AMD Ryzen 7 CPUs Shipping 2 March, Pre-Order Today

[pal666]

I'll wait till the real world catches up with some actual data.

next time do this before posting bullshit

[pal666]

these CPUs also feature a new feature called XFR, which will be an extra turbo which scales way beyond it's turbo target. XFR will be dependent on cooling and sample quality. So when we see these "leaks" of Ryzen at 3.6/4.0, it may in reality be running anywhere from 4.0 to 5.0 GHz due to XFR.

only models ending with x have xfr. so sometimes we know for sure that there was no xfr. and sometimes it was explicitly disabled for tests.

To actually measure IPC, we need to lock the clock frequency and disable any turbo/boost, someone will test this soon.

you are not smarter than everyone else, someone already tested this

it can't live up to the expectations.

garbage in - garbage out

[chithanh]

Michael
If you get your hands on DDR4 ECC memory and an ECC capable AM4 mobo, I would be interested in ECC vs. non-ECC benchmarks to see how much of a performance hit there is.

[castlefox]

I'll be donating/tipping a solid 5 dollars towards Ryzen getting bench marked.

[schmidtbag]

You really want to believe, but their chart is very clear:

i7 7700K (4 cores, 8 threads): 967
Ryzen 7 1700 (8 cores, 16 threads): 1410 (+46%)

I'm not expecting reality to be better than the pre release numbers.

You didn't specify that it was compared to a 7700K. You also haven't provided the source, so we don't know what the test is for. Not that it matters, because:
i7 7700K: 4.2-4.5GHz. Also, $350.
Ryzen 1700: 3.0-3.7GHz. Also, $330.
Whether you're looking at turbo or stock speeds, Ryzen still suggests good IPC. Keep in mind, many tests (particularly ones provided by AMD) did not have turbo speeds enabled on the Ryzen models.

[Slartifartblast]

I'll reserve judgement until they've had their tyres well and truly kicked and the hype has died down, looks good on paper though. The x86 market could really do with some competition.

[carewolf]

According to what? Have you not seen any leaked benchmarks? Even at lower frequencies and lower wattage, the single-threaded performance is directly competitive with Skylake. Sure, we should take leaked benchmarks with a grain of salt, but they're all pretty consistent with each other so far.

AMD isn't dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

They weren't comparing to Skylake, but Broadwell-E (which also has 6xxx numbers, Yay for Intel marketing). Still the difference isn't that big, but I am going to assume Skylake will have slightly better single threaded performance than Ryzen.

[leipero]

AMD don't be cheap, send review sample .

[leipero]

They weren't comparing to Skylake, but Broadwell-E (which also has 6xxx numbers, Yay for Intel marketing). Still the difference isn't that big, but I am going to assume Skylake will have slightly better single threaded performance than Ryzen.

Difference is huge actually, if it does preform as i7 6900K (140W TDP) or close with just 95W, that's night and day difference, AMD clearly have a winner if specs are true (no reason to doubt them), especially at that price point.

[phoronix_anon]

Michael:

I don't know what happened to my last post (lost in moderation), but I would be especially interested in NAMD benchmarks on the new Zen CPUs. In conjunction with some GTX 1080s they could enable economical simulation performance with CUDA enabled NAMD 2.12. There currently isn't much info about NAMD performance on AMD CPUs.