AMD's Future Chips & SoC's: News, Info & Rumours.

[goldstone77]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

 

[goldstone77]

SO no one posted this yet?

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/cpc-hardware-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-print-review-is-online-incl-benchmarks.html

Edit so this is just the beginning now i wonder if 3600mhz memory works with this batch also i'm still wondering on overclocking

Oh, looks like I was spot on the speed management shenanigans explaining the power consumption.

So, even with the memory latency improvements, most of the higher numbers will be due to raw speed bumps across the board (cores load). That would effectively give a slight penalty to efficiency, but giving out better performance. Higher speeds across the board are also nice, but that begs the question around OC. Looks like 12nm is flat out 14nm, just a tad denser, but otherwise equals. Although they did get better turbo speeds with more cores loaded... Uhm...

Cheers!

Smaller transistors(7.5T vs. 9T) were able to help with the thermal barriers Zen faced with the 14 LPP process.

 

[jdwii]

So the test shows 15% less performance in games with a 2700X vs a 8700X but in return you get 15% more performance in applications.

Now which part overclocks better? In reality that is how enthusiasts see things

 

[-Fran-]

The 2700X won't OC better than the i7 8700K. I wonder if it will OC at all, in fact. Looks like AMD is pushing the higher ceiling of the process already, so I don't really see how we could squeeze enough hertz to justify the jump in power consumption, which I think is going to be quite a lot.

Cheers!

 

[Gon Freecss]

So the test shows 15% less performance in games with a 2700X vs a 8700X but in return you get 15% more performance in applications.

Now which part overclocks better? In reality that is how enthusiasts see things

The 2700X won't OC better than the i7 8700K. I wonder if it will OC at all, in fact. Looks like AMD is pushing the higher ceiling of the process already, so I don't really see how we could squeeze enough hertz to justify the jump in power consumption, which I think is going to be quite a lot.

Cheers!

~15% performance using a GTX 1080, and presumably at max settings. Test with a GTX 1080 Ti, and the gap will likely grow to over 25%.

I suspect a max overclock of 4.3GHz. Maybe 4.4GHz on the best bins.

 

[juanrga]

So PR is very close to what I said. In fact it PR is even worse than I expected and I was expecting very little such as only 200--400MHz extra.

 

[juanrga]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

 

[-Fran-]

Keep in mind the hardware used for the magazine review. A A320 chipset board. It's like they were trying to make it look bad in a way.

I'll take those numbers as a baseline to compare when the rest of the reviews arrive. I would be interested to see how much of a difference makes having the X470 over the X370.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

Keep in mind the hardware used for the magazine review. A A320 chipset board. It's like they were trying to make it look bad in a way.

I'll take those numbers as a baseline to compare when the rest of the reviews arrive. I would be interested to see how much of a difference makes having the X470 over the X370.

As overclocking-made-in-france said X470 will improve performance by 1 or 2% over the results got by CPCHardware.

 

[goldstone77]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

 

[-Fran-]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

And, I remember, every serious news outlet called Intel on that one; even Toms.

I would expect, depending on the performance numbers we see when it's officially reviewed, Toms calling AMD on it if they deserve it. On the other hand, what has AMD said officially about the 2700X and Zen v1.5 anyway? I haven't seen any slides promising miracles nor hyping it to oblivion.

Cheers!

 

[Gon Freecss]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

And, I remember, every serious news outlet called Intel on that one; even Toms.

I would expect, depending on the performance numbers we see when it's officially reviewed, Toms calling AMD on it if they deserve it. On the other hand, what has AMD said officially about the 2700X and Zen v1.5 anyway? I haven't seen any slides promising miracles nor hyping it to oblivion.

Cheers!

Intel brought better performance at lower power consumption. They raised the power efficiency with Kaby Lake. What do we see with Pinnacle Ridge? A bit more performance for significantly more power consumption?

 

[-Fran-]

Intel brought better performance at lower power consumption. They raised the power efficiency with Kaby Lake. What do we see with Pinnacle Ridge? A bit more performance for significantly more power consumption?

Well, according to the link, AMD did increase the average efficiency. Managing the speeds better has that result for intensive tasks. Bursty workloads fare even better with a good turbo management engine. Even if max power and avg power go up in hard numbers, it doesn't not mean efficiency will go down necessarily as well. I'm expecting it to be the same though, but I hope I'm wrong.

So, until the official reviews arrive, the baseline from the magazine leak is:
- slightly better performance.
- slightly better efficiency.

And that is even using an A320 chipset mobo.

Cheers!

 

[Gon Freecss]

Intel brought better performance at lower power consumption. They raised the power efficiency with Kaby Lake. What do we see with Pinnacle Ridge? A bit more performance for significantly more power consumption?

Well, according to the link, AMD did increase the average efficiency. Managing the speeds better has that result for intensive tasks. Bursty workloads fare even better with a good turbo management engine. Even if max power and avg power go up in hard numbers, it doesn't not mean efficiency will go down necessarily as well. I'm expecting it to be the same though, but I hope I'm wrong.

So, until the official reviews arrive, the baseline from the magazine leak is:
- slightly better performance.
- slightly better efficiency.

And that is even using an A320 chipset mobo.

Cheers!

2600X consumes ~20% more power than the 1600X, yet it only performs ~9% better in applications.

Even if being put on an X470 motherboard makes the 2600X perform ~10-15% better in applications, it would still be less power efficient.

 

[juanrga]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

CPCHardware: i7 7700k is 6% faster in games than i7 6700k
CPCHardware: R7 2700X is 3% faster in games than R7 1800X

Also Kabylake was much more than "just a higher base frequency": Kabylake did bring 14nm+ node with different pitch, Speed Shift v2, improved graphics cores, Optane, OPI 3.0, faster IMC, lower TDP, higher base/turbo clocks. 4.0/4.0/4.2 GHz --> 4.2/4.4/4.5GHz, and some other thing.

 

[juanrga]

Well, according to the link, AMD did increase the average efficiency. Managing the speeds better has that result for intensive tasks. Bursty workloads fare even better with a good turbo management engine. Even if max power and avg power go up in hard numbers, it doesn't not mean efficiency will go down necessarily as well. I'm expecting it to be the same though, but I hope I'm wrong.

So, until the official reviews arrive, the baseline from the magazine leak is:
- slightly better performance.
- slightly better efficiency.

Review shows a higher increase in power consumption than in performance. So efficiency is not better. But I already commented about this here before the review was out, didn't?

And that is even using an A320 chipset mobo.

I will quote Overclocking in france:

This implies that the CPUs in question had their Precision Boost [Overdrive] disabled, this technology being only on the 400 series motherboards. This does not change much the performances, 1 to 2% as top maximum, and does not change the ratio perf / consumption a bit.

 

[-Fran-]

This is a quote from Guru 3D: "The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency." They had access to all the leaked screenshots.

I'm not going to spend pages and pages trying to convince you (Juan and Gon) about things I'm not 100% sure of how were measured. I'll just wait until Toms, Anands, TechReport and all worthy tech-outlets have their reviews up.

I have my baseline and you two have yours. Measure against the additional data you will get once they're released to the wild.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

This is a quote from Guru 3D: "The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency." They had access to all the leaked screenshots.

I'm not going to spend pages and pages trying to convince you (Juan and Gon) about things I'm not 100% sure of how were measured. I'll just wait until Toms, Anands, TechReport and all worthy tech-outlets have their reviews up.

I have my baseline and you two have yours. Measure against the additional data you will get once they're released to the wild.

The performance and power graphs are public. Efficiency has reduced.

Several sites (including Videocardz and Guru3D) are misreading the performance graphs. Those sites claim that 2700X is 14% faster than 1800X in applications and 4% faster in games. Guru3d also claim it is 4% faster in games. But that is wrong.

161% --> 175% is not 14% faster, it is only 8.7% faster. So Guru3D is miscalculating performance and thus miscalculating efficiency. It is rather embarrassing that tech sites cannot do basic math with percentages.

Gon and me can do basic math.

 

[goldstone77]

I've said in the past that the huge latency deficit Ryzen had vs. Intel was responsible for most of the lower FPS. The improved latency will give Ryzen a bump in gaming.

Despite all the hype about "12nm" and "Zen+" rebrands, the 2700X is only 3% faster in games than the 1800X.

AMD hyped better than Skylake to Kaby lake performance increments, or 6-7% I think were the numbers. Kaby lake was literally just a higher base frequency over Skylake to make it's improvements.

CPCHardware: i7 7700k is 6% faster in games than i7 6700k
CPCHardware: R7 2700X is 3% faster in games than R7 1800X

Also Kabylake was much more than "just a higher base frequency": Kabylake did bring 14nm+ node with different pitch, Speed Shift v2, improved graphics cores, Optane, OPI 3.0, faster IMC, lower TDP, higher base/turbo clocks. 4.0/4.0/4.2 GHz --> 4.2/4.4/4.5GHz, and some other thing.

I understand so, no change in IPC got it!

 

[jdwii]

So PR is very close to what I said. In fact it PR is even worse than I expected and I was expecting very little such as only 200--400MHz extra.

It appears so i mean i even though 300mhz might be possible calling the top model a 2700x instead of the 2800x is just trickery since their is no 2800x but the 1800x exists.

Be like Nvidia making a 2070Ti and have it compete with their 1080Ti and not offer a 2080Ti and trying to hype it up.

 

[gamerk316]

The performance and power graphs are public. Efficiency has reduced.

Several sites (including Videocardz and Guru3D) are misreading the performance graphs. Those sites claim that 2700X is 14% faster than 1800X in applications and 4% faster in games. Guru3d also claim it is 4% faster in games. But that is wrong.

161% --> 175% is not 14% faster, it is only 8.7% faster. So Guru3D is miscalculating performance and thus miscalculating efficiency. It is rather embarrassing that tech sites cannot do basic math with percentages.

Gon and me can do basic math.

Obligatory:

 

[Gon Freecss]

This is a quote from Guru 3D: "The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency." They had access to all the leaked screenshots.

I'm not going to spend pages and pages trying to convince you (Juan and Gon) about things I'm not 100% sure of how were measured. I'll just wait until Toms, Anands, TechReport and all worthy tech-outlets have their reviews up.

I have my baseline and you two have yours. Measure against the additional data you will get once they're released to the wild.

Cheers!

Sure, waiting for the official release would be more optimal, but that's a baseline as you've said.

The performance and power graphs are public. Efficiency has reduced.

Several sites (including Videocardz and Guru3D) are misreading the performance graphs. Those sites claim that 2700X is 14% faster than 1800X in applications and 4% faster in games. Guru3d also claim it is 4% faster in games. But that is wrong.

161% --> 175% is not 14% faster, it is only 8.7% faster. So Guru3D is miscalculating performance and thus miscalculating efficiency. It is rather embarrassing that tech sites cannot do basic math with percentages.

Gon and me can do basic math.

Obligatory:

Uh, that's basic math lol

Baseline is the 7600K, which is 1. The 1800X is 61% faster in applications, which makes it 1.61. The 2700X is is 75% faster, which makes it 1.75. Divide 1.75 by 1.61, and you get a ~8.7% performance difference.

Even with XFR 2 enhanced, and precision boost overdrive, features only available on X470 and B450, it would be slightly faster for a bit more power. Efficiency even on the top PR part is down.

 

[-Fran-]

This is a quote from Guru 3D: "The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency." They had access to all the leaked screenshots.

I'm not going to spend pages and pages trying to convince you (Juan and Gon) about things I'm not 100% sure of how were measured. I'll just wait until Toms, Anands, TechReport and all worthy tech-outlets have their reviews up.

I have my baseline and you two have yours. Measure against the additional data you will get once they're released to the wild.

The performance and power graphs are public. Efficiency has reduced.

Several sites (including Videocardz and Guru3D) are misreading the performance graphs. Those sites claim that 2700X is 14% faster than 1800X in applications and 4% faster in games. Guru3d also claim it is 4% faster in games. But that is wrong.

161% --> 175% is not 14% faster, it is only 8.7% faster. So Guru3D is miscalculating performance and thus miscalculating efficiency. It is rather embarrassing that tech sites cannot do basic math with percentages.

Gon and me can do basic math.

Ehm... "But hey, if the 1080p game performance differential was 10%, we can now shave off another 4%, perhaps with a bit of tweaking a few % more?"

I don't know... You might know math, but it seems you don't know how to read? I mean, 8.7 is closer to 10 than 14, right? But you're good at math, you already know that, right?

I'll just leave the discussion about numbers here, since there's nothing official yet. That is a single page that points to that level of extra performance and I could not find any more information about the pages. Care to share a link?

 

[juanrga]

So PR is very close to what I said. In fact it PR is even worse than I expected and I was expecting very little such as only 200--400MHz extra.

It appears so i mean i even though 300mhz might be possible calling the top model a 2700x instead of the 2800x is just trickery since their is no 2800x but the 1800x exists.

Be like Nvidia making a 2070Ti and have it compete with their 1080Ti and not offer a 2080Ti and trying to hype it up.

In applications the 2700X is 8.7% faster than 1800X, the 2600X is 8.7% faster than 1600X, and the 1600X is 7.7% faster than 1600.

In AMD slides the 2600 replaces 1600, the 2600X replaces the 2600X and the 2700X replaces both the 1700X and the 1800X

AMD is comparing the performance of the 2700X with the 1800X. According to AMD the 2700X is about 5% faster in gaming. According to CPCHardware the 2700X is 3% faster than 1800X in gaming.

Baseline is the 7600K, which is 1. The 1800X is 61% faster in applications, which makes it 1.61. The 2700X is is 75% faster, which makes it 1.75. Divide 1.75 by 1.61, and you get a ~8.7% performance difference.

Even with XFR 2 enhanced, and precision boost overdrive, features only available on X470 and B450, it would be slightly faster for a bit more power. Efficiency even on the top PR part is down.

Correct. One can also directly divide the percentages in the graphs in the review.

175% / 161% = 1.087 <===> 8.7% faster.

Unexpectedly, WCCFTECh adds to the tech sites that don't know basic math. They also claim that the 2700X was 14% faster, when it was only 8.7%

 

[Gon Freecss]

This is a quote from Guru 3D: "The overall latency has improved quite a bit, but so did power efficiency." They had access to all the leaked screenshots.

I'm not going to spend pages and pages trying to convince you (Juan and Gon) about things I'm not 100% sure of how were measured. I'll just wait until Toms, Anands, TechReport and all worthy tech-outlets have their reviews up.

I have my baseline and you two have yours. Measure against the additional data you will get once they're released to the wild.

The performance and power graphs are public. Efficiency has reduced.

Several sites (including Videocardz and Guru3D) are misreading the performance graphs. Those sites claim that 2700X is 14% faster than 1800X in applications and 4% faster in games. Guru3d also claim it is 4% faster in games. But that is wrong.

161% --> 175% is not 14% faster, it is only 8.7% faster. So Guru3D is miscalculating performance and thus miscalculating efficiency. It is rather embarrassing that tech sites cannot do basic math with percentages.

Gon and me can do basic math.

Ehm... "But hey, if the 1080p game performance differential was 10%, we can now shave off another 4%, perhaps with a bit of tweaking a few % more?"

I don't know... You might know math, but it seems you don't know how to read? I mean, 8.7 is closer to 10 than 14, right? But you're good at math, you already know that, right?

I'll just leave the discussion about numbers here, since there's nothing official yet. That is a single page that points to that level of extra performance and I could not find any more information about the pages. Care to share a link?

They were testing games at presumably maximum settings using a GTX 1080, which introduces a GPU bottleneck. Even then, the 8700K bested the 2700X by ~15%. Even the 7700K beat it by ~15%.