Ballistix Elite 3600 MHz 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AC2900 Gaming Router review
Asustor Nimbustor 4 (AS5304T) NAS Review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
be quiet! Dark Rock SLIM review
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Edifier G4 Pro Headset review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Cooler Master SK621 Compact keyboard review
AMD Athlon 220GE and 240GE review
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Desktop Processor Spotted on ASUS Crosshair VII HERO Mobo
Interesting, you have to love result databases. The the first 'optimized' Ryzen, Ryzen 2 processor has hit the SiSoft Sandra database. The entry shows a processor called Ryzen 5 2600, which obviously is Zen+, the model listed is a six-core twelve threaded processor
The entry within the SiSoft database is:
- ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y (6C 12T 3.4GHz, 1.1GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3).
And yes you can deduct anything and pretty much everything from that, including the a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz turbo. Have a look at the screenshot below:
What's also interesting is the motherboard listed, it is an ASUS ROG CROSSHAIR VII HERO (WI-FI) running on Windows 10, that would be an X470 Motherboard alright.
Recent announcements indicate a launch for the new platform and revision 2 processors as early as April. If we table things up and compare a bit, this would be the differences. It seems AMD is capable of achieving slightly higher clocks alright.
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 5 1600 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | 14nm Zen | 12nm Zen+ |
| Cores | 6 | 6 |
| Threads | 12 | 12 |
| Cache | 19 MB (L2+L3) | 19 MB (L2+L3) |
| Base Clock | 3.2 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 3.6 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| TDP | 65W | 65W |
| Release | Q2 2017 | Q2 2018 |
Judging from just this processor, AMD is able to achieve at least 200 MHz more out of the optimized 12nm production nodes. Thanks go out to Poul Olsen from Denmark for this spot.
AMD Enmotus FuzeDrive for AMD Ryzen - 01/16/2018 10:40 AM
AMD has teamed up with high-end server storage technology company Enmotus to bring advanced, intelligent storage acceleration to AMD Ryzen desktop processor owners, aka a storage cache....
Acer Also Unveils New AMD Ryzen-Powered Nitro 5 Gaming Laptop - 01/09/2018 10:29 AM
Acer also announced its new Acer Nitro 5 gaming laptop, designed for casual gamers seeking great performance in an attractive laser-textured design. Powered by Windows 10, the new 15-inch laptop is ta...
AMD Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge Processors And 400 Chipset Could Launch in March - 01/04/2018 02:27 PM
Some information on AMD Ryzen Pinnacle Ridge Processors and the new 400 chipsets has surfaced on an Asian website, both are indicated to launch in March already. ...
Guru3D 2017 December 11 contest - Win An AMD Ryzen 7 1800X worth €499,- - 12/11/2017 10:38 AM
Heck yeah! It is that time of the year again. In December each workday we will give away a nice prize. That means up-to December 31st you will have a chance of winning something. This round you can wi...
AMD Ryzen Price Level Back to Normal - 12/06/2017 10:34 AM
For the past weeks, you guys have been able to enjoy the massive price reduction on AMD's Ryzen series processors. We checked out a thing or two, and this really was a two-week promotion....
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5512001 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:09 PM
Seems to be about 15% faster than an R5 1600?
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3dbedd4e3dafc8eb383a5c0a598a88efdc0f1&l=en
I'll admit I expected more since we're also talking about a 6% clock speed increase.
Keep in mind, a lot of the memory bandwidth is now divided for the IGP too, so who knows if Ryzen 2 cores are actually slightly faster than 15%. Regardless, I'd say a roughly ~10% IPC improvement is acceptable for something where we knew there were no major architectural changes. The Ryzen 2000 series is likely just a series of bugfixes from the first generation (some of the first models produced had some pretty serious hardware bugs) and a few micro-optimizations here and there. As I've mentioned in other posts, if the Ryzen 2000 series is better at overclocking, that's what will really keep people's interest.
Seems to be about 15% faster than an R5 1600?
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3dbedd4e3dafc8eb383a5c0a598a88efdc0f1&l=en
I'll admit I expected more since we're also talking about a 6% clock speed increase.
Keep in mind, a lot of the memory bandwidth is now divided for the IGP too, so who knows if Ryzen 2 cores are actually slightly faster than 15%. Regardless, I'd say a roughly ~10% IPC improvement is acceptable for something where we knew there were no major architectural changes. The Ryzen 2000 series is likely just a series of bugfixes from the first generation (some of the first models produced had some pretty serious hardware bugs) and a few micro-optimizations here and there. As I've mentioned in other posts, if the Ryzen 2000 series is better at overclocking, that's what will really keep people's interest.
easytomy
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
#5512003 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:12 PM
Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
warlord
Senior Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: 2012-10-22
Senior Member
Posts: 2121
Joined: 2012-10-22
#5512004 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:12 PM
I5 8500 seems faster and a better option already. I expected better performance from Zen's optimized refresh line-up tbh.
I5 8500 seems faster and a better option already. I expected better performance from Zen's optimized refresh line-up tbh.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5512007 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:14 PM
Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
It's a 6% clock speed increase... What difference does that make if you're getting an X series motherboard?
Just 6% ??? C'mon AMD... daf*k is this?
Dear God... I've waited a billion years for the Ryzen refresh, I still have to wait... and it's just 6%.
At least the X470 platform I hope will be better for PCI-e & Memory... I hope!
It's a 6% clock speed increase... What difference does that make if you're getting an X series motherboard?
Sempaii
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 2014-10-16
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 2014-10-16
#5512008 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:30 PM
keep in mind, the chip could still be an engineering sample. ;-)
keep in mind, the chip could still be an engineering sample. ;-)
easytomy
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
#5512009 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:30 PM
I know it's clock speed. I was expecting at least a 10% increase. C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz. At 4.24 GHz it seems a no-upgrade kind of difference, cause IPC will be an insignificant factor.
It's a 6% clock speed increase... What difference does that make if you're getting an X series motherboard?
I know it's clock speed. I was expecting at least a 10% increase. C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz. At 4.24 GHz it seems a no-upgrade kind of difference, cause IPC will be an insignificant factor.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2168
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2168
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5512010 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:30 PM
So this would make the 2600X 3.8GHz, 4.2GHz turbo (4.3GHz with XFR?), hypothetically at least. If it overclocks better could we see 4.4/4.5GHz? A 10 - 15% performance improvement from a 6% clock speed increase isn't to shabby these days anyway.
So this would make the 2600X 3.8GHz, 4.2GHz turbo (4.3GHz with XFR?), hypothetically at least. If it overclocks better could we see 4.4/4.5GHz? A 10 - 15% performance improvement from a 6% clock speed increase isn't to shabby these days anyway.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5512011 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:33 PM
I still don't see what there is to complain about. Clock speed is irrelevant on an unlocked CPU, especially if there's an IPC improvement. It's also the non-X version.
I know it's clock speed. I was expecting at least a 10% increase. C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz. At 4.24 GHz it seems a no-upgrade kind of difference, cause IPC will be an insignificant factor.
I still don't see what there is to complain about. Clock speed is irrelevant on an unlocked CPU, especially if there's an IPC improvement. It's also the non-X version.
easytomy
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
#5512012 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:33 PM
Could be... but so close to release, I'm guessing they already have plenty of wafers cooked. It's unlikely they'll tweak something in the last few months before launch...
keep in mind, the chip could still be an engineering sample. ;-)
Could be... but so close to release, I'm guessing they already have plenty of wafers cooked. It's unlikely they'll tweak something in the last few months before launch...
easytomy
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
#5512014 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:35 PM
Yeah... we'll see. I was stating that clock has everything to do with it, while IPC will be an insignificant increase.
We're debating over things too far from our grasp. I'm still hoping for better clock speeds at the high end.
I still don't see what there is to complain about. Clock speed is irrelevant on an unlocked CPU, especially if there's an IPC improvement. It's also the non-X version.
Yeah... we'll see. I was stating that clock has everything to do with it, while IPC will be an insignificant increase.
We're debating over things too far from our grasp. I'm still hoping for better clock speeds at the high end.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 807
Joined: 2014-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 807
Joined: 2014-11-19
#5512017 Posted on: 01/18/2018 05:43 PM
AMD is also looking for more power efficiency, can't have dramatic improvements in both without major changes. This looks good. Interested in power use too.
AMD is also looking for more power efficiency, can't have dramatic improvements in both without major changes. This looks good. Interested in power use too.
FrostNixon
Senior Member
Posts: 167
Joined: 2016-04-15
Senior Member
Posts: 167
Joined: 2016-04-15
#5512026 Posted on: 01/18/2018 06:07 PM
I have no idea why people are looking at "BASE CLOCK INCREASE PERCENTAGE". Useless numbers. Amd are doing the same as Intel - increasing base clock by 200mhz from previous generation (i5-6500 3200mhz, i5-7500 3400mhz).
What is really important is how much it overclocks. Base speed doesn't really matter.
I know it's clock speed. I was expecting at least a 10% increase. C'mon... you're reducing the fab-process, and you're updating known / initial release issues... I was expecting a 2800X to reach 4.5+ GHz. At 4.24 GHz it seems a no-upgrade kind of difference, cause IPC will be an insignificant factor.
I have no idea why people are looking at "BASE CLOCK INCREASE PERCENTAGE". Useless numbers. Amd are doing the same as Intel - increasing base clock by 200mhz from previous generation (i5-6500 3200mhz, i5-7500 3400mhz).
What is really important is how much it overclocks. Base speed doesn't really matter.
easytomy
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 2017-05-08
#5512032 Posted on: 01/18/2018 06:25 PM
I have no idea why people are looking at "BASE CLOCK INCREASE PERCENTAGE". Useless numbers. Amd are doing the same as Intel - increasing base clock by 200mhz from previous generation (i5-6500 3200mhz, i5-7500 3400mhz).
What is really important is how much it overclocks. Base speed doesn't really matter.
It's because not all people overclock their CPU.
I often like to leave things the way they were intended to be used, just because it gives me a 'stock/guarantee' kind of reassurance. Weird, huh?
I have no idea why people are looking at "BASE CLOCK INCREASE PERCENTAGE". Useless numbers. Amd are doing the same as Intel - increasing base clock by 200mhz from previous generation (i5-6500 3200mhz, i5-7500 3400mhz).
What is really important is how much it overclocks. Base speed doesn't really matter.
It's because not all people overclock their CPU.
I often like to leave things the way they were intended to be used, just because it gives me a 'stock/guarantee' kind of reassurance. Weird, huh?
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2415
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2415
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5512033 Posted on: 01/18/2018 06:28 PM
Assumption, but most likely they will Clock much better, hence 4,5ghz under OC potentially can be reached. Time will tell!
Assumption, but most likely they will Clock much better, hence 4,5ghz under OC potentially can be reached. Time will tell!
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Joined: 2010-08-24
Seems to be about 15% faster than an R5 1600?
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcee889e8d5e3dbedd4e3dafc8eb383a5c0a598a88efdc0f1&l=en
I'll admit I expected more since we're also talking about a 6% clock speed increase.