Does not destroy the competition, but with potential: tests for AMD Ryzen • HWzone
ComputersProcessors

Does not destroy competition, but with potential: AMD's Ryzen benchmark tests

A French site has decided not to wait for the official opening whistle and has published an independent review first for a sample of AMD's next-generation processor

Get updates from everyone in TelgramGet updates from us all at TelgramJoin the channel now


The matter and mystery around the next generation processors We continue even now, when we are only about a week before the start of the big international event where we are supposed to get all the details we still need - and it seems that the first official review of its kind has only added to our confusion and wonder.

A French magazine called Canard PC Hardware has elegantly ignored the fact that the Ryzen processors have not yet been officially launched, and has already published its own review of the flamboyant model of the new octagonal flagship product (ES) - with a standard 3.15GHz operating frequency that is slightly lower than the 3.4GHz frequency A formal statement .

The rebellious newspaper that gives us a look at Ryzen before everyone else
The rebellious newspaper that provides us with a look at Before everyone else

The paper provided three very interesting and interesting comparison tables as part of its review, which is a comparison between the fresh Ryzen and its predecessor, the FX family, and a range of powerful processors from the latest versions of - In general processing software, games and power consumption.

rry8

The performance of Wprime, Blender, POVRay, 3DS, Max 2015, Corona, and Rindor for H.264 and H.265 video files showed that the Ryzen delivers average performance that is tens of percentage points higher than those of the octagonal FX 8370, Of the Core i7-6700K mainstream and even higher than the Core i7-6800K hexagon cores from the competitor's Extreme family. In other words, there are many reasons for a positive impression, even if the way in which the results are totally different is not very clear (some tests use time measurement while others give points), and although the octagonal Core i7-6900K is already the direct competitor of Still wins the race by a margin that is not small.

Overall performance with great improvement and impressive competitiveness
General with great improvement and impressive competitiveness

The results of the games, with a bit odd collection that includes Far Cry 4, GRID Autosport, Battlefield 4, ARMA 3, X3, Anno 2070 and The Witcher 3, the Ryzen is able to display a performance level similar to that of the Core i5-6600K square Intel's mainstream cores, with a relative loss of about 20 per cent compared to the Core i7-6700K leading the list. This may sound like a disappointment on the part of the competitor , But to be honest, taking into account the infamous low performance of the company's previous gaming processors, it is not easy to conclude that the " Is a major reduction of this gap, in a way that can certainly wink at the game enthusiasts if the price tag corresponds to the potential difference in capabilities.

Gaming performance is less impressive, but it should be noted that the selection of titles does not really represent the year 2016, and therefore it is inevitable that "modern" performance will paint a different picture
Gaming performance is less impressive, but it should be noted that the selection of titles does not really represent the year 2016, and therefore it is inevitable that "modern" performance will paint a different picture

This is also our opportunity to mention and declare that these are tests for a version that is not final, so to speak, of the new processor from, So the results should be taken for granted, for better or worse, until we see more formal reviews that will make use of the final hardware and the revision and commercial firmware of the product.

The latest test and comparison of the French newspaper presented a measurement of power consumption of approximately 93 watts in the load for the Ryzen, one that is reduced by a few watts of the Core i7-6900K , Higher than what i7-6800K and what- i7-6700K - and essentially lower by about an entire 30 watts from the consumption of the old FX-8370, which as mentioned also provided a level Much lower than the previous comparisons.

rry

On the bottom line, it seems that in AMD vs. AMD, the new processor wins unconditionally and easily, bringing the company at last to a competitive performance level. In contrast to the leading and up-to-date models of The situation is less clear and prominent, but in this case we will wait for more formal results and mainly to reveal the real recommended price tags, before we decide the chances of the - In this difficult battle that awaits him. Watch more updates soon!

2017 will be very interesting, something we have no doubt about right now
2017 will be very interesting, something we have no doubt about right now


Tags

21 תגובות

  1. Waiting eagerly.
    Glad to see, though I realized that this would be the direction between the hexagonal 6800K and the octagonal 6900K (I am a graphic artist and a teletist. Not a gamer)
    The real question was and still is the price.
    If it's about 600-650 dollars, my next processor is sure to be 'red'!

  2. Definitely interesting. As with the Ethelon, it seems that the processor is very powerful in a set of tasks of a certain type and less in others. And still competitive compared to Intel. And this is at low pricing. Of course the processor does not live separately from the motherboard .. But here is an example of what manufacturer competition should be. Let's hope the Reds get stronger.

  3. Exactly what I was expecting ... With full exploitation of the cores, it breaks down the 6700K and close / bypasses the 6800K, using partial exploits like the 6700K games is slightly better.
    The advantage of capillary multiplicity is significantly superior to the meager and truly irrelevant advantage of gaming.

    The biggest question right now is the processor price and the price of the tablets, where AMD's card should be.

    PS Jonathan Mendelsohn Their ranking is very simple for those who know the site:
    They take one processor and set it as 100% (6600K here) and then if Ryzen in Blener has 30% more performance it recorded, in further tests it will assume 40% and 25% more.
    Make an average of the improvement percentage ie 3 / (30 + 40 + 25) ie 31.6% Average improvement regardless of whether it is points or times.

  4. Close to Intel performance, uniformity, prices Pretty sure processors will cut almost 50 from Intel for the price… Obviously, if someone is enough to explain to me why not?

  5. And I was thinking of buying 6900 and now all the cards have gone crazy
    Also 2 memory channels (less money on memories)
    Everything is cheaper on AMD hardware and better than Intel.

    1. Maybe you're right…
      But a month ago you were ashamed to write what you wrote!

      If this processor costs like 6700K it would be great if not… ..hope for the money.

  6. If it comes close to the performance of the 6900K for what it will cost as 6700K? Gaming performance is also not bad, and this is despite the old-fashioned games that tested not to take advantage of the processor as most games were.

    6800K costs ~ $ 440

    6850 costs ~ $ 650

    And 6900K, the corpse that this chip is close to in the "productivity test" costs a whole thousand.

    So why not with such idiotic pricing from Intel, not place the new processor higher, it's not the cheap SKU, it's expensive, the 6700K with $ 350 MSPR, why not place it more expensive? Whoever is smart will definitely buy one if the reviews are good, most importantly the price reflects performance, and not if it is expensive or cheap from AMD, consumers understand that Intel does not invest in performance like ever, which cares about ULV processors in expensive ultrabooks and not PC market enthusiasts, especially the market The top of the market, which has been closed to Intel for a few years now, and with the delusional pricing that Intel put in the 5960X for $ 1700! When the Extreme Processor last year was 1000 $ SKU, I'm sure more and more of the people who really appreciate hardware and performance, and not just fanboys, will happily move to AMD at the first opportunity, assuming the product meets expectations.

  7. The home user / gamer is not the best.
    The results seen in tests that incorporate 8 cores processing power will not be reflected in almost anything users will do.

    So while this seems to be a trend change in the way games are utilized more than 2-4 cores, the multi-core approach has no chance of succeeding in the market.

    For people who run things that make efficient use of all cores, even when it comes to 8, it will probably run away.

    If its price is attractive you can only buy it based on cost / benefit ratio.
    In addition, there will also be future performance improvements in gaming engines that are optimized for use in more than 2-4 cores.
    Which will make his purchase (as well as his recommendation) attractive in both contemporary and future.

    1. What is the likelihood that the game engines will change in the next two years - the game engines are related to consoles and not to the PC - what are the chances that they will build more than one or two exclusive PC games?

  8. Thanks for the article, but you missed an important detail:
    The frequency of the ZEN processors was between 3.3-3.5 Ghz, and still comparing the gaming tests to 6600K, which works close to 4.0 in turbo, a pretty impressive result. Frequency is very influential in these situations, which means what to expect when Zen's final working frequencies and overclock capabilities are released, so you can see how it will be compared to 6700K.

  9. If there is no effect on games for who exactly does the new chip wink - just for those who deal with complicated software ???

    1. AMD's new processor caters to a very large segment of consumers, including every server issue, where the number of cores, namely the ability to process separate slices, is very important. For large organizations, the more computational power you get for a dollar or a unit of money that contains a single server, it is very important. Perhaps most important.
      Beyond that, there are heavy consumers who need powerful workstations for graphical processing, data compression, video processing, encryption, and research. There are many millions of consumers like this in the world and they would love to get 8 (16 capillary) power in parallel processing without the need to pay a fortune for Intel's platform.
      For gamers who are a huge population themselves, the question will be the processor's payoff together with Intel's processor. At this time, the gaming segment still does not know how to utilize more 4 cores, as games that work only on 8 cores have not been developed as a necessary necessity. And so what matters most is the performance for a single core. Here frequency is the most important parameter, which basically produces the IPC. If Intel is in the 4 to 4.5 Ghrz dialing area, if AMD fails to give Fite a close up in terms of frequency, then their processors will only be relevant when the games start to be 8-core processors, and until then they will see no advantage over Intel. The question of when 8-based games will begin a critical mass market. My cautionary estimate is not before 2018 and even 2019. And so (as far as I can see at least), right now for these gamers who have Intel 6 processor over the past few years with 4 cores, Kerry Sandy Bridge 2500K and, furthermore, Kerry processor working on 4 and something Ghrz, it would be pointless for gaming to upgrade to - The new AMD and also not a new Intel processor that does not go unnoticed either.
      That's pretty nice for a home consumer, since 2011 who bought 4 cores back then doesn't have to upgrade hardware and spend extra money on it. In fact, we have never been in such a situation where we will soon be approaching an entire decade, without necessarily upgrading hardware. In the past such a necessity was every 3-4 years.

      1. It seems to me that vulkan and dx12 will help Zen break through the core exploitation problem, so 8 cores in the near future (two years) will be equivalent, even to the gamers segment. Most important is the price, and it's hard for me to believe that amd will disappoint at a competitive price, it's a great brand

  10. Quote of nec_000

    Here the frequency is the most important parameter, which actually produces the IPC.

    IPC = INSTRUCTION PER CYCLE, that is, how many commands are averaged on a clock cycle, but the frequency does not affect it.

    Besides agreeing completely.

    Walla NEC is disappearing here ...

  11. It has nothing to do with Vulcan and DX12, every semi-modern engine today deploys itself on 8 capillaries and more, just all on some 20-30% usage because the game doesn't require so much processing power…

    If anyone wants a gaming processor and does not want to upgrade in 5 for the next few years to take octagonal cores, it will be about the same as buying a 2600 / 2500K at their time.

  12. Quote of Idan P.

    Every semi-modern engine today deploys itself on 8 capillaries and more, just all capitals on some 20-30% usage because the game doesn't require so much processing power…

    So how do you explain the differences in performance on game engines between the processors?

    The operating system distributes applications and transfers calculations between the cores like a carousel.

    So even an app that uses 2-4 cores is supposed to be shown as occurring on 8-16, with each kernel appearing low percentages.

    conclusion:

    1) game engines do not really make use of more than 2-4 cores.

    2) Even if they do, they do so inefficiently.

  13. You're quite inclusive, there are engines that do it better, and there are fewer, you'll see for example games where the FX processors from the core cores are doing really well, and some even i3 are not going through.

  14. Quote of Art Tatum

    So how do you explain the differences in performance on game engines between the processors?

    The operating system distributes applications and transfers calculations between the cores like a carousel.

    So also application Which uses 2-4 cores will be shown as occurring on 8-16, where Core Low percentages appear.

    conclusion:

    1) game engines do not really make use of more than 2-4 cores.

    2) Even if they do, they do so inefficiently.

    Try playing Battlefield 1 and Dom once, tell me 2-4 working cores.
    I uploaded photos from my computer with HT OFF / ON

    / monthly_2016_12 /[Email protected]_SMT_On.png.300aca030a04e7a1e0f58eeed254a68b.png" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image">/ monthly_2016_12 /[Email protected]_SMT_Off.png.4e90771b64e36fcc93ed46b73d14e9df.png" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image">/ monthly_2016_12 /[Email protected]_SMT_On.png.87570405a4b3201f238bd69a9ee56997.png" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image">

    I have not said there are no games that know how to utilize more than 2-4 cores.

    I said in response to:

    Quote of Idan P.

    It has nothing to do with Vulcan and DX12, every semi-modern engine today deploys itself on 8 capillaries and more, just all on some 20-30% usage because the game doesn't require so much processing power…

    With every kernel on 20-30% usage, and seeing performance differences between processors that seem to all have more processing power than the game "requires", there are two options:

    1) The game does not know how to utilize cores efficiently, so processors with higher single-core speeds will produce better results in the game.

    2) The game in general does not make use of many cores.

    And this I tried to explain for someone who probably does not understand the subject.

    a quote

    The operating system distributes applications and transfers calculations between the cores like a carousel.

    So also application Which uses 2-4 cores will be shown as occurring on 8-16, where Core Low percentages appear.

    I shall try to elaborate.

    Game engine or software, can be built in all kinds of ways.

    Suppose, for example, that there is a game engine that splits the calculations into two linear channels, which have sets of instructions that the code passes to the calculation.

    The result can be seen as if all the cores are being used.

    But what actually happens is that every time the game takes out a set of instructions for processing, the operating system accesses it to another core.

    The visual result in PERFORMANCE MONITOR is misleading about what really happens.

    And only if you disable this feature that switches INSTRUCTION THREADS between CPU THREADS like a turnstile, or activates the mind, you will know what is really going on.

  15. I actually see quite a lot of potential. The 6900k works at a maximum frequency of 3.7ghz, if you consider at least 8% improvement in the frequency of the Reisen (3.4 vs. 3.15) you get that the differences between the two are very small in the IPC segment. On the other hand, there will also be an increase in power consumption (probably also a larger percentage of the increase in frequency), so Intel may still be more efficient, although this is an engineering sample so we may see some improvement in both performance and power consumption.
    Especially regarding gaming, agree with what has been said about partial exploitation of the cores, but as mentioned, the gaps in IPC appear to be minor. So, assuming AMD's quadruplets and hexagons can get close to Intel's frequencies, and / or be good knockers, we expect interesting competition.

  16. They added an easter egg in their article.

    Long binary string:

    010110100110010101101110010011110100001101000000010000010110100101110010001111010011010101000111

    That the conversion to text gives:

    [Email protected]= 5G

    After they got on it and asked the magazine people, they confirmed that this was indeed the case (for a single heart).

    impressive.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close
Close