty much inline considering it's at 3.8ghz.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7096327

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

Not expecting much IPC boost from Zen+ on 12nm, wouldn't be surprised if the most, if not all of the performance uplift is from higher clocks. Though lower L2 latency will help a little bit.

 

[cdawall]

the 1600x @ 3.9ghz does 4300 single core on the same test so the 2600 is pretty much inline considering it's at 3.8ghz.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7096327

Yep it is spot on for nothing more than a clock bump.

 

[Vayra86]

ZOMGROXXOR someone bought the next rumor mill nonsense.

Rumors luckily still don't beat common sense. This is of similar quality to Intel putting +30-40% performance jumps on their slides because they added cores and bumped clocks.

That's a nuclear bomb.

 

[xkm1948]

Better OC headroom plus better RAM compatibility that is for sure. Anything more will be icing on the cake.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I like how ryzen is adopting the sandy bridge number scheme.

This is of similar quality to Intel putting +30-40% performance jumps on their slides because they added cores and bumped clocks.

But technically, they're not wrong or in the wrong.

 

[Tomgang]

lovely if true. Then i so just hope for AMD´s sake that they also have OC this time at better levels. First gen Rizen has trouble getting over 4.2-4.3 GHz while Intels chips happily runs around 4.7 and up to over 5 GHz deppending on chip and what cooling you have.

 

[dirtyferret]

trouble getting over 4.2-4.3ghz? Most of the reviews I read had unstable chips once they hit 4.1ghz.

 

[Final_Fighter]

3.9ghz is the sweet spot on first gen. if you get 4ghz you have a good chip and 4.1ghz is cherry.

 

[Space Lynx]

3.9ghz is the sweet spot on first gen. if you get 4ghz you have a good chip and 4.1ghz is cherry.

If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200 over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.

 

[eidairaman1]

Makes me wonder what I could get out of it by non Turbo Overclocking.

 

[Johan45]

Looking at the numbers it's being compared to a slower 1600 CPU and one thing I noticed about the Precision boost 2 on the Raven ridge was that it works more like XFR if cooling etc are all good that could be an all core boost to 3.8 plus it makes no mention of memory 3200 VS 2666 on the test system will do wonders in GB. I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

 

[dirtyferret]

If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200 over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.

AMD, Intel, Nvidia are all publicly traded companies. The only thing they care about is their stock price. The only one who cares about your gaming is you. So save your money and build the best PC you can, for your budget, that delivers the performance you want.

 

[Space Lynx]

AMD, Intel, Nvidia are all publicly traded companies. The only thing they care about is their stock price. The only one who cares about your gaming is you. So save your money and build the best PC you can, for your budget, that delivers the performance you want.

This is ultimately true, but I don't see Intel rushing to provide us soldered CPU's again, and still giving us crap paste generation after generation. AMD may be inferior RnD wise, but they still seem to care more. so eh... also not sure AMD has been caught Insider Trading and got away with it by standing behind Trump smiling signing a new factory for their $7 Billion factory in Arizona... or there lies about motherboard compatibly... when AM4 works until 2020...

and I forgot to mention AMD had the respect to include Wraith Cooler with all ther CPU's even the new APU's... which keep temps down so well you don't need aftermarket... Intel still gives you little piece of junk cooler... they care the same amount as AMD for gamers on PC? No they do not.

 

[Vayra86]

If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200 over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.

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.

 

[Readlight]

If it can run unreal photorealistic graphics then ist ok.

 

[phill]

I'm just looking forward to seeing what the later release of Ryzen comes with.. Hopefully a nice surprise and hopefully not a 5% increase as we have become used to...

 

[EarthDog]

Read the first post only...

1. Its from a clockspeed increase.
2. Zen+ does not have nktable IPC gains, nor better overclocking...that is for zen2.


...and then read the thread.

1. Amd cares about gamers???
2. Lol tpu....

 

[newtekie1]

Yep, minor increases in clock speed and IPC. Hey, it has worked for Intel for what, over a decade?

 

[EarthDog]

Exactly... just tempering expectations as some seem to think Zen+ is the second coming, when all that was mentioned (better IPC, better OC headroom) will be on Zen2.

 

[Space Lynx]

Exactly... just tempering expectations as some seem to think Zen+ is the second coming, when all that was mentioned (better IPC, better OC headroom) will be on Zen2.

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...