It appears that the first CPU benchmarks for AMD’s upcoming Ryzen CPU have surfaced. According to the results, AMD’s Ryzen will offer almost similar IPC (instructions per clock) with Intel’s i7 6900K.
Do note that these tests are from an Engineering sample that has lower clock speeds than AMD’s retail versions. The Engineering samplewas clocked at 3.15GHz, with a boost/turbo clock speed of 3.3GHz on all cores and a maximum turbo boost of 3.5GHz on a single CPU core.
The retail version of AMD’s Ryzen will be clocked at 3.4Ghz so we expect an additional 8% performance boost (assuming that the boost/turbo clocks get a similar increase).
As we can see, AMD’s Ryzen CPU offers a 50% performance boost over the FX 8370, and offers a similar performance to Intel’s i7 6900K.
Moreover, AMD’s Ryzen CPU consumed during these tests 93W under load, which is slightly lower than Intel’s i7 6900K and significantly lower than AMD’s FX 8370.
As we’ve already said, this sample was clocked at a lower speed, something that explains why Ryzen offers lower performance in games than Intel’s i5 CPU.
For what it’s worth, these early results showcase a CPU that will be able to compete Intel’s i7 6900K. These results fall in line with AMD’s comments about Ryzen. The big question now is how much will AMD’s Ryzen cost. AMD has not revealed its price yet and since it will be challenging Intel’s $1000 CPU, we kind of hope to see it priced at $500-$600.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
I’m cautiously impressed, but it all comes down to pricing. I have a feeling this will be more than the expected 500-600$ as this will be their top of the line CPU . Excited to see what else AMD have in this line up.
The leaks for the pricing came from China, where it was displayed in Chinese currency, then translated to USD prices. They stated that the top of the line 8c will be $499 and that a slightly slower (-200MHz) version will be $349, which is a significantly lower price, just for 200MHz, so perhaps, the premium price is indeed for the very top of the line product they have. 4c/8t is supposedly $149. They still haven’t revealed official pricing yet, so perhaps it may go up a bit, which is, whatever, because ever at $600, it’s still almost half the price of Intel at the same core/thread count.
If they price it lower than intel’s counterpart they’ll most probably win hearts of many.
Not mine doe.
If the leaked pricing is legitimate and they undercut Intel across the board by over 50%, then they will absolutely win the hearts of many, including me, and c’mon Maxim…if you could get an 8c/16t chip that performs as well as an $1100 Intel CPU, but for $499, you wouldn’t go to it? You’d pay more than double? You crazy man.
Well i do not buy 1000$ cpus first. And i have a 5930k which is AT LEAST good 3-5 years for me. But yea i definitely wont go amd, had a bad experience and i just don’t like amd. but they’re grtting way better so it could all change nect upgrade we never know.
Listen, to each their own, but I will say that it’s a mistake to penalize AMD now for problems you had with them in the past. It’s an entirely new company, with new leadership, new engineers, new…everything just about. They are now much more intelligent as a company, must more business savvy than before and they’ve been doing everything right.
Now, you do have a CPU that yes, you’re good with for a long time, so no need to buy Ryzen, however, with the facts that it’s as good as if not better than your CPU core for core, at the same frequency, you have to admit, that if it’s half the price, it would be a sweet CPU.
Side from that, you should actually like AMD now, they are basically the Rocky story of the semiconductor industry. Small, but innovative company, that ran into terrible management and almost died, restructured, and is fighting for their lives. They’ve been fighting hard, doing the right things, making the right moves, landing the right contracts, and not only surviving, but thriving. Here they are today, owning video game console market, owning the VR market, launched a new and great GPU series for the mid-range, landed the MacBook Pro’s, they’re about to release new and great GPU series for the high-end as well as a new CPU that covers low to high end, including servers, High Performance computing, and AI to name a few.
Their stock has gone from $1.67 a year ago, to $11.55 today and that’s before they even put Ryzen or Vega up for sale.
AMD was the first to give us 64-bit x86 processors, the first to give us multi-core processors, the first to give us integrated GPU’s, the first to give us HBM, the list goes on and on. If not for AMD, we may not have some of the great technologies we have today, and finally…after being down and out for a long time, almost to the point of death, here they are making a comeback. Landing blow after blow to the Ivan Drago’s of the world “He is like a rock”, and shocking the world, to bring competition to the arena for the first time in a long time, which will push forward innovation, which will ultimately lead to lower prices for us. We need AMD. Root for them! =P
I rarely read long text but i read yours. Nice arguments. Indeed it all comes down to pricing. I too like how they innovate and position themselves regarde their customers, intel and nvidia have been greedy for a long time and they’re acting like douches (my pov). I’ll have to see for myself when the time comes 😉
Maxim, MLSCrow is correct. I became an AMD fan for the reasons MLSCrow brought up. This all started in the 90s, too, when AMD first came out with the idea of a slotted CPU. From that point on, Intel has always stolen ideas from AMD (minus what they have today). Also, I had an Intel laptop before and the CPU burned up after a couple of uses. I’ve never experienced any mishaps with AMD.
Now that AMD has a product that is supposedly a great competitor, I have no doubt in mind that AMD will regain its throne. The fact is, AMD has always been high quality at a very reasonable price point. If you compare to the two by those expectations, than AMD wins all the time.
Intel has for the longest time been gouging its customers with overpriced CPUs. AMD at some point tried this but realized that they had to go back to their roots, and I’m glad they did. So with that said, Intel needs a kick in the a$$ for ripping us off.
Yes both Ngreedia and Intel need to be put to their place. But somehow AMD has great techs but never delivers in terms of market shares. I do not know why that is.
Maxim, it’s because of market influence. Intel was successful through benchmarks after benchmarks that were done independently. This is what drove people to buy Intel products for the past 6 years or so. On top of that, Intel worked with various companies which manipulated the market even more. You can blame Intel for near monopolization but the truth of the matter is, AMD was lacking performance that showed in benchmarks. Had AMD stolen their ideas from the get-go (note that Intel have stolen AMD’s ideas for so long, I think it’s time AMD give them their own taste of medicine), they would’ve dominated Intel.
When they release their Ryzen CPUs, Intel will most likely steal their idea of SenseMI and code anticipation technology. With code anticipation, I am sure it will catch the eyes of Intel as it predicts future processing which translates to CPU efficiency. I believe this is the reason why it was able to match the performance of Intel’s 6900k with less clock speed. Yeah, Intel will get a backhand slap in the face once Ryzen comes out. But this is my prediction when it comes to stealing technologies. Just watch out for it because I strongly believe Intel will steal their ideas.. again.
“For what is worth, these early results showcase a CPU that will be able to compete Intel’s i7 6900K.”
It’s actually “For what it’s worth”.
I wonder if the obsession with correcting spelling mistakes (sometimes considered an obsessive disorder) has anything to do with the brains inability to auto correct?
Ok dirthurts
*Dickhertz
Tell me, how are you supposed to learn proper English spelling if what you see in articles you read is wrong?
Besides, it’s more of a grammar mistake, “is” is still a word, just used mistakenly in this example.
I don’t see a “report an error in the article” button either, if it exists, please point it out for me.
Honest scientific query. Sorry you couldn’t handle the same criticism you expect the editors to tolerate.
How could I not? It seems to me that you can’t tolerate me pointing out mistakes for some unexplained reason. We’re all supposed to learn, improve here, are we not?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/99cd204003e03e6d03572317455188468be3de0dc593dbe15168b38892459e05.gif
I imagine him speaking to a skull in Shakespearian dramatic style when he wrote that… Maybe it’s intentional? :p
Maybe, since he’s made the same exact mistake in another article, about Star Citizen.
I’m not, of course.
Can’t wait to see how it scale at 4 or 4.5ghz or more,and it would be also nice to also have a 6core/12threads Zen CPU more affordable.
As far as the info that has been leaked suggests, there will be a 6core/12thread Ryzen CPU and it should be a lot more affordable than Intel prices. $349 for a lower clocked 8c, so less than that for the 6 core. The 4 core is supposedly $149, so perhaps $249 for a 6 core.
I’d love to see them launch the chip at half the price of Intels and just shake the entire pricing structures of CPUs up. Everywhere but in desktop and laptop processors (where Intel dominates) CPUs have become significantly cheaper and faster. Intel is the worst thing to happen to processing, basically ever, as they’re controlling pricing as if it’s a monopoly, although it’s not far off.
That’s their plan at least according to the leaks. $499 for the top of the line 8c. $349 for a slightly lower clocked version. $149 for a 4c/8t model. So, basically less than half the price of Intel for the same core/thread count.
You’re a bit late for that, but not too late. The stock has gone from $1.67 last year to $11.90 today, so you missed out on the first 600% increase, however, they are going to, at the very least, double up yet again, if not quadruple or more, so you can still make a decent amount still. Hop on it, because it’s not going down.
Well, looks like the time for upgrade is finally coming – my old trusty Phenom II is still going relatively strong for what I want it to process and I’m not a fan of Intel/Nvidia’s pricing of mid-high end components so go AMD and please don’t screw it up.
Fingaz cross’d.
It’s already confirmed to not be screwed up, you can celebrate.
eh, they always put out these benchmark scores and get hopes up every time they are launching a new cpu. every time.
Yes, that’s true, however, unlike most people, I’ve dug deep enough into the researching of these things, that I can say for sure, that it’s confirmed not to be a screw-up, even in light of what has happened in the past. If you want to get into the technicalities of it all, I can prove it to you, or if you want, you can spend the time to research until you come to the same conclusion, either way is cool with me.
Also, this new marketing team knows what they’re doing, compared to the older team, who didn’t and got fired.
Hey MLSCrow, how is it going to be a screw-up free product? I don’t feel like doing the extensive research since you claimed to have done. Thanks.
The short answer: Ryzen is better than expected and good enough to compete with or outperform Intel in benchmarks people care about (rendering/games).
LOL Bob
He’s another fanboy troll to add to the block list.
Nah man, don’t block people like that. If you simply block, they will get to spew their crap without knowledgeable people to destroy their misinformation. We need people like you, who know enough to identify him and his words as trolling garbage, to stand up and fight, so that the truth spreads, so that people actually have faith in, buy, and invest in AMD, which makes AMD stronger to eventually see to a stronger fight against the competition, which leads to further innovation, and ultimately lower prices for us. =D
Eh, people like that just spread textual noise. They’re just attention seekers that I don’t have time to entertain.
However, I am hopeful the Ryzen benchmarks stand. The only thing I’m waiting on now is pricing.
I expect the performance at launch to be even higher than what we have seen. We don’t know about motherboards, and performance differences based on chipset, or even cooling, since that will impact the performance of Ryzen.
AYYYYYYYYY LMAO
It seemed like a nice speech and then ended in a propaganda piece. XD
Then don’t buy AMD. As far as useless, that’s matter of your personal opinion. However AMD stock is up 300% since February says other people don’t agree with you.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b3e45a4b4fe6522f3cef338d8520143e4268d24dea7d5fc3bd99e4dfae1d91ba.jpg
More interested in the 60W model.
Price and heat.
Zen is looking good. Lets hope GloFo dont screw things once again.
Even if they do, AMD has Samsung at their back. Hurrah for plan B’s.
If it’s around $5-600, I’m buying in.
highly unlikely it will cost around 8-to-900$.
You better tell them to drop the price.
I wish but unfortunately now they know they are on par with Broadwell-e on performance.
Those other benchmarks come from unconfirmed sources, and also look to be earlier engineering samples, not recent “almost retail” versions. AMD has to do multiple things at the same time, the primary is to get products out to the public, and that means the initial prices need to be ATTRACTIVE. Prices may go up over time, but the initial releases will be closer to that $500-$600 that has been speculated, because AMD needs VOLUME in the hands of customers, not just a few chips that are worth the money.
Remember, there is more value in selling 10 million processors at a $10 profit each than in selling 5,000 with a $100 profit each.
what
thank you AMD….finally some damned competition!!!!
Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !rw235t:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!rw235t:
??
??;?? http://www.Career6.Com ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????::::::!rw235t:….,….
Go to the site and Click Home Tab for More Info And Details…..
Agreed but it’s not as if they’re going to undercut Intel by a massive amount. Probably $50 less. lol
It’s AMD, not intel. They don’t really overprice their products.
It’s a new AMD. I expect them to try.
Thank god AMD is giving some competition to NVIDIA and Intel otherwise god knows what would they charged us if they had a total monopoly
Nvidia has been doing Titan’s since the 700 series.. I don’t think they are giving Nvidia that much competition when now we are seeing $1200 Titan’s that are cut down cards still..
The newest is missing a module I think. It could give it another 5-10% if activated. Perhaps they are saving Titan Ultimate for Vega if it’s better than expected.
I hope all these benchmarks will be true for final product and above all it should perform great in gaming, AMD need this; we all need competition. Polaris was a disappointment so hope VEGA/ZEN will change everything.
It’s funny that everyone is looking for 500$ price range, WHY ? should AMD price like 50% low when fighting head on with a 1000$ – 1100$ CPU ? all of us then blame AMD for making cheap grade products meant for budget buyers, if this product delivers toe to toe competition to i7 6900K then I won’t mind a price of even 700$ – 750$ because AMD need financial support and if it’s delivering a good product then we should stop making it a low grade company for everything. Why premium prices should be limited to Intel and Nvidia who already sell overpriced products, if AMD cut like 30% – 35% that will be enough to ring some bells for Intel, we shouldn’t expect any lower than that just because it is good for our pockets.
Because <500$ is the price they should have in the first place. Not so many years ago (actually, my current CPU -i7 920- is like that) this crazy thing about IGPUs hadn't started. You would buy a CPU completely filled with cores at 250$ (in fact, that's what I did).
Fast forward to today and the equivalent CPU would cost 300-400$ instead, and worse, that GPU has 60% of its surface dedicated to an Integrated GPU that might or might not be used. That means, if you are using a dedicated graphics card, only 40% of your CPU is actually being used for, you know, "CPUing".
If only they also released a CPU that ditched the iGPU and simply used all the available surface for CPU cores instead, they could fit 2x the number of cores in there… oh wait, they already did that! But you know what? They are charging like 1200$ for "the privilege"… why? The justification is "niche market". They say the mainstream is formed by the user-case of a CPU+GPU integrated package, and keeping a separate product/stock for the niche of enthusiasts/gamers/3D-pros that would use a dedicated graphics card is not interesting for them unless the margins are much, much higher.
Now, it's true the X99 platform IS totally niche with very low volume sales. Then again, a good part of the reason is precisely those super-high prices imposed by Intel… chicken and egg problem. 90% of enthusiast/gamers/3D-pros that would be the user case of a dedicated graphics card (and thus a CPU without iGPU) simply buy the mainstream CPU+iGPU pack, and just waste the 60% of their chip by disabling the iGPU, because they can't/don't want to afford the steep premium of the other option.
AMD could (and probably will) treat this market as a First Class Citizen instead of an Annoying Niche To Maintain That I Would Get Rid Of If I Could: afterall, as of today, that market (dedicated graphics card user) is what is feeding and keeping alive the whole company through the Radeon TG division, and they are not even the market leaders (but a distant second) at that… so why not target them with CPUs too… as they (even Intel) always did until like 5 years ago, until after they already stopped having competitive products to offer to them?
TL;DR (and recap): I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. You say "why should they price their product so cheap compared to the competition?" Maybe you should be asking "why is the competition (until now without competitors) pricing so high, and asking such a steep premium, for those particular products as of late?" An 8-core w/o iGPU should be price-competitive with a 4-core + iGPU package if the iGPU is taking more than half the die for itself… and I think AMD are going to target Mainstream i7 67xx prices with GPU-less Ryzen, not X99 prices.
same IPC is not everything by far. Weird how they do not show real world benchmarks but focus on a single thing where it’s at least equal to intel
I’ve not followed every detail of Ryzen’s development so do we yet have any idea of how its equivalent chip will compare to an i7 6700K both in terms of gaming performance and price?
The second picture shows the above mentioned i7 as being way better than the Zen, when it comes to games. If it’s true, I see no real reason to switch anytime soon.
That was my suspicion too. The i7 6700K will seemingly remain the better CPU for gaming for the vast majority of games.
It will beat a 6700K soundly. Beats a 6800k, a 5960X, and a 6900K.
The recently leaked benches leaked in French are from an engineering sample clocked at 3.15GHz with a 3.3GHz turbo clock. The final version will be tweaked beyond this chip with a base clock of 3.4GHz and boost clock tbd.
It beats a 6900K which is 3.2GHz with a turbo clock of 3.7GHz, when clocked at 3.4GHz with no boost in a rendering benchmark as well as Battlefield One in 4K with a slightly higher frame rate.
Captain here…
This is not a review of zen it is a preview of it. The cpu used was a es sample with a lover clock vs the one in new horizon presentation…
flies away…
While I am excited to see exactly how Ryzen does, and I’ll be buying one as soon as they’re available, I really really want to see some objective third party benchmarks and reviews. We still have no word on single threaded performance either.
It will be an extremely good thing if they can offer 6900k performance at half the price as Intel though. Knock Intel down a peg and maybe they’ll have to make their prices more reasonable. They’ve had no competition for years now.
this ^^
We need to see how Zen performs on single threaded performance tests, intel has been the winner on single thread since sandy bridge. I really hope they at least gets close to intel now.
Looking at the benchmarks from the french site however, the engineering sample they had which was an 8 core 16 thread version, performed on par with an i5 6600 in games. Granted this engineering sample is clocked lower than retail versions will be, but it worries me exactly how much overclocking a little bit is going to raise that. Don’t get me wrong the i5 6600 is very decent, but that’s a little underwhelming. I want it to perform right under a 6900k in multi-threaded tasks AND gaming. And I think everyone else does as well.
Nice!!
IPC seems right, guess I wont need to trade in my 6800k, seems like a side-grade more than anything. I dont exactly need SLI or the extra PCIe lanes so… Oh well. Maybe the faster 4ghz + chips and bug free mobos will give me a slight boost. But my 6800k runs 4.5ghz and quad channel ddr 4…
Quad channel does nothing honestly. In all reality even dual channel doesn’t do much. 4.5GHz on the other hand is a nice reasonable clock to be at on a 6c Broadwell-E or Skylake chip. You definitely don’t need to upgrade to Ryzen, however, the extra PCIe lanes are sort of becoming more of a necessity than simply a desire as NVME SSD’s are becoming mainstream and you’re gonna want to throw as many PCIe lanes as you can at any number of drives you might get. Plus, Optane based SSD’s are coming out this coming year too. NVME will max out at 4GB/s until they allow more than 4 lanes, upgrade to PCIe4.0, or both, but either way, until a better transport layer becomes standard, PCIe lanes and NVME drives are your friend. These are the words of someone who wants the best realistically affordable desktop performance one can get.
Please say if has good performance on single thread.
Since the 2nd gen of i5/i7 that amd can’t compete with single thread performace of intel, i hope zen changes that.
So in the gaming bench, a 6700K mops the floor with it, and even a 6600K beats it, and AMD wants us to shell out what, roughly $500 for it? Lol what? Someone tell me what the hype is about?
Where did you get that source from? I don’t know if you’ve seen the engineering sample where they showed side-by-side performances of a 6700k and their Ryzen CPU at 2 point something GHz. I know there might be a catch to it, like perhaps a marketing scheme, however, I don’t think that was the case. I believe they were showing what we should really expect. I was shocked to see a demo of the Star Wars game they were showing at max settings! My rig would be begging me to stop playing that game at max settings. Lol!
“Where did you get that source from? ” lol what? Its the second picture right there, the one with the blue bars.
And the BattleFront demo they did was of outer space with nothing going on. That is not difficult to for a GPU to render. Far less geometry and objects in outer space. And the demo player wasn’t even doing anything other than flying in a straight line.
Fair enough. However, I don’t understand the language used in those pictures, but you can somewhat read the clock speed of the 6900k which was set at 4 GHZ. I can’t read what the AMD was but it looks like it was set at 2 point something. If that’s the case, then that would be impressive because it is hanging with the 6900k — and it showed in the demos from AMD. It performed just as well as the 6900k, actually. I’m waiting for more independent results, though. But so far, I’m liking what I see.
Same, would be stoked to give AMD some $$$
This is great news for the continued push forward at Intel. Finally maybe we will get more then minor performance gains with the next series of Intel chips… And not to mention the competition will force Intel to lower their prices (hopefully)!