Guru3D used the latest leak from AoTS and ran the exact same settings with RX 480 but with i7 5960X and FX 8370. All clocked at 3.2GHz.
Very interesting stuff
Quote:
We then down-clocked the AMD and Intel processors towards 3200 MHz. So now we have three processors pretty much in equilibrium frequency range running at (give or take) that 3200 MHz. We now need to match up other stuff:
We gave both systems 16 GB of memory (Core i7 runs in quad-channel though).
We installed a Radeon RX 480 with the latest driver (16.8.1) to match up the leaked setup.
We updated Ashes of Singularity (1.30.21168.0) towards precisely the same build as the leak.
We mimicked the quality modes in DirectX 12, the Zen results leaker merely used the Low, standard, High and Extreme switches.
After each quality settings change we restarted the game
So take the results with a grain of salt as there is little actual final with engineering sample processors, and just wait until the processors reach the market later this year with proper benchmarks and testing, and not just one AOS results set. Also we need to place at least a bit of suspicion to the actual source (not wccftech) but the actual person that injected the results into the AOS database. They could even be faked, albeit the likely-hood of that, we feel, is slim. Still we cannot rule it out of course. Okay, I think I shared enough disclaimers and concerns right ? We ran the Ashes of Singularity benchmark in four stress test modes at 1080P, similar towards the leaked results. There are some oddities in there alright, but have a peek. CPU results first, followed by rendered frames per second:
Try a little harder please. The leak may actually be legit. You would be here claiming it to be 100% real if it was a beast. But it isnt so you try all you can to call it fake.
Guru3D replicated the exact same settings on existing CPUs to make a real comparison. Because there is a chance its actually legit
The disclaimer means it's not reliable or verified; I don't give damn what the results are. It's misleading to call it 'interesting' when it's utterly unreliable information. You completely omit the disclaimer from your original post, which leads a reader to assume the information is somehow reliable. That's called being misleading.
It might end up to be entirely accurate information in the end, but not acknowledging the caveats of those doing the testing in the first place gives a misleading impression.
it's unlikely of amd to promise sth that has high fps per watt and then give us sth that has high watt per fps instead, so this most likely is not a representation of the final product.
Try a little harder please. The leak may actually be legit. You would be here claiming it to be 100% real if it was a beast. But it isnt so you try all you can to call it fake.
Guru3D replicated the exact same settings on existing CPUs to make a real comparison. Because there is a chance its actually legit
For a moment I thought they actually obtained one of these ES samples for testing. But even Guru3d admits this this is all sketchy. I'm just going to wait and see when the chip actually comes out. No point in developing expectations on leaks that have equal chances being right as they do being wrong.
Try a little harder please. The leak may actually be legit. You would be here claiming it to be 100% real if it was a beast. But it isnt so you try all you can to call it fake.
Guru3D replicated the exact same settings on existing CPUs to make a real comparison. Because there is a chance its actually legit
You asked for someone to make up some graph about these exact results yourself. And no these may very well be fakes.
The results shown here are just guesstimated from that other rumour!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff
Could someone please post screenshots of 6900K vs 5960x vs Zen and see how they compare?
All three are 8-cores.
It IS an ES chip btw. It's been well documented that ES chips don't represent the final product and often times are lesser versions of the final chip. Besides, this is less certain than what was shown before, which had the FX CPU running at 4GHz and the new Zen chip at 2.8/3.2... so already that's a red flag of one of these two leaks being fake.
Lol that chart looks like they just averaged both the FX and the i7, put it at exactly 40% above the FX and released it as the most legit proof ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imglidinhere
It IS an ES chip btw. It's been well documented that ES chips don't represent the final product and often times are lesser versions of the final chip. Besides, this is less certain than what was shown before, which had the FX CPU running at 4GHz and the new Zen chip at 2.8/3.2... so already that's a red flag of one of these two leaks being fake.
Except on very, very early ESs (the ones that never make it out in the wild, most of the times not even to auction sites because they are basically unusable), they tend to have performance levels very well within retail parts. Lower clockspeeds, missing PCI-E lanes and things like that, but pretty close to retail parts, if not matching them.
This benchmark is interesting, with a 5960X at 3.2 GHz it lets us compare to the possibly fake leaked Zen ES benchmarks. Without this data point those leaked benchmarks weren't very informative and that older thread was pretty useless. We know AoTS is well threaded, but not perfectly, so comparing to quad core CPUs can hide bad single threaded performance with more threads but I didn't know how much.
We do not want to hype/plan based on only multi-threaded performance, we have been there before.
Someone also said AoTS is only capable of using 6 cores? That would basically mean that the 5960X should only be 50% faster than the 4770K at the same clockspeeds.
Which if true, sounds strange because the 5960X here is getting over twice the performance of a 4790K (going by scores linked on the other thread).
Someone also said AoTS is only capable of using 6 cores? That would basically mean that the 5960X should only be 50% faster than the 4770K at the same clockspeeds.
Which if true, sounds strange because the 5960X here is getting over twice the performance of a 4790K (going by scores linked on the other thread).
Jup. I will post benches of my Sandy Bridge 8C/16T Xeon 2,6 / 3,3 turbo. I just need to update to Win 10.
In Windows 7 DX11 AOTS scores average 42,1FPS on Radeon RX 480 and 16GB RAM 1600mhz. On default settings.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
543.9K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
