Overclock.net banner

[WCCF] AMD Ryzen 5 1600X CPU-Z Benchmark

77K views 675 replies 173 participants last post by  DaaQ 
#1 ·
Quote:
The latest AMD Ryzen benchmarks are here, showcasing the performance of the 6 core, 12 threaded SKU. The performance leak was posted over at Chinese forums and not only shows a 6 core processor with in the leakers hand, but also an 4 core Ryzen chip.
Ryzen 5 1600X or Ryzen 5 1500?:




See post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1623472/wccf-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-z-benchmark/50_50#post_25851015
Quote:
For comparison purposes, we used a Core i5-7600K running in our test rig and loaded the same CPU-z version (v1.78.1 x64). The quad core (non hyper-threaded) chip achieved a score of 2130 in single-threaded and 8206 in multi-threaded

Quote:
We can note here that the Zen processor has lower single-threaded performance than the Kaby Lake chip which is clocked at a higher frequency of 3.8 GHz. The AMD rig was using 16 GB of DDR4 memory like our test rig but we don't know the exact clock speeds. Our test rig was running DDR4 ram clocked at 3600 MHz.
AMD Ryzen 5 1300:


http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cpu-benchmark-leak/

EDIT: WCCF has added more scores for comparison: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-leaked-benchmarks-analyzed-faster-intels-fastest-6-core/

Single Core Performance

Quote:
We've borrowed the above graph from Guru3D and added the Ryzen 5 1600X to it for the purpose of comparing it with the current roster of high-end CPUs. Assuming that Turbo wasn't disabled and the chip was boosting to 3.7Ghz+ (with XFR) it actually manages to outpace both of Intel's 6 core Broadwell-E chips. Including the fastest SKU on the market, the i7 6850K which has a boost clock speed of 4.0Ghz with Intel's Turbo Boost 3.0 technology. The Ryzen 5 1600X establishes a very impressive lead here. Outperforming every stock clocked Intel Broadwell-E chip.
Multi Core Performance

Quote:
Once again the Ryzen 5 1600X manages to outperform every other six core Intel chip out there and even manages to close in on the $999 8 core i7 5960X Extreme Edition Haswell-E flagship. This is an incredible showing for the 1600X. Especially when we consider that it's a $259 chip that's outperforming Intel's $600+ i7 6850K in both the single and multi-core CPU-Z benchmarks. It's going to be very interesting to see how these numbers translate to productivity or gaming performance. Suffice to say, we can't wait!
Cinebench R15 numbers from these articles: http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak & http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-1600x-cinebench-r15-performance-confirmed





And Multicore:


 
See less See more
11
#4 ·
There is a comparison on reddit already.
Your 6700K @ 4GHz seems slow, very slow.
My 4690K @ 4.5GHz is around 2050/7950 which gives better ST/MT effectiveness per core than your Skylake. Maybe your RAM is slow, very slow, dunno how much CPUz is RAM sensitive.

The 1600X is running IMHO with XFR, 3.8GHz or so in ST, 3.6 even in MT, which puts it below Skylake in ST which where we know it should be, in MT it's better in this simple bench.
 
#5 ·
If the 1600x is a good overclocker then sayonara i7.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

There is a comparison on reddit already.
Your 6700K @ 4GHz seems slow, very slow.
My 4690K @ 4.5GHz is around 2050/7950 which gives better ST/MT effectiveness per core than your Skylake. Maybe your RAM is slow, very slow, dunno how much CPUz is RAM sensitive.
It is slow, CPU-Z bench has the 6700k listed as 2031 Single and 8554 Multi at stock [4.0/4.2]

I'm also running on a B150 board atm with 2133Mhz CL 11 mem and a daily (semi-bloated OS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
Very true this.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.
SSD to M.2 (Desktop)


SSD to SSD
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Aren't they also masking the true potential of the chip by simultaneously copying almost six thousand items to the desktop (not to mention eventually something else we can't see)?
I doubt it, but feel free to test yourself how much copying files hurts your CPU performance in CPUz bench. Having monitoring software in background such as HWiNFO, does hurt every time everywhere though.
Here's the thing, the AV kicks in and the Windows Explorer's usage also rises. In my case the AV uses between 2 and 9% of the CPU, on average around 5%, and the Windows Explorer 1% - 2%. Considering that Windows 10 has an AV built-in, and those files will most likely be from outside the computer, I guess it will kick in. Heck, mine kicked in and I was just copying files from the HDD to the SSD.
 
#12 ·
And how do you know that the test wasn't finished before he started to copy stuff? Also, how do we know at what frequency was the test ran? They show 3.6GHz in another screenshot but that doesn't prove much, if anything. As every chinese leak out there this test shows nothing concrete.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainzor View Post

And how do you know that the test wasn't finished before he started to copy stuff? Also, how do we know at what frequency was the test ran? They show 3.6GHz in another screenshot but that doesn't prove much, if anything. As every chinese leak out there this test shows nothing concrete.
We don't, so we can't be sure either way. But it would seem odd that the person doing the benchmark would do it, then start copying a huge amount of files to the desktop and then remember to bring CPU-Z to the foreground because he / she forgot to take a screenshot. I mean, it could happen, but it's not what it seems. Especially when in two other screenshots you see the person installing drivers in the background while they take screenshots and the CPU is being used at 12% and 20%.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp4tissue View Post

HOLY balls ,, if this is true.. This is as fast as skylake..
Well BW is almost as fast as Skylake and Ryzen is supposed to be on par with BW according to AMD, so there you go, nothing new
wink.gif

What decides in the end is cost for some and for others the OC abilities. SL/KL clocks sky high now, I highly doubt Ryzen is gonna push over 4.5GHz especially on 6+ cores using sane cooling and voltages.
You can check how much Intel improved it's IPC each generation, often around 5% on average, sometimes overall performance even went down because of worse clocks (BW), sometimes up only due to higher clocks (KL).
 
#25 ·
Ryzen score seems to be in-line with the other leaked benchmarks.

Not sure what the CPU-z benchmark is actaully testing but OP's 6700k@4ghz score does seem a little low.

My 5960x @ 4.2 ghz.

 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post

Ryzen score seems to be in-line with the other leaked benchmarks.

Not sure what the CPU-z benchmark is actaully testing but OP's score does seem a little low.

My 5960x @ 4.2 ghz.
Mine is low for a 6700k, I put it in there to provide some level of reference.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top