French Magazine posts engineering sample AMD Ryzen Processor benchmarks
Click here to post a comment for French Magazine posts engineering sample AMD Ryzen Processor benchmarks on our message forum
-Tj-
gaming is not that bad considering its a 3.2ghz vs 4.2 or 4.4ghz intel quads..
i think at same freq. it will rival and or beat it np.
BlueRay
This seems way better than I expected. It's dangerously close to Intel's performance. The power consumption is lower than an i7. And this is based on an early chip without boost clocks. Ryzen shaping way better than I expected.
Blackfyre
What's obvious from these benchmarks (if they are to be believed) is that single-core performance is still lower than Intel. However if there is enough overclocking head-room, this CPU and its lower-tier lineups (priced appropriately), could make some damage.
Hopefully the turbo-boost speeds are good enough when they are revealed, and on top of that, hopefully there is great overclocking potential in Ryzen. Especially in the mid-range 8-core version of this CPU (since that will likely become the highest seller).
We all really need AMD to pull through on this one. We need the competition.
Ryu5uzaku
Tbh it's not that much lower considering sample 4 had highest boost and that was 3.3ghz on all cores. It might be lacking few % here and there but not much.
r3lu
It better come with higher stock clocks to make a point against Intel. And better scale damn good in OC to make sense as a premium gaming platform.
As it stands now, an Intel 6700K with 20% better performance in gaming is a far better choice for regular users that dont bother with OC. AMD really needs a CPU offer that also covers single-thread performance, with some awesome turbo mode for that.
Corbus
Impressive, now let's see some overclocking results and the price. (of the mobos too).
Seikon
Yeah i hope so to , the only reasson that i7 wins in these gaming benchmarks is becouse of the higher clock if the benchmarks are real , so if amd manages to turbo all the way up to 4ghz with good cooling intel might have a surprize 😀 , i for one shure will go and pick a 6 core model and give my curent i5 4460 to my gf since she uses a laptop , AMD time for me , i am not joking i am really thinking to build a AMD only pc , for old times sake(miss my amd barton 2500+ with ati 9600 :< )
Stormyandcold
Gaming benchmarks, Core i5 6500...
Humanoid_1
Encouraging + on top of that Lisa Su has said the lowest base clock will be 3.4GHz.
Having made a point of how the chip can auto overclock according to the quality of cooling over expected min air all the way up to LN I am expecting they have some expected headroom available to respectable rigs ^^
Anarion
I'm pretty sure that it's going to be a lot cheaper.
Seikon
You do understand its gaming we talk about here , something that we know doesnt uses on avrg more then 4 cores , so its doing quite well @ the lower speed , and if you mention the i7 well mate open your eyes and se the speed its runing its 4.2ghz vs 3.3 ...
Seriusly tho why do people look for bad things in this , where there is none , plus its a engineering sample , not runing with its turbo boost and @ a lower clock speeds(not much tho)
stereoman
Looks pretty good and thing is once more games start taking advantage of the extra cores it should really start to gain some ground.
my plan is to build a system for my music production based on zen, but if it turns out to be better for games than my 4790k I'll probably keep it for games and move my 4790k setup into the studio.
craycray
At 91% clock, it is 90% Gaming performance
Freq Ratio: 3.4/3.7 = 0.9189
Gaming Perf Ratio: 97.3/107.4 = 0.9059
CPU Bench Ratio: 168.7/193.4 = 0.8722
So, at 91% clock, it is 90% Gaming performance. How is AMD in trouble? Please elaborate.
Thanks.
Elder III
These benchmarks look quite promising. At this point I just need to see the final pricing in order to add a Ryzen based system to my household network. 🤓
nz3777
Now the only remaining factor to consider is Price- If they get that right they will get some backing from the community, If not and they price it like they did the original Fx 9590 Nobody will boder with it.
Lets hope they play there cards right.
Ryrynz
Obvious from these benchmarks? Jesus.. it was obvious from the get go! 40% IPC increase we ALWAYS knew to place per core performance at around Broadwell level.. or weren't you paying any attention to the news over the last year or so? We always knew Ryzen was about multi-core performance hence why the first bench to be leaked was Blender.
How are they not going to pull through? Intel if it's smart will adjust prices so that people consider upgrading to their own parts when Ryzen is released.
Zen SR3: (65W, quad-core, eight threads, ~$150 USD)
Zen SR5: (95W, hexa-core, twelve threads, ~$250 USD)
Zen SR7: (95W, octo-core, sixteen threads, ~$350 USD)
Special Zen SR7: (95W, octo-core, sixteen threads, ~$500 USD)
AMD need money.. they'll charge what people will pay, as above. The only thing that Ryzen has forced Intel to do is create Coffee Lake and it will likely push prices down a bit on their existing six and eight core products. Nothing major.
Raider0001
Yes but look at them from different perspective, the only fresh and heavy engine game out of 7 is Witcher 3 and I don`t think it can utilise more than 4 cores (DX12 will do more), and the CPU I have i5 6600 can do 3.6Ghz with prime95 at all cores and 3.9Ghz when not. The best sample of ZEN is doing 3.4Ghz, that is 0.5Ghz lower in turbo and 0.45Ghz lower when stressed. Whole difference between 4c 4t i5 6600 and 8c 16t engineering sample is -1.3%, if a 6 core 12 thread RYZEN shows up with more turbo than i5 6600 but with even lower price point it will eat up a lot of market share. The results are just fine and a proper RYZEN is very promising.
Stormyandcold
Purely from a gaming perspective here; the i5 6500 which costs approx £220 is offering about the same performance. A stock i5 6600 is £240. My i7 6700k was £260 at time of purchase 1st quarter 2016 (£330 now).
I've already said in the other thread that for the majority of people that they wouldn't notice the difference unless they're into content creation or streaming+gaming on one system etc. This article actually confirms my thoughts on this.
While it's ok to speculate on what future performance "could" bring (which I've also commented on), the fact of the matter is the base performance for a gamer with our current crop of games will not be enough to entice those people to upgrade.
If you had an i5 6500 or i5 6600 already and you only played games, why would you "upgrade"? Right now, it would be a side-grade at best.
However, if you're not a gamer, then, I think this is an excellent processor. Providing the price is right, for me it could be an excellent music studio cpu.
Amx85
Then...
21% slower gamming performance at 23~27% slower clocks than i7 6700K sounds great, good IPC
__hollywood|meo
holy crap. are some of yall reading the same graphs i am? because as i parse it, the IPC is clearly stronger than we anticipated. team red is breathing down intels neck. honestly this is pretty exciting news...im getting more optimistic about this launch
