AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Leaked Benchmarks, Faster Than Intel’s Fastest 6 Core

wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-leaked-benchmarks-analyzed-faster-intels-fastest-6-core/

RIP INTEL

Other urls found in this thread:

videocardz.com/66065/first-cpu-z-screenshot-of-ryzen-cpu-leaked
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

>currytech
>Guru3D graph
>Guru3D has published no graph
>currytech attempting to divert incorrectness onto one of the only viable sources

> CPU-Z
Looks promising by all means, but I'd rather wait for real benchmarks.

videocardz.com/66065/first-cpu-z-screenshot-of-ryzen-cpu-leaked

>VideoCardZzzzzzz
>Viable source

They get ass blasted over everything AMD ever since they were refused samples.
Still the same 3 images none the less.

...

This is on int/float bench only, I believe.

Yeah, the chips do great with int and float math. Less good with AVX2(which is emulated) and SSE.

Still great value. I will probably be getting the 1600X. But these are synthetic benchmarks and what I really want to see is how it does at gaming, what wattage, and the overclocking ceilings (I'm hearing 4.3-4.5ghz on the non-X CPUs).

WCCFTech...

Didn't read.

>(I'm hearing 4.3-4.5ghz on the non-X CPUs).
That's on air.

They are re-reporting something a Chinese leaker posted screenshots of.

The numbers look in line with other leaks, though, because other leaks have shown that the 1400X beats the 7700k just barely in int and float math, and the 1700X doubles to triples it. So the 1600X having an over 50% higher score than the 6700k is perfectly in line with those other leaks.

But these are synthetic benchmarks. They don't affect gaming performance much.

>They are re-reporting something a Chinese leaker posted screenshots of.
They're also falsefully branding that information under the guise of another site.

Lmao, what's so great about this?

It doesn't beat the i7-6700 and neither does it beat the i5-7600 at single core performance.
Also
>synthetic benchmarks


Hyping faggots are the worst kind.

Totally braindead deluded idiots.

And you saw how much they and all the other false flag faggots over inflated Polaris performance pre-launch as well.

>SYNTHETICS MATTER WHEN IT'S INTEL, THEY'RE REAL ACCURATE THEN!

>WHAT'S THAT, AMD ARE PERFORMING IN SYNTHETICS? FUCK THOSE BENCHMARKS THEY LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is you right now.

Meanwhile on a £150 i5
>b-b-but muh 16 cores
Who gives a fuck? I don't need them and neither do you.

What modern software is single threaded that's not word processing?

Like 99.9% of all software ever released to date?

>He does nothing but game on his thousand dollar computer.

>>Modern software
>Software from the 80s

Take it wasy it with the buttermans butt balm, you'll need it when Zen actually launches.

Yeah I'm sure you do professional 3d encoding for disney on your rig huh
No, compiling gentoo doesn't count as serious work.

Strawman
You typed that stuff, not me.

We will see, when real benchmarks will be published on the 28th February.

I bet 10€ on it that Ryzen will fall behind Intel in most of the games, of course taking the price into account.

It will be faster at multitasking, that's natural with more cores and threads.

Name one (1) piece of software a typical system builder runs that requires more than 4 threads.
I'll wait.

That's not true at all.

It's even to the point where 8 core FX CPUs are starting to benchmark well (very well for their price, but not wattage), because almost everything released last year was highly multithreaded.

And Ryzen has a 60%+ IPC increase over those processors, and 80% more performance per watt. And their SMT is outperforming Intel's Hyperthreading.

The 1400X is looking like it'll be within 5-10% the performance of the i7-7700k for $179 compared to $340. That's almost half the price.

And for $260 you can get the 6c/12t 1600X. You have to be a pathetic wuss trying to compensate for what your Nazi father did 70 years ago to buy Intel at this point.

The i7-7700k might be 5-10% better single threaded than the 1600X, but no single application now days is going to max out a single thread, and the 1600X has 50% more threads.

3d rendering models and prototyping for my 3d printer/laser cutter/engraver as a side hustle.

VMs for software.

Device driver coding.

MUCH faster and easier on more cores.

You should have just bought an Xbox and saved yourself some bucks you graphics slut.

>Name one (1) piece of software a typical system builder runs that requires more than 4 threads.
Windows
DX12
Vulkan
Zipping/unzipping
Chrome
Blender and other modeling/rendering software

Name me 1 piece of software a typical system builder runs that maxes out over 90% of a single thread on an i7-7700k.
I'll wait.

what clock is 1600x running? What clock it can be oc'ed to?

>requires more than 4 threads
Didn't you learn to read at school?

Not just that, fucking games are starting to actively use 8 threads. Just look at BF1.

you got BTFO. now shut up amd loser

>CPU scaling doesn't matter! I can get by on 4/4! More cores and better and faster multithreading means nothing with out single core performance!

Literally nobody has shown any ryzen core overclocked by even 10MHz. Even the memer fucking with LN2 only showed stock speeds.

There was that 1700X overclocked to 4.0 that managed to beat the 10 core Intel

>More cores and better and faster multithreading means nothing with out single core performance!
As proven by the disaster than was the FX series.

That was an """"estimated"""" overclock speed.

exactly, i mean mine 3570k oc'ed to 4.1 gets about 1800~ on cpu-z ( i can oc to to 4.3 stable). This cpu doesnt even get 100 more? Oc'ed 6700k or 7700k probably gets like 2500 score on single core.

Meanwhile Zen is killing multithreaded apps and Intel MAY release a 4core 4thread i5 in the future.

Will it be for less cost too?

If so, Lisa Su is ready for your apology.

I like it how you forgot to mention this thing has a 3.3 base clock and 3.7 turbo.

This "leaked" shit is seriously annoying. I hope Ryzen does well, I want Intel to be FORCED to improve their goddamn cpus beyond like fucking 2-5% per iteration, and if they can't, they better lower their goddamn prices.
No one can say anything yet though, we'll be able to see actual performance numbers when Ryzen is -actually- released, and every tech website and channel on youtube puts up benchmarks for fucking everything within the week of release.

They like, can't imrpove tham in any way besides shrinking/making bigger, badder chips.

They just started on a new core design. In four to five years we will see a response from Intel.

And it better be mind blowing.

1400x might be 5-10% ipc behind 7700k, but it clocks at 1000mhz less, most OC 7700k can easily oc to over 5ghz. add 20% higher clock and 10% higher ipc,
That means around 30% better performance. Not to mention Intel will surely drop there prices somewhat or release updated 7700k with better thermals.
Does AMD looks so much better deal then? Not really. AMD cpu's will competete with i5 and i3 and in work cpu's. But people who buy i7 for gaming will still choose i7.

Intel is currently in the process of transferring 'trust funds' to review sites so that they run Ryzen with single channel memory with 2133MHz clocks and 17+ CAS timings

Ye, NetBurst 2.0: electric boogaloo will defintely BLOW my mind.

>In four to five years

Nigger five years in the semiconductor market is an eternity.

The 1400X is a 150 burger bucks. What's the 7700k go for again?

half of the die size is taken up by igpu, they could easily make same size cpus, with much more cores. They have been making same i5 i7 with 4 4/8 for what now? almost 10years?

according to leaks 1400x is 200 before taxes. It will compete with i5 7600k and not i7 7700k. 7700k have better 10% IPC and 1000mhz higher clocks.

Read what it was in response to.

>shit multi-threaded perf
>only slightly better single threaded perf
>locked chip with a bunch of features disabled for no good fucking reason
some of us like being able to do things other than game on our rigs

>>>>requires

Oh now you're arguing semantics, goy? You definitely lost.

Leakers are saying the 1300 can get at least 4.5GHz on air, so that's not very far behind considering it's $179 and the i7-7700k is $340 AND intel motherboards cost more for less quality.

I'm fine if it's 5-10% less performance per core when I can get a 6core/12thread for cheaper than a 7700k, and the motherboard is cheaper, and it might even use the same or less power for more performance in highly threaded applications.

sure it if can get to 4.5k then its fine, but all we have seen so farm from actual bench leaks were all

>most OC 7700k can easily oc to over 5ghz
No they don't. Reality check here please.
>add 20% higher clock and 10% higher ipc, That means around 30% better performance
Even if your guesswork figures are 100% correct, that's not how math works. Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.
>MD cpu's will competete with i5 and i3 and in work cpu's.
And what exactly are "work cpu's"? Also, please learn how to use the apostrophe.
>But people who buy i7 for gaming will still choose i7.
If a game scales well enough with more threads to justify a quad core i7, then chances are fairly high that an eight core Ryzen CPU without SMT will significantly outperform it.

Leaks so far have all been stock.

And if the 1800X can turbo to 4.0 and XFR even further than that, we can safely assume it can at least overclock to 4.3-4.4.

But in the end you'll probably be a victim to silicon lottery.

I thought whole point of 1800x is to avoid lottery

With other chips, not all 1800X will be made the same either.
Naturally there'll be those that OC to 4.7 or higher and some that only reach 4.4.
There's no architectural limitation for high overclocks, it's FO4 depth is similar to excavator.

>I thought whole point of 1800x is to avoid lottery
Not that guy but you're always playing the lottery, no matter what you buy. You can tip the odds in your favour by buying a better chip, like the 1800x or 7700k but you'll never completely avoid it.

Intel chips are so tightly binned, you can often only get another 100-300mhz on air.

It's looking like most of the Ryzen will be good for 500-1000mhz increases over their turbo frequencies, unless these leakers are just getting super top bin samples sent to them (which really isn't unlikely. But even super-lottery 7700ks don't get close to a 1Ghz increase on air)

It will glorious to see all the damage control on the 28th.

There are so many totally deluded people out there, who believe that a 1400X, a 200 bucks CPU will challenge the i7-7700K.

I hope those guys are all tech-illiterates and haven't got anything to do with electronics, semiconductor industry other than meme spouting on chans.

M8 wait for ryzen+ it'll fix everything and it'll be $25 for 12c24t!

lol in your dreams. here's my 4.5Ghz 6700K stable. it can reach 4.7Ghz but voltage is too damn high.

>6core
>3.7Ghz
>Haswell IPC

If it can get to 4.3Ghz on air it will beat 7700k.

just your average delusional fanboys.

1.38v at 4.8 will give me 2450/8500 on my 6600k

>There are so many totally deluded people out there, who believe that a 1400X, a 200 bucks CPU will challenge the i7-7700K.

AMD probably won't include intel's drm decryption, meaning it won't be a completely, totally guaranteed backdoor. Plus, it's $200, not $350 or $400, who says it's trying to compete with the latest i7?

>most OC 7700k can easily oc to over 5ghz.
Going to need you to source numbers on that. By most I assume you're claiming 60-70%+ instead of the more reasonable (when talking about most) 80%+.
In fact, looking at the average on HWBot it's ~4800Mhz, meaning your claims of "over 5Ghz" are probably some bullshit.

>if
Lets wait and see, instead of hyping this shit.
AMD always hype there shit for months only to dissapoint.

nobody cares about your shit HT disabled chip, even if it was a unicorn well-binned chip. also no proof either way stable.

FSX with enough mods will max out a single thread on any available PC CPU.

to be fair AMD didn't say a word

They have new marketing department for a reason.

AMD hasn't said shit. These are leaks from reviewers and such.
All AMD said was they're aiming for a 40% IPC increases (ending up looking more like a 60%+), and that their 1700X roughly matches the i7-6900k but it won't cost over $1000

>months
They're out in less than 2 weeks.

Now its just a matter of how much the Ryzen will overclock. If it gets to 4.5 ghz level.

Oh its stable, and 90+% of skylake can hit high clocks. Its on par with a stock 6700, well actually much better single core performance.

>Name me 1 piece of software a typical system builder runs that maxes out over 90% of a single thread on an i7-7700k
TW:WH, 100% on 1 core at pretty much all times.

Cities:Skyline stomps all over my 6700k. 4 cores are a joke now.

>tfw i5 3470 (ivy bridge) 3.4 ghz
>tfw absolutely fine for my needs
>still want 6 core Ryzen
Do you think its worth it, bros? My current PC is 4 years old but it werks just fine for gaymen and whatnot.

I'm looking to upgrade too, Ryzen looks amazing but apparently not even X370 will provide 2 PCIe x16 slots, which is terribly disappointing. I might have to wait for Skylake-X.

Im going to get 8 cores. I can give 4 cores to Windows in a VM so I can game at the same time as I have my Linux box running with pfsense, kodi, plex, and my NAS all at the same time. 2 computers in one, all for the price of one. Ill never have to dual boot or restart again.

I think it's worth it since AM4 will still be around for 4 years and the motherboards are very good value.

Well the CPU supports a lot of PCI lanes. Must be a problem with the board manufacturers.
There's still many more motherboards that haven't been announced yet. I'm sure we'll see one with a lot.

Me, I'm currently disappointed in the current Micro-ATX and Mini-ITX options, but I know more are coming.

>Well the CPU supports a lot of PCI lanes
Where are you getting this? Everything I've read says the CPU has 24 lanes, that's not a lot at all. Most mobo manufacturers seem to divide those up as 16 for graphics, 8 for whatever else, like PCIe SSDs. If this is true the only way to get x16/x16 is if somebody comes out with a board with a PLX PCIe switch.

CHERRY PICKED BENCHMARK SPOTTED

REMEMBER NO IGPU

That is disappointing, but it's still more than Intel currently has. But sli is a joke, and x8 gives you 98% the performance of x16 anyway.

>interested in an 8 core CPU
>can't afford a GPU

why would you need a gpu ?

>Everything I've read says the CPU has 24 lanes
And the i7-7700k only supports 16.

More additional ones can be supported on the motherboard itself.

Is this the new wait for bulldozer?

Why would you need an iGpu?

how else will I test open source GPU drivers ?

A shitty used gpu for simple video output can be gotten for 10$. There's no excuse.

because it's on the cpu, I don't have to waste extra money
10$ wasted

>and x8 gives you 98% the performance of x16 anyway
Not at 4K, in quite a few titles. In DOOM for instance SLI on x8 literally performs worse than single GPU, on x16 it's ~40FPS faster. There are plenty of games which work just fine on x16/x16 and do much worse on x8/x8.

>And the i7-7700k only supports 16.
I'm never going to buy a 7700K though, I'm looking to get either Ryzen or a 6/8 core Intel CPU. If Ryzen turns out disappointing for whatever reason I'm probably going to wait for Skylake-X later this year.

are intel the poor fags now?

And 40% of the CPU die wasted for a crappy iGPU.

I don't pay for that though.

if you knew anything about cpu-z benchmark it highly flucatates so 40 point increase is absolutely nothing. you can run that test 10 times in a row and get upwards of a +/- 50 point difference with the same processor. i've seen a 100 point difference a few times with my 6700k.

so really, zen six core is identical to intels six core. no one is faster.

>I don't pay for a 1000$ CPU with iGPU with performance equal to a 400$ CPU

How many mental hoops can Intel shills sustain before they break down?

You could buy ryzen + a 1070 and still be cheaper than Intel's offerings
Intel shills are confirmed desperate and retarded.
Scaling is absolutely shit on sli, and many games don't support it, or its buggy AF. Waste of money. Just wait till 1080ti or Vega or whatever.

>Scaling is absolutely shit on sli
SLI scaling is >85-90% at 4K in GPU-heavy games

(Citation needed with multiple games)