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

[-Fran-]

I've been reading it seems Anadtech numbers are on the right side and Intel suffered a MASSIVE impact with all the patches applied and latest firmwares. I find it hard to believe, but it seems AT will do a follow up to cross check previous results, current and extrapolate from that.

Cheers!

 

[jdwii]

AMD are actually insane. 145W in Cinebench R15 (which is a primitive test) at stock? The 8700K does 90W at stock. What the hell, AMD?

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!

I mean to be honest its a dumb move but at the same time i'd love to play around with one of these. I'm impressed a little with the improvements in games.

 

[Gon Freecss]

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.

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.

No, all the new patches were updated on both platforms. The cooler thing is just nitpicking. It's not gonna increase performance by any meaningful amount, if any.

Intel wins handily if you look at the benchmarks, and well, 2700X's maximum memory support is 2933MHz. They tested 2666 and 2933 to match Intel's 6 cores and then increase it to what it officially supports.

It matters because he knows how it works, and he has all the updates on both platforms too. Anyhow, if you don't think a 12% difference, a 20% difference, and a 23% difference in the games he tested respectively at stock is a crushing win for Intel, then I don't know what is. Especially since the 2700X consumes more power than the 8700K.

 

[goldstone77]

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review
Zen+ Is Here, Benchmarked
By Steven Walton on April 19, 2018
https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/

Spoiler

@Gon Freecss I don't see a crushing win for Intel on any of these benchmarks! I see the 2700X and 8700K trading blows for most of the apps with no clear overall winner. Tom's Hardware review shows even less of an advantage in games showing the 8700K tying the 2700X to within 3-4FPS difference using a GTX 1080@1080p. Only real advantage Intel has in niche 144HZ gaming, which in most games the 2700X performs more than adequately. All resolutions beyond 1080 it's a tie or just academic(meaning no perceivable quality difference). In a previous post I showed the 2700X with a 1080Ti running Rise of the Tomb Raider. It performs flawless. Looking at Gamersnexus we see that the 2700X also is superior to the 8700K for streaming! Over all the 2700X is cheaper, and comes with a decent cooler making it the better price to performance buy over the 8700K hands down!

 

[goldstone77]

AMD Borrows Intel’s Business Plan – Ryzen 2 Review
Linus Tech Tips
Published on Apr 19, 2018
Productivity Apps Testing 2700X start at this time.
https://youtu.be/petB-pNCudc?t=228

 

[Gon Freecss]

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600X Review
Zen+ Is Here, Benchmarked
By Steven Walton on April 19, 2018
https://www.techspot.com/review/1613-amd-ryzen-2700x-2600x/

Spoiler

@Gon Freecss I don't see a crushing win for Intel on any of these benchmarks! I see the 2700X and 8700K trading blows for most of the apps with no clear overall winner. Tom's Hardware review shows even less of an advantage in games showing the 8700K tying the 2700X to within 3-4FPS difference using a GTX 1080@1080p. Only real advantage Intel has in niche 144HZ gaming, which in most games the 2700X performs more than adequately. All resolutions beyond 1080 it's a tie or just academic(meaning no perceivable quality difference). In a previous post I showed the 2700X with a 1080Ti running Rise of the Tomb Raider. It performs flawless. Looking at Gamersnexus we see that the 2700X also is superior to the 8700K for streaming! Over all the 2700X is cheaper, and comes with a decent cooler making it the better price to performance buy over the 8700K hands down!

Yes, the difference is still substantial. Even in games that use 8 cores and 16 threads, the stock 8700K wins by double digit percentages while consuming less power. Also, the 8700K is better in encoding.

And about streaming, they're effectively equal. Only in GN's torturous run that it falls behind the 2700X, but that's to be expected. It's impressive the 8700K is on par with the 2700X in actual realistic streaming conditions despite having 2 fewer cores.

 

[goldstone77]

Ryzen 7 2700X vs. 1700X vs. i7 8700K | Value Reigns Supreme!
Science Studio
Published on Apr 19, 2018
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernWiKkwe1M"][/video]

Yeah, this is not what crushing it looks like! This is what competitive looks like!

 

[Gon Freecss]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore. Even with that, beats it in every single title and even by close to 15% in the graphs above. Use a GTX 1080 Ti, or even better, wait for the new Nvidia GPUs and you'll see how Intel crushes.

 

[randomizer]

I wish more reviews tested noise from the Wraith Prism. I haven't found any reviews other than Tom's Hardware's one that even mention it.

 

[goldstone77]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore.

And unless you are using a $500+ video card you won't see much a difference? hmmm.... 144HZ niche! But extremely competitive with apps trading blows with a 8700K, while being cheaper and coming with a decent CPU cooler! I'll say it again the 2700X is the price to performance winner!

 

[goldstone77]

I wish more reviews tested noise from the Wraith Prism. I haven't found any reviews other than Tom's Hardware's one that even mention it.

I will keep an eye out for that specifically! I haven't noticed anyone really talking about it. Paul's hardware tested the 2700X with the cooler it came with like every other reviewer. Some said they switched it out when overclocking for a better cooling solution.

 

[Gon Freecss]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore.

And unless you are using a $500+ video card you won't see much a difference? hmmm.... 144HZ niche! But extremely competitive with apps trading blows with a 8700K, while being cheaper and coming with a decent CPU cooler! I'll say it again the 2700X is the price to performance winner!

There's a difference, you can see it above, but yes. You need faster GPUs to harness the power of the 8600K/8700K. Also, they cost the same. And the CPU cooler can't take an overclocked 2700X.

Trading blows with a processor that has two fewer cores in applications? Impressive on the 8700K's part. Also, the 8700K consumes less power, so that's an another win.

Wait until new GPUs are out, and you'll see a big disparity.

 

[goldstone77]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore. Even with that, beats it in every single title and even by close to 15% in the graphs above. Use a GTX 1080 Ti, or even better, wait for the new Nvidia GPUs and you'll see how Intel crushes.

beats it in every single title and even by close to 15% in the graphs above.

First game first
GTA V 6FPS difference 4.32% not 15%
PUBG 6FPS difference 4.62% not 15%
Fortnite 20FPS difference 12.05% not 15%
F1 2017 19FPS 10.92% difference not 15%
ROTR 20.39FPS 11.52% difference not 15%
Battlefield 1 4FPS 2.67% difference not 15%
Planet Coaster 7FPS 6.87% differnce not 15%
Witcher 3 8FPS 6.67% difference not 15%
Still not crushing it! Highly competitive when using a FTW 1070Ti!

 

[juanrga]

AMD are actually insane. 145W in Cinebench R15 (which is a primitive test) at stock? The 8700K does 90W at stock. What the hell, AMD?

The reviews that first demonstrated that AMD lied about the TDPs of 1800X/1700X and 1700 (real TDPs are 128W, 128W, and 90W) confirm that 2700X and 2600X real TDPs aren't 105W and 95W. Instead translating from French, I will just quote The Stilt, whom reviewed the 2700X and found the same

Personally, I think that AMD should have rated these CPUs for 140W TDP instead of the 105W rating they ended up with.

He also proved other things such as that "Zen+" is identical to the Zen cores in Pinnacle Ridge, EPYC and ThreadRipper, as I have been saying during months and that Glofo claims about 12LP are very far from true.

Glofo did claim that 12LP provides >10% performance gain at ISO power, but he measured

In 2.0 - 4.0GHz frequency range the difference in performance at ISO(metric) power peaks at 4.4% (~3.75GHz), while the average improvement through the entire range is 3.65%.

Indeed, as I said 12LP is just a marketing rebrand for 14nm+, i.e. a mere tweaking and improvement of the original 14LPP. Seeing is believing

 

[juanrga]

The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM EST
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600

I didn't read all the reviews still, but the five that I did, Anandtech is the worse and by a large margin. The whole review is full of nonsensical statements and numbers.

 

[Gon Freecss]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore. Even with that, beats it in every single title and even by close to 15% in the graphs above. Use a GTX 1080 Ti, or even better, wait for the new Nvidia GPUs and you'll see how Intel crushes.

beats it in every single title and even by close to 15% in the graphs above.

First game first
GTA V 6FPS difference 4.32% not 15%
PUBG 6FPS difference 4.62% not 15%
Fortnite 20FPS difference 12.05% not 15%
F1 2017 19FPS 10.92% difference not 15%
ROTR 20.39FPS 11.52% difference not 15%
Battlefield 1 4FPS 2.67% difference not 15%
Planet Coaster 7FPS 6.87% differnce not 15%
Witcher 3 8FPS 6.67% difference not 15%
Still not crushing it! Highly competitive when using a FTW 1070Ti!

Close to 15% in the biggest gap in the graphs above is what I meant. And anyway, the 1070 Ti comes with no boost and a low base clock. Chug in a GTX 1080 Ti, and use high settings, and the difference would be much larger.

Ryzen is fine for up to 100Hz. 120Hz and above, Intel is better.

 

[goldstone77]

GTX 1070 Ti and running some games at maximum settings? GPU bottleneck galore.

And unless you are using a $500+ video card you won't see much a difference? hmmm.... 144HZ niche! But extremely competitive with apps trading blows with a 8700K, while being cheaper and coming with a decent CPU cooler! I'll say it again the 2700X is the price to performance winner!

There's a difference, you can see it above, but yes. You need faster GPUs to harness the power of the 8600K/8700K. Also, they cost the same. And the CPU cooler can't take an overclocked 2700X.

Trading blows with a processor that has two fewer cores in applications? Impressive on the 8700K's part. Also, the 8700K consumes less power, so that's an another win.

Wait until new GPUs are out, and you'll see a big disparity.

No, they don't cost the same! 2700X is cheaper and comes with a CPU cooler, the 8700K is more expensive and you have to buy a CPU cooler! Here is a picture and links to the prices!

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Processor with Wraith Prism LED Cooler - YD270XBGAFBOX Price:$329.99 Free Shipping for Prime Members
Intel Core i7-8700K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.7GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W Have to buy your own cooler BX80684i78700K List Price:$379.00 Price:$347.06 You Save:$31.94 (8%)

Wait until new GPUs are out, and you'll see a big disparity.

Better luck next time?

 

[-Fran-]

I wish more reviews tested noise from the Wraith Prism. I haven't found any reviews other than Tom's Hardware's one that even mention it.

Now that you mention it, I haven't read anything about it either. There's the original review of the Wraith done by Toms or AT, IIRC. I'll edit when I find it.

EDIT: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-wraith-cpu-cooler,4450.html
EDIT2: https://www.anandtech.com/show/10500/stock-cooler-roundup-intel-amd-vs-evo-212

And unless you are using a $500+ video card you won't see much a difference? hmmm.... 144HZ niche! But extremely competitive with apps trading blows with a 8700K, while being cheaper and coming with a decent CPU cooler! I'll say it again the 2700X is the price to performance winner!

Overall value is still the i5 8400 though. That thing runs in circles around both the i7 8700K and 2700X fellas. And it does include a cooler, I think.

In any case, I think fine tuning the RAM for the 2700X will yield interesting gains that not all reviews have investigated too deeply into yet. So I do think there's still performance to be found in the 2700X that doesn't involve OC'ing; well, the CPU, that is.

Cheers!

 

[Gon Freecss]

AMD are actually insane. 145W in Cinebench R15 (which is a primitive test) at stock? The 8700K does 90W at stock. What the hell, AMD?

The reviews that first demonstrated that AMD lied about the TDPs of 1800X/1700X and 1700 (real TDPs are 128W, 128W, and 90W) confirm that 2700X and 2600X real TDPs aren't 105W and 95W. Instead translating from French, I will just quote The Stilt, whom reviewed the 2700X and found the same

Personally, I think that AMD should have rated these CPUs for 140W TDP instead of the 105W rating they ended up with.

He also proved other things such as that "Zen+" is identical to the Zen cores in Pinnacle Ridge, EPYC and ThreadRipper, as I have been saying during months and that Glofo claims about 12LP are very far from true.

Glofo did claim that 12LP provides >10% performance gain at ISO power, but he measured

In 2.0 - 4.0GHz frequency range the difference in performance at ISO(metric) power peaks at 4.4% (~3.75GHz), while the average improvement through the entire range is 3.65%.

Indeed, as I said 12LP is just a marketing rebrand for 14nm+, i.e. a mere tweaking and improvement of the original 14LPP. Seeing is believing

AMD are straight up lying about their products. What a shameful tactic.

Oh, so the "Zen+" core is the same? The 3% IPC increase comes from only cache/memory latency improvements?

The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM EST
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600

I didn't read all the reviews still, but the five that I did, Anandtech is the worse and by a large margin. The whole review is full of nonsensical statements and numbers.

Anand's gaming benchmarks are one of the worst. Their review above is full of errors.

Check that for example.

 

[goldstone77]

Close to 15% in the biggest gap in the graphs above is what I meant. And anyway, the 1070 Ti comes with no boost and a low base clock. Chug in a GTX 1080 Ti, and use high settings, and the difference would be much larger.

Ryzen is fine for up to 100Hz. 120Hz and above, Intel is better.

So, basically, unless you are buying a ~$900 1080Ti you won't see much difference... Hmmm!!! 2700X best price to performance hands down!

 

[juanrga]

Using HFR review as reference I expect the next average performance for Pinnacle Ridge:

2700X ~ 312
2600X ~ 246
2600 ~ 228

So ~10% increase in performance in all-average? Sounds about right.

Decomposing that, it should be 5% clock, 4% memory shenanigans and 1% HOPES, TEARS AND DREAMS!

But in all seriousness, even being a bit overly pessimistic, 10% sounds too good even by just the clocks and memory bumps.

The review is out. No 2600 at launch. Only 2700X and 2600X

So Pinnacle Ridge is 2--3% better than I expected

 

[-Fran-]

Spoiler

The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM EST
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600

I didn't read all the reviews still, but the five that I did, Anandtech is the worse and by a large margin. The whole review is full of nonsensical statements and numbers.

Spoiler

Using HFR review as reference I expect the next average performance for Pinnacle Ridge:

2700X ~ 312
2600X ~ 246
2600 ~ 228

So ~10% increase in performance in all-average? Sounds about right.

Decomposing that, it should be 5% clock, 4% memory shenanigans and 1% HOPES, TEARS AND DREAMS!

But in all seriousness, even being a bit overly pessimistic, 10% sounds too good even by just the clocks and memory bumps.

The review is out. No 2600 at launch. Only 2700X and 2600X

So Pinnacle Ridge is 2--3% better than I expected

And that is good news for everyone.

Also, cut AT some slack; they are reviewing their numbers, so there's a followup to be had soon.

I don't think the 2700X is a bad mid-gap until they get Zen v2 out. Just like the i7 8700K is not a bad mid-gap until Intel releases Ice Lake, right?

We should all be happy AMD is heading in the right direction.

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

No, they don't cost the same! 2700X is cheaper and comes with a CPU cooler, the 8700K is more expensive and you have to buy a CPU cooler! Here is a picture and links to the prices!

And here we go again, quoting pricing from one store and claiming that one chip is more expensive than other as if that is an universal truth. Do I need again to give prices from another store (one relevant to me) where the 2700X (324.90€) is more expensive than the 8700K (314.90€)?

https://www.pccomponentes.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-37ghz-box
https://www.pccomponentes.com/procesador-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-43-ghz

 

[goldstone77]

No, they don't cost the same! 2700X is cheaper and comes with a CPU cooler, the 8700K is more expensive and you have to buy a CPU cooler! Here is a picture and links to the prices!

And here we go again, quoting pricing from one store and claiming that one chip is more expensive than other as if that is an universal truth. Do I need again to give prices from another store (one relevant to me) where the 2700X (324.90€) is more expensive than the 8700K (314.90€)?

https://www.pccomponentes.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-37ghz-box
https://www.pccomponentes.com/procesador-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-43-ghz

Technically, the 8700K is still more expensive since you have to buy a CPU cooler for it as well!

 

[juanrga]

No, they don't cost the same! 2700X is cheaper and comes with a CPU cooler, the 8700K is more expensive and you have to buy a CPU cooler! Here is a picture and links to the prices!

And here we go again, quoting pricing from one store and claiming that one chip is more expensive than other as if that is an universal truth. Do I need again to give prices from another store (one relevant to me) where the 2700X (324.90€) is more expensive than the 8700K (314.90€)?

https://www.pccomponentes.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-37ghz-box
https://www.pccomponentes.com/procesador-amd-ryzen-7-2700x-43-ghz

Technically, the 8700K is still more expensive since you have to buy a CPU cooler for it as well!

Unless you have already one, but that wasn't the point.