Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[Videocardz] How fast is Ryzen?

70K views 897 replies 171 participants last post by  mcg75 
#1 ·
See less See more
2
#2 ·
Depends on how hard you throw it...
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

Depends on how hard you throw it...
:::doo doo dat:::

wheee.gif
.. well, pretty tasty considering they are showing a 4 ghz 8 core for half the price of a 6900k. Finally the market will get shaken up.
 
#4 ·
Looks to be around 10% slower per clock.

This is about what I expected it to be.

I also expect Intel's chips to clock around 10% higher...

All in all 8 core Ryzen vs 6 Core i7 will be an interesting fight - 20% faster since threaded performance from Intel. 20% faster multi-threaded performance from AMD.

We'll see if that ends up being the reality. I place very little faith in the current speculation which is out there.
 
#7 ·
Looks right in line with all the other leaked benchmarks we have seen so far, per-core strength nearly identical to Broadwell. Ryzen is really going to live or die on how well it can be overclocked. If the quad/hex-cores can reliably get into the 4.5ghz+ range, we have a winner.
 
#8 ·
As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducegt View Post

As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.
Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by variant View Post

The turbo boost is in the CPU ID. 3.4 for the 4 core and 3.7 for the 6 core.
I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Game256 View Post

Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.
No such thing as enough. A 20FPS difference between 90 and 110 is no big deal, but it makes a big difference down the road when comparing 30FPS with 50.
 
#17 ·
  • Rep+
Reactions: ForNever
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post

hmm, run a quick test there.
For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824
oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xuper View Post

oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177
Yup
redface.gif
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TopicClocker View Post

This is amazing! Glad to see such a competitive CPU from AMD again!
Yup, the hype is real it seems.
 
#23 ·
If all we have is true so far any future build for others or myself will likely be based off the platform.
 
#25 ·
On mobile but I'd guess total score divided by number of cores?
 
#26 ·
AMD Ryzen: ZD3201BBM4KF4_34/32_Y - Quad-Core CPU at 3.2Gh = 10177 (with 2544 Per core)

Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.2Ghz = 14208 (with 3552 Per core)

Intel Core i7-7700K at 4.8Ghz = 15571 (with 3893 Per core)

If AMD Quad Core gets 4.8Gz => (4.8/3.2 ) * (2544) = 3816 Per Core

Is My math Correct ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top