French Magazine posts engineering sample AMD Ryzen Processor benchmarks

@gx-x

amd wont beat intel in overall, but close and with lower heat, which hopefully helps ocing.
and they cant go +350$ for the 8C or ppl wont buy, a premium maybe for binned chips clocking 4ish.

 

Now you se , those 350$ wont hapen for the 8 core , if it's close to intel they will put it more like 500$ , unles intel droops the price of course

 

Saw leak saying $350 for the Ryzen 8c/16t standard edition 3.4Ghz. Was $500 for the black edition specially binned Ryzen 8c/16t.

 

Well tbh if this is close to skylake in ipc then it is way faster then mine or yours clock for clock. Sky lake is in the end quite a bit faster then similarly clocked ivys or sandys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0

Is maybe the best comparison I've seen regarding similar cpu performance on same clocks.

 

Guys, you jump fast on price and performance, based on this test ( who is not and was not intended as a review, but for compare the evolution of multiple architectures ( including the seven generations of Intel cores. )

- ES Samples with extremely low clock ( specially on turbo boost as said in the french newspapers ), we dont have the clock, but we cant even know if it was run at 3.2 ghz on games. ) early AO samples, can mean even some parts are disabled. ( turbo not working as intended etc, senseMI features etc ).

- We dont know the scaling of clock vs performance. ( is 100mhz on Intel mean 100mhz on Zen ? )
- Beta motherboard, with test bios ( as mentionned in the article ).
- We dont have individual numbers, so its impossible to know if the results are close, far, better and in what case, softwares, games.

So by all mean there, what you have is hardly more than a minimum. If you want to compare IPC, we will need clock to clock tests in different scenarios.

Some professional benchmark suite ( as 3Dmax 2015) are not forcibly yet completely optimized anyway and dont forcibly represent the 3Dmax 2017 performance same goes for other softwares.

 

Nicely said!

 

and i saw one guy saying once, these ES dont oc as much as retail will, also it has one bug which prevents it to oc much, fixed in retail.

he said it will oc up to 4.2ghz air np, BE even more up to 4.5ghz+

also it was possible to oc 5ghz on ice but yeah on this buggy ES, which will be much better retail.

 

Yeah I actually heard a guy saying once that the cores are modular and AMD is going to sell upgrade kits to add more cores later. So you could start with a 8 core and move up to a 12 core when necessary. He also mentioned that the socket is going to be circular in the final build - you'll be able to turn it like a screw to unlock higher frequencies...

Honestly given these results and what we know about the final clockspeeds (base being 3.4) I'd think $500 is a good deal. I was personally getting ready to drop a $1000 on a 8 core Intel but I waited to see what Zen could do. For me the performance looks close enough that I'd rather give AMD the money. Even if Intel drops prices to match AMD, as long as Zen is within a few % I'll sacrifice it for the cause. Tired of Intel tbh.

 

Why OC ? the processor you see here dont have final clock ( nor even efficient turbo boost ).

Then for gaming, it will surely be more interessant to see a cheap quadcore vs quadcore ( 6700K ) who have base core speed and turbo boost way higher than 8 cores CPU. ( but you dont buy a 8cores only for gaming purpose or OC it with good cooling )

Its way too early to really speak about performances without having them in hand.

But, in all case, what we can allready said, is that AMD have close the gap, do a 180° turn, and if the first iteration on Zen, is just at the level of "intel" offering, i can only ask me what will happend next with the second iterations.
Something is sure, this will make move Intel and thats all good for us.

Competition on performance ( and not only prices ) is exactly what we need as consumers.

 

bla bla.

what i said was "legit" concerning these early ES @xtremesystems. I dont toss around bs like you did with your sarcasm.

 

Yes, maybe is hard to get 25% OC because is a 8c model but 6c and 4c could be overclock-friendly ones and since tons of games just uses 1~2~4 cores a 4c 8t Zen @4.00GHz sounds better than an (non oceable) i5 6400/6500 @same price with just 3~6 higher IPC

 

Those are some crazy high prices. You can currently get the i5-6500 near me in SoCal for $179. Newegg has it for $204. That works out to be £145 and £166 in a straight currency conversion. And i know you guys have to pay a crazy expensive VAT. But you can blame your socialist neighbors for that.

 

....slightly? slightly lower price? .......again, slightly? do you know what that word means?

 

overclockers.co . uk prices.

 

It would be worth it really. Especially in games where one is cpu bound that is not many. It could give a really nice boost really.

They have not always been behind tho, they were ahead at one point in cpus and gpus.

What this does give is new platform for cheaper then Intel most likely tho. That should in a lot of cases be enough incentive to get.

 

In order for everyone to be pleased, AMD would need a CPU that's 300% the performance of Intel at half the price.

Making progress just isn't enough to some people. Oh well.

 

Kind of like the Athlon 64 X2 era, need more software support 8 cores/16 threads and it could be really great.

With these kind of cpus, though, I would love to have like a system where we have one of these cpus + 2 gpus (e.g. 2x GTX1070) and be able to have 2 people using the system as if it was 2 seperate systems (4 cores + gtx1070 each).

I have seen Linus Tech Tips show-off multi-user beast systems, but, I've got no idea where to start if I had to do it myself.

 

understanding gaming results numbers (because benchmark numbers vary so much, some benchs are using 1,2,4, 8 or 16t ramdonly and games is more monothreaded based; 1 to 4 threads on most of cases) we can say AMD has same IPC on gaming (higher if you check the numbers well)

i think multithreaded performance charts (4 threads or more scenarios) will have this order @same clocks

A12-9800
i3 (from second to lastest gen)
i5 (from second to lastest gen)
4c 8t Zen (near to 4c 8t i7)
4c 8t Fourth to lastest Gen i7, others could be under Zen
6c 12t Zen
6c 12t Fourth to lastest Gen i7, others could be under Zen
8c 16t Zen
8c 16t i7


TDP:
4c 8t 45~65w (more than half of 8c ones because of higher base clocks)
6c 12t 65~85w (more than expected because of higher base clocks)
8c 12t 95w (limit @stock clocks?)


Prices:
180~220 for 4c
250~300 for 6c
330~450 for 8c to 8c "Special Edition"


good day

 

Why will you they have a response to 1080.. they had just wanted to release low and midclass architecture in 2016.. ( some can just think thats due to the delay for HBM2 and the limited production, as their high end was all with HBM2 and interposer )... i dont think it was a good strategy honestly.. but the question is not that they had nothing to respond to the 1080. They have make a buizness decision, and it was to dont create an entierely new sku for high end without interposer, HBM2..

 

Whats nice about this is..NOW.. Intel will have to start working again. Not just tiny updates each chip..so to speak.

 

Just saw one leak saying 2019-2020 is Intel next-gen x86, after cannon lake.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55626/intels-core-family-retired-2019-next-gen-x86-coming/index.html

Looks like just in time for Zen+