It would have been nice if you'd put the previous gen overclock results next to the overclocked results of these.
I think AMD need to move from playing catchup and offering like for like performance to Intel to being more of a leader. It's the only way we'll see some innovation….
? why din't you use 3200 mem ? faster the mem the faster ryzen is ?
well at least on mine and corsair cl16 ?
i'll wait for a proper review thx
There's more than 4.15GHz in the 2700X.
ksdp37
I think AMD need to move from playing catchup and offering like for like performance to Intel to being more of a leader. It's the only way we'll see some innovation….
I presume you only read the gaming benchmarks?
Stuff like fluid dynamics, code compilation, 3D modelling AMD seem to be winning and sometimes quite solidly.
flearider
? why din't you use 3200 mem ? faster the mem the faster ryzen is ?
well at least on mine and corsair cl16 ?
i'll wait for a proper review thx
Used the highest officially supported memory. Also they used 2,933MHz RAM against the 8700k on 2,666MHz
MLyons
Used the highest officially supported memory. Also they used 2,933MHz RAM against the 8700k on 2,666MHz
This is fair TBH. Having said that any chance of a RAM scaling review with the Core i7 8700K included??
Are you going to make a Ryzen 7 2700 review too? I'm interested how it perform against the i7 8700K or non K and the power draw.
BTW,AT got some interesting results for their review,but have applied the full Spectre/Meltdown patches. I believe TR did too. Did Hexus do so?? Not sure what to make of them!
It looks like system bang-for-buck, the new Ryzen wipes the floor with Intel. Even in the gaming b/marks, which was Ryzen's achilles heel, there is hardly any difference with Intel's more expensive offerings. In proper work-focussed tasks it is streets ahead.
Intel should be very worried.
IPC x single-core frequency will remain Intel's domain for a while. This is why AMD typically offers more cores for the same price, and brute power wins out in well-threaded applications.
The 6C/12T 2600X basically matches the 6C/12T 8700k in every other benchmark on that page, apart from the slightly weird and unrepresentative PiFast holdout (unless someone actually wants a CPU to run PiFast on). That's despite the clocks being higher on the Intel part, if anything.
I'm not saying it's not fine to include old synthetic benchmarks, but I think far too much attention is paid to it as
the single threaded Hexus benchmark, even in conclusions. It's probably about as representative of real-world performance of any of the Geekbench sub-benchmarks for example.
CAT-THE-FIFTH
BTW,AT got some interesting results for their review,but have applied the full Spectre/Meltdown patches. I believe TR did too. Did Hexus do so?? Not sure what to make of them!
That's an interesting question, because looking at that set of benchmarks the 2700X trounces the 8700K at 1080p compared to what is shown here. Either way I'm also wondering if AMD has held back a 2800X deliberately while waiting for the standard Intel response.
Great looking CPU for the price though, I've really got to think about upgrading, memory and gpu pricing is making me hold off though.
So once precision boost overdrive hits (at some unspecified date), we could see even more performance under load?
watercooled
The 6C/12T 2600X basically matches the 6C/12T 8700k in every other benchmark on that page, apart from the slightly weird and unrepresentative PiFast holdout (unless someone actually wants a CPU to run PiFast on). That's despite the clocks being higher on the Intel part, if anything.
I'm not saying it's not fine to include old synthetic benchmarks, but I think far too much attention is paid to it as the single threaded Hexus benchmark, even in conclusions. It's probably about as representative of real-world performance of any of the Geekbench sub-benchmarks for example.
Combined with the laptop results (matching intel core-for-core and watt-for-watt), I'm starting to suspect intel chips come with pi preloaded to 3m decimal places to they can just regurgitate it in benchmarks. The 8700k and 2600X have the same nominal base clock, so either precision boost blows turbo boost out the water or something isn't right with pifast
Xlucine
… Combined with the laptop results (matching intel core-for-core and watt-for-watt), I'm starting to suspect intel chips come with pi preloaded to 3m decimal places to they can just regurgitate it in benchmarks. The 8700k and 2600X have the same nominal base clock, so either precision boost blows turbo boost out the water or something isn't right with pifast
Three things really.
1) Intel's top turbo bin is way over AMD's - the 8700k has a 10% boost clock advantage over the 2700X, and almost 20% over the 2600X. It also has a pure IPC advantage. It
should be winning purely single-threaded benchmarks hands down.
2) Precision Boost 2 is pretty phenomenal. From page 3 of this review, discussing the 2600X result: “With good cooling the new Precision Boost 2 algorithm keeps the all-core speed at 4.1GHz”. That's only 100MHz down from the maximum boost clock…
3) AMD's SMT implementation is more efficient than Intel's.
Once you add 2 and 3 together - higher all core clocks and more efficient SMT - it's not surprising that they can make up the IPC difference once you apply a heavily threaded load. AMD's processors are built to be threading monsters.
scaryjim
Three things really.
1) Intel's top turbo bin is way over AMD's - the 8700k has a 10% boost clock advantage over the 2700X, and almost 20% over the 2600X. It also has a pure IPC advantage. It should be winning purely single-threaded benchmarks hands down.
PiFast is an outlier, other single threaded benchmarks e.g. Cinebench don't show that big of a difference and more in line with boost clock differences as you'd expect.
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,review-34307-10.htmlTake some of the single-threaded numbers from this article:
Lame is actually faster on the 2700X than the 8700K.
POV-Ray is faster, but only 536 vs 622 (lower is better) so ~16% faster
Cinebench is faster, 197 vs 181 (higher is better) so ~9% faster
PiFast is a whole 44% faster
y-cruncher is understandably faster due to its heavy use of Intel's wider AVX2 units, and unless I'm very much mistaken, PiFast is a pretty old benchmark and far predates AVX2 instructions.
Cinebench seems well optimised for Ryzen, interestingly. POVRay puts the 8700k > 15% ahead of the 2700X despite a < 10% boost clock difference. iirc PiFast uses one of the older floating point instructions (SSE? MMX even?! plain x87!?!) that Intel either still supports in hardware or has particularly good emulation of.
And that's kind of the issue - IPC isn't a very good term for general CPU performance as the type of instruction matters. ISTR that Cinebench 11.5 gives Intel a bigger lead than R15 does, for instance. Guru3D's 2700X review does an “IPC” test, but it only uses Cinebench R15, which seems to use instructions that favour Ryzen. There is no perfectly representative benchmark out there.
PiFast has one big advantage - you can use it to compare > 15 years of processors via Hexus reviews. And ultimately it tells us exactly what we already know - Intel are still faster in a straight line, as demonstrated over a wide range of ST benchmarks across dozens of reviews. The actual degree of difference is largely academic, as there are very few real world programs that are heavily ST bound now….
With such numbers we will soon hear of Intel Partner Program (IPP). ~ What you're seeing is a $229 processor keep up with a rival $349 one.
scaryjim
PiFast has one big advantage - you can use it to compare > 15 years of processors via Hexus reviews. And ultimately it tells us exactly what we already know - Intel are still faster in a straight line, as demonstrated over a wide range of ST benchmarks across dozens of reviews. The actual degree of difference is largely academic, as there are very few real world programs that are heavily ST bound now….
In a world of 64 bit processors which on the PC mean a minimum of SSE2, I don't think PiFast tells us anything because I *think* it is 32 bit and I *think* it is x87 fpu but therein lies a massive problem, I have tried googling in the past for some description of this code and come up blank so I can't *know* what it is doing.
x87 was never a good idea even when new; whoever came up with the idea of doing floating point on a stack was an idiot.
All useful modern PC workloads are AMD64 instruction set using recent SSE/AVX instructions. I either need a proper analysis of what the code is doing, the ability to build it myself so I can do that analysis myself, or the benchmark should be thrown out for the worthless fossil that it is.
POVray would seem a way better benchmark **if* you are interested in floating point throughoput. Intel is very strong on floating point and have been for some time almost to an absurd level, so an i7 should rule the roost on POVray.
But for most people, single threaded really means all those badly written lightly threaded games. Cat's example of FO4 seems a good one, it sucks less on Intel systems. WoW has always been similar though getting better over time. Other games aren't so bad, Elite for example on my machine sees 8 cores all with some spare capacity but all well utilised so it can be done.
Personally I just checked the Phoronix benchmarks for kernel code compile times because that's pretty close to my workload.
…..All useful modern PC workloads are AMD64 instruction set using recent SSE/AVX instructions…..Is Intel and many others paying AMD in royalties for using their X64 instruction set? or how does the dark world of instruction sets work?
Is it just me because it appears that AMD have come good with a great cpu, great supporting chipsets et al and other things like apathy and no need and other component prices mean this is all just a bit meh!
lumireleon
Is Intel and many others paying AMD in royalties for using their X64 instruction set?
Intel and AMD have extensive cross license agreements in place, so they don't pay each other for CPU tech.
What the likes of VIA pay these days I have no idea, but Intel pretty much squashed them like a bug years ago so it doesn't much matter.
Besides, Intel are only using AMD64 because Microsoft forced them to. If Intel had their way, we would all be paying through the teeth for Itanium instruction set machines by now with no chance of a second supplier for competition.
lumireleon
…..All useful modern PC workloads are AMD64 instruction set using recent SSE/AVX instructions…..Is Intel and many others paying AMD in royalties for using their X64 instruction set? or how does the dark world of instruction sets work?
DanceswithUnix
Intel and AMD have extensive cross license agreements in place, so they don't pay each other for CPU tech.
What the likes of VIA pay these days I have no idea, but Intel pretty much squashed them like a bug years ago so it doesn't much matter.
Besides, Intel are only using AMD64 because Microsoft forced them to. If Intel had their way, we would all be paying through the teeth for Itanium instruction set machines by now with no chance of a second supplier for competition.
Also, we shouldn't forget that Intel's processors do not use AMD64. They use EMT64T, conceived and developed by Intel and only coincidentally 100% compatible with AMD64.
(The previous statement may contain traces of sarcasm.)
Confused: is the Precision Boost 2 a function of the chip or the X470 board ?
scaryjim
Cinebench seems well optimised for Ryzen, interestingly. POVRay puts the 8700k > 15% ahead of the 2700X despite a < 10% boost clock difference.
Which is more in line with reality - there might be a difference with some applications favouring the way one uArch works over the other, but it's not nearly the vast chasm that PiFast shows.
scaryjim
iirc PiFast uses one of the older floating point instructions (SSE? MMX even?! plain x87!?!) that Intel either still supports in hardware or has particularly good emulation of.
So it's not really representative then if it's using a deprecated codepath where something as simple as different compiler flags could change everything.
scaryjim
And that's kind of the issue - IPC isn't a very good term for general CPU performance as the type of instruction matters. ISTR that Cinebench 11.5 gives Intel a bigger lead than R15 does, for instance. Guru3D's 2700X review does an “IPC” test, but it only uses Cinebench R15, which seems to use instructions that favour Ryzen. There is no perfectly representative benchmark out there.
Exactly my point. My issue is that PiFast is being used as the
sole single-threaded performance test and even the conclusions reference it as a standard for single-threaded performance which is misleading at best.
scaryjim
PiFast has one big advantage - you can use it to compare > 15 years of processors via Hexus reviews.
Which is fine from an academic point of view.
scaryjim
And ultimately it tells us exactly what we already know - Intel are still faster in a straight line,
It really doesn't.
scaryjim
as demonstrated over a wide range of ST benchmarks across dozens of reviews. The actual degree of difference is largely academic, as there are very few real world programs that are heavily ST bound now….
To a point, but the difference between this and the relatively minor (sometimes negligible) difference shown in other benchmarks is more than academic.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not just picking on this because it shows Intel CPUs as being better than AMD's CPUs, it's the sheer scale of the difference which is unlike so many real-world applications that it borders on being meaningless.
DanceswithUnix
In a world of 64 bit processors which on the PC mean a minimum of SSE2, I don't think PiFast tells us anything because I *think* it is 32 bit and I *think* it is x87 fpu but therein lies a massive problem, I have tried googling in the past for some description of this code and come up blank so I can't *know* what it is doing.
I've found that myself. I believe SuperPi made use of mostly x87 and IIRC PiFast was a substantial improvement over that, but there's really nothing out there (that I can find) about what sort of code it's made up from.
DanceswithUnix
All useful modern PC workloads are AMD64 instruction set using recent SSE/AVX instructions.
y-cruncher is an example of a program to hugely improve performance of other Pi calculating applications and includes several binaries and a dispatcher for different uArchs. The latest versions make good use of the wider FMAs with AVX2 and show substantial improvements for modern Intel uArchs; an area where Zen doesn't manage the same throughput for obvious reasons. The results from this benchmark at least makes sense.
DanceswithUnix
POVray would seem a way better benchmark **if* you are interested in floating point throughoput. Intel is very strong on floating point and have been for some time almost to an absurd level, so an i7 should rule the roost on POVray.
Again, it's modern and the results actually make some sense.
Phage
Confused: is the Precision Boost 2 a function of the chip or the X470 board ?
Chip - but the boards are better balanced to help with power delivery etc. You can also overclock on x470 Putting a Ryzen 2 in an x370 board is still fine though
Phage
Confused: is the Precision Boost 2 a function of the chip or the X470 board ?
Both - you need a Ryzen 2 CPU and a 400 series motherboard for it to work in,as the 400 series boards on average apparently can deliver more current for short periods.
Precision boost overdrive is only 2000 ryzen & 400 motherboard compatible, precision boost 2 will work in any board. PBO is meant to be effectively self-overclocking, with no power limits until the motherboard supply drops in voltage or the cooler can't handle it (and apparently isn't working yet); PB2 is just a more granular PB
AMD has so many acronyms now even I can't keep up with them! :p
Xlucine
Precision boost overdrive is only 2000 ryzen & 400 motherboard compatible, precision boost 2 will work in any board. PBO is meant to be effectively self-overclocking, with no power limits until the motherboard supply drops in voltage or the cooler can't handle it (and apparently isn't working yet); PB2 is just a more granular PB
Even more confused !
I haven;t heard of PBO before. PB2 will give the uplift in more than 2 cores to defined limits yes ?
Yep:
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/116000-amd-ryzen-2000-series-roadmap-specs-leak/PB2 is the biggest improvement compared to PB1, XFR2 boosts a bit further because more is more better, and PBO goes a smidge further still. However, according to the 4th paragraph of the latest X470 motherboard review on hexus, PBO isn't working yet:
Other improvements include better power regulation that is supposed to come into play when 2nd Gen Ryzen chips are run at higher speeds, especially when overclocked, and a couple of new technologies that are artificially segmented for X470. The first feature is Precision Boost Overdrive, which is to be implemented at a later date, and StoreMi.
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/mainboard/116840-aorus-x470-gaming-7-wifi/Going by the overclocked results, I predict PBO won't make a huge difference to the performance figures when it finally hits but every little helps
Phage
Even more confused !
I haven;t heard of PBO before. PB2 will give the uplift in more than 2 cores to defined limits yes ?
Think of PBO as increasing the power limit when overclocking a GPU.
Same old drivel bias towards Intel, always hampering AMD for the sake of sucking on Intel's and here is me thinking their is no more spin left.
DanceswithUnix
ksdp37
I think AMD need to move from playing catchup and offering like for like performance to Intel to being more of a leader. It's the only way we'll see some innovation….
I presume you only read the gaming benchmarks?
Stuff like fluid dynamics, code compilation, 3D modelling AMD seem to be winning and sometimes quite solidly.
Yeah, mainly single thread and gaming..
ksdp37
Yeah, mainly single thread and gaming..
Single threaded performance is fine - most of the improvements in gaming seem to be down to things like cache latency.
It rather depends what the single-threaded benchmarks are. Some games are lightly threaded and a useful benchmark for themselves (though as we've seen time and time again it's a terrible idea to extrapolate from ‘CPU-bound’ 720p tests as an indication of a future performance i.e. it just doesn't reflect reality), while some benchmarks are weirdly arbitrary and don't reflect the sort of performance you'll get with actual software.
As CAT says, single threaded performance is generally fine outside of a few edge cases and even ahead in some areas. AMD's SMT is somewhat more efficient then Intel's implementation and multithreaded performance in real applications is generally excellent, even core-for-core with more expensive Intel counterparts.
Having said all that, the move you describe isn't exactly a simple choice - you're looking at companies with vastly different R&D budgets and both companies design CPUs years in advance of them being released so there's a lot of forward-planning that must be done, partly based on expectations of what competitors will be doing that far ahead. AMD already lead in some areas since their Ryzen release, having come an awful long way in one generation.
Ooh, PB2 gives 300-500 MHz higher boost in games
Xlucine
Ooh, PB2 gives 300-500 MHz higher boost in games
A lot of games load 2 or 3 cores quite heavily and maybe another 2 or 3 moderately. That was kind of a worst case scenario for PB1 - the CPU wasn't heavily loaded, but since more than 2 cores were loaded the clock speed dropped right down to the base clock. PB2's granularity allows it to account for actual load, not just number of cores in use. Add in XFR2 to take proper advantage of the cooling capacity (remember, XFR1 was hampered by the clock speed dropping off as soon as more than 2 cores were loaded) and you're inevitably going to see huge improvements in moderately threaded workloads - gaming being the prime real world example.
Would like to see gaming benchmarks at 1440p, since that is what most people buying this platform will be using.
Xlucine
Precision boost overdrive is only 2000 ryzen & 400 motherboard compatible, precision boost 2 will work in any board.
PBO available on ASUS CrossHair VI Hero. TBH after testing the 2700X in C6H and C7H finding it hard to decide which motherboard to keep as both are pretty much the same.
