
AMD Ryzen benchmark leaked from French hardware magazine - fcanesin
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5jx7q7/zen_benchmark_from_french_hardware_magazine/
======
dogma1138
If the gaming performance is true it's a very bad sign for AMD as a very large
chunk of people who buy those CPU's are not looking for professional
application performance.

It's also a very bad sign that it's doesn't gets double the performance of a
non hyperthreaded Intel 4 core parts while Intel 8 core parts do.

Considering it still loses to a 6900K (yes it's a very expensive part but it
doesn't matter) in professional benchmarks and you lose native support for USB
3.1, vastly superior PCIE and storage performance, more PCIE lanes, and
Thunderbolt it also doesn't bode well for AMD as the professional market is
still going to go with Intel CPU's almost regardless of the price point.

And all it seems that Intel needs to do to beat AMD at their own game is
simply to release 6 and 8 core non-HT parts at a 400-500 and 600-700$ price
points since it would match the performance of a 6900K in virtually every
professional application if Zen does become at any point a threat to Intel's
sale.

~~~
lhl
From the translations/discussion this sounds like it's a 3.15/3.3 GHz 8C/16t
engineering sample (ES7?). Current 8C clocks are up to 3.4/3.8 and the 4c/8t
(the 6700k competitor) is expected to have a 3.8 or 4.0 GHz base. IPC-wise,
the Zen chips appear competitive and in line with AMDs claims so personally I
don't see this as a bad sign at all.

~~~
dogma1138
The pictures on the graph show the AMD part to be a 3.33 / 3.4 boost clock
one. If they can't push it to beat a 6700K in gaming it won't matter,
especially at it's price point, you'll be giving up way too much on the
platform itself. ATM it's slower than a 220-230$ Core i5 in games and those
get better PCIE performance and native NVME and USB 3.1 support and
Thunderbolt which does matter to people.

As far as professional applications goes, can't beat a 6900K has only 24 PCIE
lanes which means no multi-GPU support if you want to use PCIE based storage
and even with a 16/8 GPU setup you are still going to get throttled heavily
because USB 3.1, network, sound and every other peripheral is running over
PCIE these days (if you have even a single NVME SSD you'll have to lock it to
8/8 or 8/4 which means you can actually bottleneck the GPU somewhat on the
X4).

Overall no sorry doesn't look good, especially considering that in benchmarks
that AMD showed with the 8c/16t part they were beating a 6900K at 3.4ghz it
doesn't seem to be the case with this evidence.

As far as the IPC part it wasn't really in question at this time, the clocks
were and still are, AMD is going to be at very big disadvantage as far as the
platform goes ("chipset" if you like) because Intel does PCIE, storage and LAN
considerably better than AMD and also has native USB 3.0/3.1 support. AMD
needs to be able to provide better clocks than Intel to be really valuable in
this, and at least as many PCIE lanes as Intel does; 24 is simply not enough.

------
rektide
The aggregated benchmark numbers are total bullshit, a complete rip off &
insultingly anti-useful. This is serious propaganda, total malarkey. Who knows
which of those games can use how many cores? Who knows how the results from
various games get aggregated together to produce the "98%" result. I struggle
to think of a less informative way to leak results.

The only game in the aggregated results that I strongly recognize as being
built for multi-core- what Ryzen is really firing shots across the bow at
Intel at- is BF4. And I'm not sure how scale-out it goes- 4 cores, 6 cores? I
have no idea how these other games scale- Far Cry 4, GRID, AutoSport, X3:TC,
Witcher 3, Anno 2070. I'm pretty confident at least two of them don't scale
well across cores at all. It may not be how games are built now, but in the
future, we need to have the expectation that good games scale out, and part of
the problem with setting this expectation has been the huge premium Intel
charges- the exotic status it sets- for many-core parts, and AMD seems set to
put a huge amount of performance on the table for very little cash, if game
makers are willing to keep up.

~~~
hansihe
Being a consumer magazine, a large part of the readership are probably gamers.
It makes perfect sense to include a test of what users should expect if they
buy the hardware for playing games.

Like it or not, game performance is a useful real-life metric for many
consumers.

