Ryzen price politics

[*Rage*]

have they finally caught up with the IPC?

[Bwaze]

From Wccftech, uncorfimed leaked benchmarks:

 

 

Ryzen’s Single Threaded Performance – AMD Back In Gaming

 

Let’s move on to the last and perhaps most important benchmark we have. Passmark’s single-threaded performance test. This has always been AMD’s Achilles heel and why its CPUs have struggled to compete with Intel in gaming performance. Is it possible that Jim Keller and his team were able to close the gap that Intel has built over five years in a single generation? This is the moment of truth.

 

 

 

 

The answer is a resounding yes. Regardless of the fact that the engineering sample we’re looking at may be only running at 3.4Ghz without Turbo, the result would remain just as impressive even if it was hitting its intended Turbo clock speed of 3.8GHz. It manages to successfully edge out the 5960X and the 6800K and falls behind the 6900K by no more than 3%. That’s a very impressive feat considering Intel’s i7-6900K and i7-6800K both turbo up to 4.0GHz and 3.8GHz respectively in single threaded mode thanks to Broadwell-E’s Turbo Boost 3.0 feature. This means that even if the Ryzen engineering sample was in fact running at 3.8GHz Turbo frequency, it would still be outperforming Broadwell-E clock for clock ever so slightly.

 

 

Only Intel’s i7-7700K Kaby Lake speed freak with its 4.5GHz turbo manages to distance itself from the 1700X. Although, we’re talking about a 91W quad-core going up against a full blown octo-core rated at only 4 watts higher. Ryzen is so far ahead of AMD’s last generation FX 8350 Piledriver chip, it’s almost dizzying. It puts into perspective the enormity of the challenge that the company’s engineering team had to overcome.

Bringing this to a close we have to remark on one of Ryzen’s surprising strong suits and that’s its efficiency. Despite having double the cores, threads and cache of the 7700K it somehow manages to only dissipate 95 watts of power. Granted the 7700K is clocked significantly higher but all of AMD’s 8 core Ryzen chips that we’ve seen to date manage to come in at 45 watts and even up to 75 watts below their most directly comparable Intel counterpart, the 140W eight core i7-6900K. It will be very interesting to see if Ryzen chips will live up to their impressive TDP ratings in real-world independent testing.

All in all the Ryzen story has been an exceedingly positive one. No matter what metric we look at, whether it be absolute performance, value, power efficiency or features we can’t help but find Ryzen to be one of the most compelling products that AMD has ever developed.

[*Rage*]

Sincerely hope this is a win for AMD. Along with Vega things could be on the up...

[Brainless]

From Wccftech, uncorfimed leaked benchmarks:

 

 

Ryzen’s Single Threaded Performance – AMD Back In Gaming

 

Let’s move on to the last and perhaps most important benchmark we have. Passmark’s single-threaded performance test. This has always been AMD’s Achilles heel and why its CPUs have struggled to compete with Intel in gaming performance. Is it possible that Jim Keller and his team were able to close the gap that Intel has built over five years in a single generation? This is the moment of truth.

 

 

 

 

The answer is a resounding yes. Regardless of the fact that the engineering sample we’re looking at may be only running at 3.4Ghz without Turbo, the result would remain just as impressive even if it was hitting its intended Turbo clock speed of 3.8GHz. It manages to successfully edge out the 5960X and the 6800K and falls behind the 6900K by no more than 3%. That’s a very impressive feat considering Intel’s i7-6900K and i7-6800K both turbo up to 4.0GHz and 3.8GHz respectively in single threaded mode thanks to Broadwell-E’s Turbo Boost 3.0 feature. This means that even if the Ryzen engineering sample was in fact running at 3.8GHz Turbo frequency, it would still be outperforming Broadwell-E clock for clock ever so slightly.

 

 

Only Intel’s i7-7700K Kaby Lake speed freak with its 4.5GHz turbo manages to distance itself from the 1700X. Although, we’re talking about a 91W quad-core going up against a full blown octo-core rated at only 4 watts higher. Ryzen is so far ahead of AMD’s last generation FX 8350 Piledriver chip, it’s almost dizzying. It puts into perspective the enormity of the challenge that the company’s engineering team had to overcome.

Bringing this to a close we have to remark on one of Ryzen’s surprising strong suits and that’s its efficiency. Despite having double the cores, threads and cache of the 7700K it somehow manages to only dissipate 95 watts of power. Granted the 7700K is clocked significantly higher but all of AMD’s 8 core Ryzen chips that we’ve seen to date manage to come in at 45 watts and even up to 75 watts below their most directly comparable Intel counterpart, the 140W eight core i7-6900K. It will be very interesting to see if Ryzen chips will live up to their impressive TDP ratings in real-world independent testing.

All in all the Ryzen story has been an exceedingly positive one. No matter what metric we look at, whether it be absolute performance, value, power efficiency or features we can’t help but find Ryzen to be one of the most compelling products that AMD has ever developed.

 

I think that all Intel CPUs on this chart are with turbo disabled. You can check actual single thread scores on passmark site.

[Pilotasso]

AMD's boost were didabled too (tested on A320 board). So IPC wise the difference is very small. It rests on how high they can clock.

 

There is no stopping the 7700K but then the sheer difference in cores will be more important as time goes by.

[Brainless]

AMD's boost were didabled too (tested on A320 board). So IPC wise the difference is very small. It rests on how high they can clock.

 

There is no stopping the 7700K but then the sheer difference in cores will be more important as time goes by.

 

Are you sure?

 

Quote from wccftech:

It’s not clear whether the engineering sample was running at 3.4GHz without any turbo functionality during testing or if the application simply failed to read the turbo clock. So keep that in mind as you interpret the benchmark scores.

[Pilotasso]

yup, dont know why they wrote that because a few lines above they posted this:

 

 

And this chipset doesnt have any overclocking fucntionality. The chips revert to their base clocks.

[Brainless]

Their statement is still valid, the software may be doesn't detect turbo boost and you doesn't need overclocking functionality to have working turbo boost.

[SkateZilla]

The Low Tier Value Mainboard/Chipsets Do not Allow the CPU's to use Turbo Clocks.

 

That's why the CPU never went into turbo mode.

 

this was stated by AMD Long ago.

 

Full reviews/Benches will be released from NDA in about 3 weeks.

[BitMaster]

That doesnt make it any easier to compare or make up your mind.

 

Oh man, bring it on baby :D

[Brainless]

The Low Tier Value Mainboard/Chipsets Do not Allow the CPU's to use Turbo Clocks.

 

That's why the CPU never went into turbo mode.

 

this was stated by AMD Long ago.

 

Full reviews/Benches will be released from NDA in about 3 weeks.

 

I've missed it. I thought that would work like Intel turbo boost.

Last rumors are for 28 Feb release.

[Konovalov]

How can we explain this graph then where the i7's pull away with 2/3 more oomps per core?

 

We really need them out, give one to Kyle at HardOCP and then see. If Kyle says they are good they are, if he dooms them don't buy'em. Since that for almost 2 decades :)

 

 

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-3DMark-Physics-Score-PER-CORE.png

 

Second that. :yes: I loved his line at the end of his i5-7600K delid video where he showed his workspace desk on camera and said "I don't know if we are working on computers or there's a drug dealer living here".

[SkateZilla]

I've missed it. I thought that would work like Intel turbo boost.

Last rumors are for 28 Feb release.

 

NDA is Lifted on the 28th, yes.

 

 

The Low Teir Chipsets (A320 amd A300) do not allow the chips to use higher clocks, they are Locked to their Base Clocks, This includes Dynamic Clocking of Turbo Modes, Precision Boost, Pure Power etc.

 

This is due to Cost/Components Used, as well as Size/Space.

 

You do not want a 95w part overclocking itself and sucking an additional 40-50w on a Entry Level mainboard with a 4+1 Phase VRM made from cheaper components.

 

You'll blow out the VRM easily.

 

You want to test that conclusion, buy an Entry level AM3 board for $40, with a 4+1 or 6+1 VRM on it, and drop a 8350 in it, and bump the clocks to 4.6 GHz and watch what happens.

 

I can blow out boards easily with PhenomII x6 1100T Chips, lol.

Edited February 16, 2017 by SkateZilla

[BeastyBaiter]

We won't know how IPC + clock + overclock + cooling works out for at least a month and that's what will tell how well they stack up. One thing that we can say is that if they do manage to match Intel's chips, then Intel might as well file for bankruptcy. The reason is the Ryzen chips have twice as many cores and threads as their closest Intel equivalents (ie 8 core 16 thread vs I7 4 core 8 thread). Just can't justify an Intel purchase in that situation. Intel's only hope this generation is for Ryzen to fall short in some way on single thread performance, as that is still more important for gaming.

[SkateZilla]

We won't know how IPC + clock + overclock + cooling works out for at least a month and that's what will tell how well they stack up. One thing that we can say is that if they do manage to match Intel's chips, then Intel might as well file for bankruptcy. The reason is the Ryzen chips have twice as many cores and threads as their closest Intel equivalents (ie 8 core 16 thread vs I7 4 core 8 thread). Just can't justify an Intel purchase in that situation. Intel's only hope this generation is for Ryzen to fall short in some way on single thread performance, as that is still more important for gaming.

 

Intel's i7's have 8 Cores 16 Threads ($1049), as well as 10 Core 20 Threads ($1699)

 

Top End Ryzen Directly Competes w/ the i7-6900, not the i7-6950X

 

95W TDP, The Wraith Cooler will easily handle even the top end, as it handles my brother's FX8350 at 4.5Ghz fine and that's a 140w Part overclocked.

 

Though, as Yields improve, if the sales are there, I don't see AMD Holding off on a Special Edition 12c/24t 120/140w version.

 

Ryzen Server Chips will scale to 32 Cores/64 Threads+

Edited February 17, 2017 by SkateZilla

[BeastyBaiter]

I'm aware of Intel's $1000+ stuff but those don't seem like consumer products to me, more of a special purpose business chip, sort of like Nvidia's GP100. Maybe that's just me though.

[BitMaster]

Second that. :yes: I loved his line at the end of his i5-7600K delid video where he showed his workspace desk on camera and said "I don't know if we are working on computers or there's a drug dealer living here".

 

I must have missed that part ! 420 :D

[SkateZilla]

the top end Ryzen Competes w/ the i7-6900 8C/16T

 

the i7-6900 clearly does not cost anywhere near $1000 to fab, specially considering it's a 5th Gen Chip for the Core i Series.

 

W/ Skylake not having any 8c/16t Options, and Kaby lake Due Out soon,

 

There's no reason for the 6900K to be $1000 and the 6950X being $1600, other than "They Can" because Intel has had no Direct Competition since 2011 w/ AMD's Failed Bulldozer 15h Architecture.

[Sandman1330]

What has me a little confused is the middle tier chip, the 1600X. According to the lineup, it has a 95w TDP, while running 6C/12T @ 3.3ghz with a 3.7 boost.

 

However, for the same 95w TDP, the 1800X runs a full 2C/4T more, and at a higher 4.0ghz boost clock. Similar situation with the 1400X, which runs 4C/8T at 3.9ghz, using 65W.

 

It seems the TDP for the 1600X is unusually high for the core count and clockspeed when compared to the chips above it and below it in the lineup.

 

I foresee two potential reasons:

 

1. The 1600X is the dumping ground for the lower binned models that couldn't make it into the 1800X lineup. Disable two cores, clock it down and sell it. This would imply poor overclocking headroom; or

 

2. The 1600X is going to be a gem, with plenty of TDP headroom to overclock to great clockspeeds.

 

Obviously I'm hoping for the latter. In either case, for DCS, the 1400X may be the sweet spot. Get some good cooling and push clockspeeds to the moon, or even just let XFR boost things for you if it works well.

 

Even if Ryzen doesn't end up being the best choice for DCS, it should force Intel to step up its game regarding pricing and new processes and architectures. I'm still sitting on my FX-6300 waiting to see how this is all going to play out!

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-full-lineup-confirmed/

 

Edit: Fixed typo where I mixed up 1600X with 1700X

Edited February 18, 2017 by Sandman1330

[Pilotasso]

But both 1700X and 1800X are 8c/16t chips at 95W... You are indeed confused.

The 6 core part is the 1600X and has TDP of 65W

Edited February 18, 2017 by Pilotasso

[gavagai]

This article answers my questions about this thread succinctly.

 

As much as the future of gaming is looking more and more multi-threaded - it’s honestly been looking that way for nearly a decade - we’re still seeing single-threaded performance being the key metric for gaming processors.

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-ryzen-gaming-cpu

 

From other articles I've read, Ryzen single thread performance still isn't on par with intel. I'll probably build a Ryzen-based system in the future anyway, if only for the performance/price ratio.

[Sandman1330]

But both 1700X and 1800X are 8c/16t chips at 95W... You are indeed confused.

The 6 core part is the 1600X and has TDP of 65W

 

Sorry, you're correct - but I'm not that confused, LOL! I typo'd. If you replace everywhere I said 1700X with 1600X, the point is still valid. According to this article, the 1600X is a 6C/12T part with 3.3/3.7 boost with a 95W TDP.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-full-lineup-confirmed/

[SkateZilla]

wccftech is like the tabloids of the tech world...

[Sandman1330]

Those stats seem to be consistent across all the articles I've seen. Probably they use the wccftech stats as their source too, but they seem pretty solid. We will see in a few weeks

[BitMaster]

If I am lucky I have fried this 7700k till Ryzen is out and ask for another refund !!!!!!!! HAHA

 

 

I hate those last days, everybody is WAITING ....cmon AMD...tell us SOME more