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

Page 68 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
VH9OapR.png

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9XLzgvNzY0NTA0L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9OL1UvNzY1NDk4L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9XL0QvNzY0NTA5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9XL0wvNzY0NTE3L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9ZL1YvNzY0NTk5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9XL04vNzY0NTE5L29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen
by Paul Alcorn April 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html
 


At the 12V line? Why is that so wrong? I rather they take most of the power from the 12V instead the 3.3V like Intel does.

Cheers!
 
Doubt it.

AnandTech gaming benchmarks are borked. Look at other sites.
 
I've been reading a lot of reviews and the settings and options are all over the place. You guys will need patience to digest all the configs used and try your hardest to make sense of the data.

Partiuclarly: Toms applied some patches and left the equivalent of Intel's MCE off. Anand's results applied *all* patches and did not disable or enable anything, but used different speed RAM for Intel (slower). TechReport is still testing, so their results are incomplete (EDIT: they also applied all patches available to them, but did not make a clear distinction on how).

And so on... We could compile a little list of "caveats" for each review we notice and try to make sense of the data when presented.

EDIT: Gizmodo (yeah, i know, lol) tested with everything default and everything updated to latest patches, but only pittied 2660X and 8600K. No OC or anything else.

Cheers!
 
If you're gonna apply patches to Intel, you're going to have to do that to AMD. GamersNexus did that, and the results are nothing like AnandTech's. The results are certainly incorrect.

Look at every other website. Gaming wise, Intel still crushes.

Also, it looks like AMD is playing the long con here. 105W "145W" 2700X and 95W "125W" 2600X pitted against 95W "95W" 8700K and 95W "75W" 8600K. Huh.
 


Er... Power consumption is not TDP. Don't fall into that.

Also, the fine print of these are important to note, since the patches for Spectre and Meltdown do have an impact on performance. Those need to be taken into account when reading the results.

And "crushes"? I have to disagree there. Most results are pretty damn similar in all reviews. The i7 8700K only takes the un-disputed lead when OC'ed or the Turbo has room to stretch its legs. If you take a look at frame times and minimum frames, you can also note that AMD is slightly better.

Cheers!
 
2nd Gen AMD Ryzen: The Ultimate CPU for Gamers, Creators, and Enthusiasts
Posted by rhallock Employee in Gaming on Apr 19, 2018 8:03:15 AM
A Radeon™ Vega64 GPU with a Nixeus NX-EDG27 (2560x1440 + 144Hz Radeon FreeSync™)
A GeForce GTX 1080 with an Alienware AW3418DW (3440x1440 + 120Hz G-SYNC)


That kind of hardware shows you that gaming performance is what matters most to me. So, when I objectively consider the results from an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X versus the Core i7-8700K on a system like mine, the performance is virtually identical. In fact, across the 12 games you see below, the average difference is only 1%.1 I play Overwatch regularly, and I just (finally!) started Rise of the Tomb Raider, so I know the Ryzen 7 2700X will enable the gaming performance I want on the high-end hardware that I already have.
pastedImage_0.png

pastedImage_0.png

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2018/04/19/2nd-gen-amd-ryzen-the-ultimate-cpu-for-gamers-creators-and-enthusiasts?sf187321355=1
 
1, 2.

Intel still dominates.
 
While Intel's gaming FPS is slightly higher at 1080p for some games using high end graphics cards it is still beyond the point of diminishing returns. Any resolution higher that 1080p, and it's a draw. 2700X is cheaper and scores significantly better on a number of content creation apps/benchmarks compared to the 8700k.
 


TT doesn't list anything in their methodology, including patches. They also used the bundled Wraith cooler for the tests, so that leaves me to wonder how the Intel side was cooled. Probably the CLCs from previous reviews? In fact, their 8700 is all over the place.

GN didn't mention if they applied patches either. And they even used 2 MoBos for tests... I don't even know where to start, lol. Not the best review they've done, TBH.

But it's important to note these things. Keep them coming.

An overall sentiment here, is a lot of sites that reviewed today rushed their publications. That is weird and takes a lot of professionalism from them. Toms is the only review I've read so far that doesn't have a "we're not done yet" caveat!

Cheers!
 

Tweaktown does not disclose it's test setup for Intel products.
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8602/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-5-2600x-review/index5.html
 
Test setup.

GamersNexus had the chips for a month. He did not rush his reviews or anything, and he has all patches applied. He stated so in his video.

Also, you have this. Although, they tested with ultra settings, which introduces more GPU bottleneck. Still shows Intel dominating.

Toms test with only a GTX 1080 and with maximum settings. GPU bottleneck galore.

[url=https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8363/intel-core-i7-8700k-i5-8400-coffee-lake-cpu-review/index2.html]Test setup[/url].
 

That link does not take us to the Ryzen Review... And those scores are running on outdated patches:
Intel Core i7-8700K and i5-8400 Coffee Lake CPU Review By: Steven Bassiri | Intel CPUs in CPUs, Chipsets & SoCs | Posted: Oct 5, 2017 1:01 pm

Cooler: Corsair H115i AIO Water Cooler
Memory: Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (2x 8GB)

Corsair Dominator Platinum(lowest latency RAM money can buy) and a Water Cooler(great for constant turbo speeds)!

Edit: I also can't find the RAM speed and timings on that website.
 
TridentZ is better. And anyway, keep up with the excuses.

Incorrect chart.

 


So the Intel system was using a CLC and the AMD setup used the boxed cooler with the patches only applied on the AMD side. Come on...

That Polish review points out that Ryzen get better performance with speedier RAM and it's very close to Intel as well. Like I said, the word "crushes" is hardly accurate. The term "edges out" is a better reflection of all that I've seen around. OC being it's own different matter that does make the difference grow a lot.

And with GN... Why does it matter he had the CPU for a month? He switched MoBos and had different patches applied; he could've had the CPU for 2 years prior using dark powers given by his long hair and it would still make the same impression to me: using 2 MoBos for the test makes it less "apples to apples". Changing the underneath config does affect the numbers at the end of the day.

I'll stop here until I've read a bit more, but I do like what I'm seeing so far.

Cheers!

EDIT: Typos.
 
AMD R7 2700 & 2700X Review: Streaming Benchmarks, Memory Scaling, & Volt-Frequency Performance
By Steve Burke Published April 19, 2018 at 9:00 am


Ryzen 2 Minimum Stable Voltage to Hold a Frequency
Our review begins by discussing the most immediate improvement in the new Ryzen CPUs, which is the lowest stable voltage at a given frequency. The frequency curve for Ryzen is somewhat exponential, in that a 4.2GHz clock might take 1.38V to 1.4V to sustain, but a 4.3GHz clock takes beyond acceptable safe voltages in our testing.
To this end, we found that, at a given frequency of 4.0GHz, our R7 2700X held stable at 1.175V input at LLC level 4, which equated to 1.162V VCore at SVI2 TFN. The result was stability in Blender and Prime95 with torturous FFTs, while measuring at about 129W power consumption in Blender. For this same test, our 1700 at 4.0GHz required a 1.425V input at LLC level 5, yielding a 1.425VCore, a 201W power draw – so 70W higher – and pushed thermals to 79 degrees Tdie. That’s up from 57.8 degrees Tdie at the same ambient.
Prime95 produced similar results, but you can find those in the article below.

Lower voltage for a given frequency also means lower power consumption for the same frequency. To some extent, this is binning – but most of that large delta is from improvement of the product’s clock efficiency at the “old” high clocks of 4.0GHz. To get to 4.2GHz and beyond, granted, does take over 1.42V on our chip. It’s a significant, nearly exponential curve to increase frequency by a couple hundred megahertz. We found 4.3 to be impossible to sustain on 3 of our CPUs that we’ve tested.
cx0x8xb.png

8_stream-pubg-ryzen2-streamer.png

9_stream-pubg-ryzen2-viewer.png

11_stream-dota2-ryzen2-streamer.png

12_stream-dota2-ryzen2-viewer.png
Power Testing – AMD R7 2700(X) Power Draw
This is where it gets a bit interesting for AMD. AMD’s version of “TDP” isn’t comparable to Intel’s. You can’t point to a 95W TDP on the 8700K and compare it to a 95W TDP on the 1700X. The numbers are reached in different ways.

For AMD, TDP is calculated by subtracting 42 from 61.8 and dividing by 0.189. Those numbers are derived from the following: AMD claims that the “optimal” tCase temperature is 61.8 degrees, hence 61.8. AMD also says the optimal ambient temperature at entrance to the heatsink fan is 42 degrees at the inlet. They also say that the minimum degrees per Watt rating of a heatsink to achieve rated performance should be 0.189 thermal resistance.
22_power-cinebench-nt.png

23_power-cinebench-1t.png
For power testing, Cinebench multithreaded positions the 2700X stock CPU at 143W consumption when left to full auto settings, or 192W when overclocked to 4.2GHz and 1.4V. The 1700X stock operated at 113W multithreaded. Single-threaded, the 2700X operated at about 46W on the X470 board, or 37W on the X370 board. The 1700X ran at 43W on X470 and 37W on X370. Remember that this is more a factor of the BIOS and board vendor.
24_power-phys.png

For 3DMark Physics, we measured 80W for the stock 1700X, 110W for the overclocked 1700X, and 100-106W for the stock 2700X. Overclocking pushed us to 130W on the 2700X.
Conclusion
First of all: If you’ve skipped here, and if you haven’t seen the video or read the article, you waive your right to complain about anything said in the conclusion. Go read or watch the rest. We don’t retype everything in our conclusion for people who skip ahead. The entire article is the conclusion.

Working our way from neutral to the rest: If you already own Ryzen 1 systems and you are considering upgrading, don’t bother. Skip this generation. Performance-wise, it’s not a huge climb, and a trivial OC can get most of it.

But raw performance is sort of the wrong way to look at Ryzen 2. The performance improvement is in voltage at a given frequency, which is now sustainable at a much lower value than previously. At 4.0GHz, power consumption is pulled down significantly, voltage requirement is pulled down significantly, and thermals (obviously) are pulled down. This is where AMD made its gains. Frequency is unexciting. We wanted 4.5GHz, and that didn’t come close to happening. All of our chips are stuck at 4.2GHz, maybe 4.25 (on ambient).

What we got instead was a massive uplift in volt-frequency curves, and that’s important.

As for purchase or upgrade considerations for those who don’t presently own a Ryzen CPU, the R7 2000 series parts seem fine. You’ve got all the charts above – make a decision from those. We’d recommend the non-X CPUs (e.g. 2700), as the R7 2700X basically just pre-overclocks for you. That’s not difficult, and is something that can be done in moments while saving $30. The same is true for the 2600(X), but we’ll talk about that in our next piece. We’d recommend the R7 2700 (with an OC) for anyone who needs the CPU to render, but can’t afford HEDT parts. An example of this use case would be project files that exceed available GPU memory, as system memory is more readily expanded in greater volume. We’d also recommend the R7 2700(X) for anyone who might be streaming daily, perhaps as a job or one-day-job, if handling processing on the local system that also handles the gaming. We would recommend the 8700K for a flat-out gaming PC, as it is hands-down the best gaming performer. The 8700K and 2700X oppose one another well; they each fill a role where the other falls behind: The 2700X exceeds 8700K raw performance in game streaming and 3D rendering; the 8700K exceeds the 2700X in raw gaming. Pick based on your needs.

We’re working on some major volt-frequency content with thermals, so check back for that.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3287-amd-r7-2700-and-2700x-review-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory
 
Well, looks like in Linux its advantage is a bit more notorious, maybe because of the lack of demanding games? XD

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-2600x-2700x&num=1

According to Michael, the new Zen v1.5 is pretty good overall and he didn't have a single issue with it, which seems to be a first, so that is great to read. That being said, some commentators are reporting weird issues still, so it might be a "luck of the draw" again. I wish there were more sites that do Linux, sigh...

They're running all latest updates for the kernel (4.16.2 stable) and latest official release for their Ubuntu.

EDIT2: https://techreport.com/news/33540/der8auer-and-asus-took-a-ryzen-7-2700x-to-6-ghz

The final "pro tip" is the kicker IMO. It's interesting how he approached the OC.

Cheers!

EDIT: Typos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.