Salut Doc Teraboule! They are not bad at all, if true. Huge grain of salt though, as always.
Keep in mind that the 6900K should be our point of reference, since it is also an 8 core CPU. The other is that the 6900K costs approximately $1050 USD on Newegg right now.
https://www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-19-117-645
The rumors are that Ryzen is going to be $350 USD for the 8 core and apparently $500 USD for a binned 8 core variant. Keep in mind that the motherboards for X370 on AMD are likely to be cheaper as well than X99. Zen isn't going to be the "absolute best" for those trashing on this, but it's going to be a "good enough" solution at a competitive price. That's the whole idea - price to performance and marketshare.
From a price to performance POV, that's not bad at all considering the IPC. They made their 40% IPC targets and actually exceeded them. It's close to what I expected Zen to be at.
- Computer performance: 193.4 / 168.7 = 14.64 % for 6900K advantage
- Gaming performance: 107.4 / 997.3 = 10.38 % for 6900K advantage
- Power consumption: As in the demo, the Ryzen uses a bit less energy, 3.22% to be exact versus the 6900K.
Edit: Of course this doesn't take into account clockspeed differences (
we need to know what the release clockspeeds will be). New information was released after this post in regards to clockspeed; will update in a post below.
The power consumption is impressive considering the Intel CPU is at 14nm and the AMD CPU is using a 14/20nm hybrid processes from Samsung made by Global Foundries. They are measuring from the ATX 12V connector as well. I would like measurements from the way,, but power consumption looks good.
It's possible that the compute performance is being weighed down by the a slow AVX implementation. I'd be very interested to see the AVX and non-AVX split, then the AVX split between AVX128 (like on Sandy Bridge) and AVX256 (introduced with Haswell).
As Blameless noted, this is pretty close to launch. We are either at release stepping or near that. Maybe a respin might give slightly higher clocks but that is it. The IPC is acceptable, and there is the possibility that this is the release clock or that it is slightly faster (not much faster this close to release silicon).
The only question is the OC headroom. It's not as good as Haswell, but if these benchmarks are true, we're at the point where it is "good enough". If it does go over 4 GHz, then it is actually a pretty good deal, if they price it they way we expect them to.
I'm actually optimistic too for the Zen Opterons. If they price it a bit aggressively (which they will), the Naples platform with its 8 channel memory controller may steal some marketshare from Intel and give AMD some much needed cash. I suspect that it is just 4 dual channel memory controllers together connected via a high speed MCM link. It's kind of like what Intel did for their HCC dies, only on separate chips. I wonder though how fast the MCM links are for Naples. That's a really interesting question.
Merci beaucoup for posting this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CriticalOne
I don't really know why people expected different. Single core performance is still the biggest factor that determines how well a CPU performs in games.
With DX11, that is the case, because DX11 can only access one core from the GPU.
DX12 does change that, so it is no longer an assurance. So too do the games that use Vulkan.