6-core Ryzen 5 1600X Benchmarks shows 50% faster than Core i5 7600K

Sandy E (i7 3930K) 6C 12T at stock (3.2 base, 3.8 boost):

Single: 1437
Multi: 9566

Looks like 6C 12T ryzen is way faster!

 

Just did one more run with AMD FX 8350@4860 MHz 1426/9694


After checking 4790K @4700 and 4800 MHz score. My rig giving the same result with 4860 MHz so as the 4790K@4750 MHz. At least in this bench and according to MT score.

 

Really excited about Ryzen + Vega. Like so many other people, it would seem I would switch back to AMD/ATI after so many years.
If they deliver of course

 

Same here. I haven't built an AMD system since the socket 754 A64 days. If they deliver the performance at the leaked prices we've seen it definitely won't take long for me to put my order in.

 

Also this makes me wonder if there is going to be any Laptops that are going to have more than 4 cores and 8 threads now. Considering if Laptops want to keep up as desktop replacements. Im willing to be that there are going to be gaming and workstation laptops that are going to have 6 and 8 cores at some point because there will be a time where 4 cores isnt going to cut it any more.

 

My 4930K@ 4.3ghz is almost an exact match to the leaked Ryzen bench.

Wawawia that's a spicy meatball!!!

 

It's the apus that are going to be more intriguing to be honest. A 4/8 Ryzen with 1024+ Vega cores and something like 512MB-2GB of HBM cache, combined with the fact it needs no chipset, should be really interesting.

 

It beats the 10-core monster.
WOW.
Unreal... if this is true Intel will get kicked in the ballz quite hard...


And they deserve it, that 1700$ price is the biggest consumer ripoff since snake oil.
(As well as all their other "Enterprise" CPU's which are priced at stratospheric levels... for what is literally, a slice of rock)

 

if this is true , amd cpu will be my next upgrade, newer games like watch dog 2 does required more than 4 threads, but im still waiting for Guru3d review before jumping back to the AMD team.

 

rumor yet on the HMB and DDR4 mixed ... but theres 2 generations of APU in roadmap, H2 2017 and H1 2018 ... so it stil a possibility .

But let say that i really hope that every numbers and leaks about Zen and Ryzen are confirmed as this is really refreshing, if you see what i mean.

 

Energy efficiency is a performance metric. It is important to a large segment of their customers. I realize, gamers and other enthusiasts don't care much about it. Personally, I only care as a more efficient processor is generally easier to keep cool.

 

I agree on the last part, however energy efficiency isn't a performance metric, it's an energy consumption metric.

If a processor takes 500 watts to do 75% better performance then the competitions processor that maxes out at 100 watts, that's not good from an energy standpoint, as that's 500% more power for 75% more performance. But from a performance metric, if the competitions processor maxes out at 100 watts and can not get anymore performance out of the CPU no matter what they do, then the 500 watt processor will be the winning processor for performance, but not for energy consumption, obviously.

And i'm not saying that energy consumption isn't an important thing. It does matter for many reasons, either your electricity bill, your power supplies, motherboards and cost of said motherboards, large business' buying computers potentially, etc. etc. etc. Energy efficiency is very important, but what was strictly said was

Which has nothing to do with the equalizing i was doing on performance, as that's not performance, that's power consumption.

Look at super computers. No one looks at them and says "Well, they do not have the performance crown or similar performance to other devices, because they take up whole rooms and have massive amounts of power requirements"

 

Energy efficiency is a classic performance metric. Energy consumption is just another term for watts. How you use that metric depends upon your application. The rest your post...please... I was an EE by trade for decades.

 

I have 2 results to share;

i7 6700k 4.5ghz XMP 3200mhz memory, av off, malwarebytes off, only comodo firewall on;

ST: 2255
MT: 9835

With ms essentials av, malwarebytes fully on and comodo on;

ST: 2260
MT: 6644

 

Yep^....I remember sandybridge i7 @95 watts kicking everythings butt and asking myself....How they do that?...lol

 

It's one of the major shifts in focus of supercomputing. As the density increases packing in more and more processors, GPU and CPU in smaller spaces, thermal management becomes the limiting factor. Increasing performance per watt applies across the board. Of course, for enthusiasts, it's not usually their top concern performance wise. They are more concerned with IPC and how many gigglehurts can I beat out of this thing.

 

yea^...that 980x you had was like 140watt or so?/ still a beast though....

 

That'd put a 4770K about 20% above it in that benchmark assuming relatively linear scaling, that doesn't seem right. Is your cache also at 4.9GHz? From what I can tell the cache speed matters a lot. I had my CPU at 4.5GHz core 3.9GHz cache at one point (the BIOS recommends 3.9 for some reason) and 4.2 on both seems to match or surpass 4.5/3.9. I don't even remember if Sandy Bridge can have separate core and cache speeds.

 

2600k i7 @ 4.8Ghz 1816st 7873mt.

 

Aura89 is obviously talking about compute performance. I mean, no reason for quibbling here.