Discussion AMD Ryzen MegaThread! FAQ and Resources

[Rookie_MIB]

One of the online retailers not only listed pricing, but they also listed this little bit: "expected availability Feb 28th."

From what I heard only limited availability. Volume availability in March.

As long as I can get a 1700 series with a B350 motherboard, I'll be happy.

Throw it in my build with my big air cooler and call it a day.

(after I check the reviews and pick up some fast DDR4 of course)

 

[simon12]

Which chip do people think would go in a budget conscious gaming PC with an RX 480, will an R3 1100 be enough?

Personally I've seen a number of modern games that respond well to more than 4 threads- given the rumoured prices I'd suggest looking at the 4 core / 8 thread models if possible.

4 threads are enough *now*, but 6 - 8 threads do show benefits in many of the most demanding games so given the fairly close pricing going for the 4 core / 8 thread R5 might be a better long term investment (although going cheap and upgrading later is always an option).

Cheers for the answer, will wait for more confirmed benchmarks and any over pricing on release anyway. My phenom II is really starting to struggle though.

 

[cdrkf]

Which chip do people think would go in a budget conscious gaming PC with an RX 480, will an R3 1100 be enough?

Personally I've seen a number of modern games that respond well to more than 4 threads- given the rumoured prices I'd suggest looking at the 4 core / 8 thread models if possible.

4 threads are enough *now*, but 6 - 8 threads do show benefits in many of the most demanding games so given the fairly close pricing going for the 4 core / 8 thread R5 might be a better long term investment (although going cheap and upgrading later is always an option).

Cheers for the answer, will wait for more confirmed benchmarks and any over pricing on release anyway. My phenom II is really starting to struggle though.

Yeah Phenom II is getting old- although really good chips, I've noted that Phenom II X6 still copes pretty well with most games (donated my old workstation with an X6 to a friend who is running Star Citizen on it surprisingly well, I think the quads are starting to struggle though).

 

[juanrga]

Another leaked score for Ryzen

http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V9/display.php?id=77190436599

Compared to other chips:

i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz = 17714

i7-5960X @3.00GHz = 15979

Ryzen @3.4GHz = 15085

i7-6800K @3.40GHz = 13583

Using the 8C results, we obtain Zen IPC is ~20% behind Haswell and ~25% behind Broadwell in this bench.

How do you know it's the 8 core variant?

From the ID string: ZD3406BAM88F4_38/34_Y

Z = QS
D = Desktop
340 = Base frequency
6 = Model revision number
BA = 95W
M = AM4 socket
8 = number of cores
8 = 4MB L2 + 16MB L3
F4 = B-grade silicon
38 = Single Turbo
34 = Base frequency
Y = ?

Anyway, I'm going to first compare the two Skylake chips, to figure out how well the benchmark scales:

6900k:
17714 = IPC * 3.2 * 8
17714 = IPC * 25.6
IPC = 691.95

6800k:
13583 = IPC * 3.4 * 6
13583 = IPC * 20.4
IPC = 665.83

So I come out with scaling of just under 4%, close to what we've seen in other benchmarks. So I can safely disregard scaling as a factor here [it's there, but minimal].

Now for Ryzen, which I will consider a 8 core chip for this benchmark, as I didn't consider HTT effects above:

Ryzen:
15085 = IPC * 3.4 * 8
15085 = IPC * 27.2
IPC = 554.6

Or about 18.22% slower then a 6800k, or right back to our Ivy-Haswell level performance.

So two benchmarks, two results. In fact, a LOT of benchmarks show the same behavior right now: Some show Ivy-Haswell performance, while others show competitive with Skylake. I'm suspecting both are true: There's a bottleneck for certain workloads which causes Ryzen to lag behind in certain metrics.

But based on what I'm seeing, "best case" per-core performance seems to be around Skylake, and "worst case" around Ivy-Haswell. Throw in the fact Ryzen has more cores to run off of, then I'd be willing to predict that in best case applications that scale across all CPU cores, Ryzen can match or beat Kaby Lake. Again, "best-best case", but the potential is there.

Note that 6900k and 6800k are Broadwell chips, not Skylake.

 

[juanrga]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

 

[salgado18]

My favorite time of the day: MATH TIME:

The performance of the chip was tested in CPU-z with the in-built bench utility. This utility helps evaluate the single and multi-threaded performance of the processor running on the PC. The Ryzen 5 1600X had a score of 1888 in single-threaded performance bench and 12544 points in multi-threaded performance bench. In the task manager, we can see that the chip has boost clock enabled since it is clocking beyond it’s base frequency (e.g. 3.56 GHz).

Core scaling is meh; You'd expect a theoretical 1888 * 12 = 22656, but get a 12544 (55%). If we ignore SMT for a moment, we get an expected 1888 * 6 = 11328, which implies gain of about 11% assuming perfect scaling. That's...not great.

For comparison purposes, we used a Core i5-7600K running in our test rig and loaded the same CPU-z version (v1.78.1 x64). The quad core (non hyper-threaded) chip achieved a score of 2130 in single-threaded and 8206 in multi-threaded.

For comparison, core scaling is expected 2130 * 4 = 8520, compared to a 8206 (96%), so CPUz is scaling properly.

Now for IPC: We already calculated SMT gains of about 11%, so I'm going to disregard the SMT cores for Ryzen except for subtracting 11% from the initial performance result, and calculate for just the six physical cores. That's as good a comparison I can do here; I have to do this to factor out SMT as much as I can:

Performance = IPC * Clock * Num_Cores

Ryzen:

12544 - (12544 - (12544 * .11)) = IPC * 3.56 * 6
12544 - 1378 = IPC * 21.36
11166 = IPC * 21.36
IPC = 522.75

Kaby:

8206 = IPC * 3.6 * 4
8206 = IPC * 14.4
IPC = 569.86

Kaby comes in about 8.64% faster on a per-core basis, disregarding SMT effects. Which puts Ryzen right around Skylake level performance, give or take.

Task manager shows an average of all clocks, so it can't be trusted.

To compare single versus multi, we need to adjust for clocks of each one. So:

1888 points ST = 1888 / 3.7 GHz (turbo clock)
= 510 points / GHz / core

12544 points MT = 12544 / 3.3 GHz (base clock)
= 3801 points / GHz / (6 cores + SMT)
= 633 points / GHz / (core + SMT)

633 / 510 = 1,24 = 24% SMT performance benefit.


Now for Kaby:

2130 points ST = 2130 / 4.2 GHz (turbo clock)
= 507 points / GHz / core

 

[8350rocks]

Another leaked score for Ryzen

http://www.passmark.com/baselines/V9/display.php?id=77190436599

Compared to other chips:

i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz = 17714

i7-5960X @3.00GHz = 15979

Ryzen @3.4GHz = 15085

i7-6800K @3.40GHz = 13583

Using the 8C results, we obtain Zen IPC is ~20% behind Haswell and ~25% behind Broadwell in this bench.

That score is off by quite a bit comparatively....

Also, you can manually overclock Ryzen per core.

 

[8350rocks]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

XFR does not operate like the turbo you are talking about.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

If I hadn't built a skylake PC just a year ago, I'd probly be looking an a 1700 build.

 

[cdrkf]

If I hadn't built a skylake PC just a year ago, I'd probly be looking an a 1700 build.

That's always the danger with tech- although I'm sure that Skylake will serve you for a good while. I'm still running an FX 8320 on my main desktop so I'm probably going to look at a Ryzen system towards the end of this year (assuming no major 'gotchas' crop up after release). My main plan for this machine is to play Star Citizen on it- which is a ways off anyway so no great rush (everything else I've got runs well enough on the FX tbh).

 

[Crumpet 1]

If I hadn't built a skylake PC just a year ago, I'd probly be looking an a 1700 build.

I did build a skylake PC just a year ago.. But I am having me some Ryzen!

 

[Eximo]

I couldn't resist 5.0Ghz, so hello Kabylake. That and my brother was in need of a computer, so he gets the 4770k. Just waiting on Pascal Quadros to hit the shelves.

 

[juanrga]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Also 3.6GHz is the base clock, not the all-core turbo.

 

[jwcrellin]

Did anyone watch the Linustechtips WAN Show? Linus gets a little weird when talking about RYZEN. I'll bet he has one but the NDA is still active.

 

[Ziga Stupar]

Did anyone watch the Linustechtips WAN Show? Linus gets a little weird when talking about RYZEN. I'll bet he has one but the NDA is still active.

i did but i did not spot anything unusual can you explain what was weird?

 

[jaymc]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Also 3.6GHz is the base clock, not the all-core turbo.

They didn't contradict each other when I read them.. 3.6 is the base clock therefore there is no all core turbo... !! Think thats what he meant.

 

[8350rocks]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Also 3.6GHz is the base clock, not the all-core turbo.

Exactly.

The baseclock is the all core turbo outside of XFR.

There *is* no all core turbo by conventional turbo specs. It is only XFR, and XFR is across all cores.

 

[8350rocks]

6 core benchmarks versus 6850K

1600X runs @ 3.5 turbo and 6850K runs @ stock clocks + turbo:

http://digiworthy.com/2017/02/17/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-benchmarks/

EDIT: This is a non-XFR processor, so technically this is the R5-1500.

 

[TechyInAZ]

6 core benchmarks versus 6850K

1600X runs @ 3.5 turbo and 6850K runs @ stock clocks + turbo:

http://digiworthy.com/2017/02/17/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-benchmarks/

Spoiler

Added spoiler to save space.

EDIT: This is a non-XFR processor, so technically this is the R5-1500.

Wow, that almost seems too good to be true. I'm really suspicious about an R5 doing that well. An R7 I could easily see doing that though.

 

[juanrga]

The information that I have is that XFR is not an all-core turbo.

There are eight frequencies defined in Zen. Four of them are for engineer's interest only like F_boot (the boot frequency) or F_min, the minimal working frequency (actually 550 MHz on desktop chips). The other four frequencies are of consumer interest: F_P0, F_TMT, F_TST, and F_MAX.

F_P0 is the base frequency. It was 3.15GHz for the engineering sample used by Canard in their preview. It is 3.6GHz for the 1800X model.

F_TMT is the all-core turbo. It was 3.3GHz for the engineering sample. I don't know its value for the 1800X. I know it is somewhat between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz.

F_TST is the 1-core turbo. It was 3.5GHz for the engineering sample. It is 4.0GHz for the 1800X.

F_MAX is a second 1-core turbo. This frequency is not predefined by AMD. It is a variable frequency that depends on measurements of several on-the-fly parameters like the temperature. Different 1800X chips will have a different F_MAX depending on silicon lottery and the quality of the cooling you have installed. This is an auto-overclocking turbo. This is XFR.

I've had a thought about this (pure speculation here)- however do we know much about how the different frequency / turbo values are defined? I wonder if F_TMT is actually a derivative of F_MAX- whilst F_TST simply defines the default value for F_MAX unless the system determines a new (higher) value based on operating conditions? If F_TMT is defined as a proportion of F_MAX (e.g. F_TMT = 0.9 * FMAX) then as XFR increases the maximum single core turbo the max all core turbo would increase as well. Given the chip monitors power and thermals at a high rate the F_MAX would vary on loading anyway so I don't see any logical reason why it couldn't increase the all core turbo slightly if cooling allows for it (though the all core turbo would always be less than the highest single core frequency)...?

F_TMT is a fixed value pre-defined. It cannot be a percentage of a non-fixed value as F_MAX. For instance for the engineering sample used on Canard review F_TMT = 3.3GHz. I don't know the value of F_TMT for commercial chips, but if I had to guess I would say that F_TMT = 3.75GHz for the 1800X model, for instance.

X editions have no all core turbo...

The all core turbo on 1800X is 3.6 GHz.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Also 3.6GHz is the base clock, not the all-core turbo.

Exactly.

The baseclock is the all core turbo outside of XFR.

There *is* no all core turbo by conventional turbo specs. It is only XFR, and XFR is across all cores.

No. The base clock is not the all-core turbo. The all-core turbo is between the base and the 1-core turbo frequencies reported in the above table. For instance for the 1800X the base clock is 3.6GHz, the 1-core turbo is 4.0GHz and the all-core turbo is between 3.65GHz and 3.8GHz. I guess it must be about 3.75GHz.

For the ES tested by Canard the base clock was 3.15GHz, the all-core turbo was 3.3GHz, and the 1-core turbo was 3.5GHz.

How can XFR be turbo across all cores when F_TMAX is only defined as 1-core?

 

[juanrga]

6 core benchmarks versus 6850K

1600X runs @ 3.5 turbo and 6850K runs @ stock clocks + turbo:

http://digiworthy.com/2017/02/17/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-benchmarks/

EDIT: This is a non-XFR processor, so technically this is the R5-1500.

As one can check in the first image the chip identifies itself as "ZD3301BBM6IF4_37/33_Y"

Z = QS
D = Desktop
330 = Base frequency
1 = Model revision number
BB = 65W
M = AM4 socket
6 = number of cores
I = 3MB L2 + 16 MB L3
F4 = B-grade silicon
37 = Single core Turbo
33 = Base frequency
Y = ?

Those are the specs of the 1600X: 6C with 3.3GHz base and 3.7GHz 1-core turbo

The MT was run at 3.56GHz (all-core turbo) and the ST was run at 3.7GHz or higher depending if XFR was enabled or not.

Also this is a toy bench. It is a small loop and probably performance is great because RyZen has twice the L2 cache. Note also that in the ST bench both i7-2600k and i7-6850k have turbo of 3.8GHz and the Broadwell chip has single-thread score 32% higher: 1835/1387 = 1.32.

In general terms Broadwell IPC isn't 32% higher than Sandy Bridge, is it?

 

[truegenius]

cbr15 single thread leak, 1600x scores 146 ( @3.7ghz ? )
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

 

[truegenius]

and cbr15 multithread 1600x score 1136
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1600x-cinebench-r15-performance-confirmed/

 

[jdwii]

cbr15 single thread leak, 1600x scores 146 ( @3.7ghz ? )
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

Man its about time all the latest leaks seem to point towards a nice product a score of 146 on single core is nice my CPU gets 172 at stock but that is with a 4.4Ghz turbo. If that is getting 146 at 3.7Ghz that is 17.8% lower with 18.9% less frequency(edit compared to my CPU) so again we are seeing Haswell level of performance.

As noted before we are seeing more and more benchmarks before launch one was from Anandtech even and its pointing towards Haswell level of IPC.

Waiting for some others to reply to these results here in this forum. Starting to think we will see a price war again. Man after 10 years of pure CPU boredom. Last time Amd was this close was back in 2005 i think.

 

[cdrkf]

cbr15 single thread leak, 1600x scores 146 ( @3.7ghz ? )
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/

Man its about time all the latest leaks seem to point towards a nice product a score of 146 on single core is nice my CPU gets 172 at stock but that is with a 4.4Ghz turbo. If that is getting 146 at 3.7Ghz that is 17.8% lower with 18.9% less frequency(edit compared to my CPU) so again we are seeing Haswell level of performance.

As noted before we are seeing more and more benchmarks before launch one was from Anandtech even and its pointing towards Haswell level of IPC.

Waiting for some others to reply to these results here in this forum. Starting to think we will see a price war again. Man after 10 years of pure CPU boredom. Last time Amd was this close was back in 2005 i think.

Yeah it's looking good- just a side point- back in the 2003 - 2005 time frame *AMD were ahead* in IPC... Also fun fact, Athlon 64 is the oldest cpu that is capable of running Windows 10 Not bad for a chip that's over 12 years old.