French tech print magazine "Canard PC" is ready with early benchmarks of an AMD Ryzen 8-core processor. The scan of a page from its Ryzen performance review article got leaked to the web, revealing three key performance takeaways. In the first selection of tests, Canard PC put Ryzen through synthetic CPU-intensive tests that take advantage of as many CPU cores/threads as you can throw at them. These include the likes of H.264 and H.265 video encoding, WPrime, Blender, 3DSMax 2015, and Corona. Ryzen was found to be faster than the quad-core Core i7-6700K, and the six-core i7-6800K, but somewhere between the i7-6800K and the eight-core i7-6900K.The next selection of tests focused on PC gaming, with a list of contemporary AAA titles, including "Far Cry 4," "Battlefield 4," "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt," "Anno 2070," "GRID: Autosport," and "ARMA III." Here, the Ryzen sample was found to be underwhelming - it was slower than the Core i5-6600 quad-core chip clocked at 3.30-3.90 GHz; but faster than the i5-6500, clocked at 3.20-3.60 GHz. The fastest chip in the table is the i7-6700K (4.00-4.20 GHz). The reviewer still notes that Ryzen has a decent IPC gain unseen from the AMD stable in a while.In the final segment, the reviewers tested the power-consumption of the processor. AMD rates the TDP of the Ryzen 8-core chip at 95W, which was desperately needed from a chip built on the 14 nm node. Here it was noted that Ryzen made a tremendous performance/Watt leap over the 32 nm FX-8370 "Vishera." It consumes 93W, just under the 96W consumed by the Core i7-6900K eight-core chip, and slightly more than the 85W consumed by the 22 nm Core i7-4790K "Devil's Canyon" quad-core chip. The 14 nm i7-6800K six-core chip draws 83W, and the quad-core 14 nm i7-6700K draws 62W.In all, the reviewer concludes that Ryzen could give the DIY performance CPU market the stir it badly needed, and could give Intel a shake-down, but it boils down the pricing.

118 Comments on AMD Ryzen Performance Review Leaked: Promising

1 to 25 of 118 Go to Page 12345 PreviousNext

#1 CAPSLOCKSTUCK

Spaced Out Lunar Tick btarunr Here, the Ryzen sample was found to be underwhelming Gaming underwhelming?..........oh dear. Gaming underwhelming?..........oh dear. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 5:59 Reply

#2 Nosada

So AMD, while not beating Intel, does seem back in the game. Awesome! Can't wait to see how they hold up price-wise. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 6:01 Reply

#3 IceScreamer

Price it right and they are good to go. Glad to see that power consumption, if true of course. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 6:10 Reply

#4 entropic

consider that it was an engineering sample that never went above 3.4 in the tests, that the mobo probably wasnt very high quality and these benchmarks make for a good baseline, it can only go up from here, especially since lisa su said on new horizon that 3.4 will be the minimum base clock for all ryzen chips. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 6:30 Reply

#5 XiGMAKiD

Good performance, check

Low power consumption, check

Last thing on the checklist is the price Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 6:37 Reply

#6 ic3r0ck

Apparently there are 2 important details that are not mentioned in this article, but can be found on the web:

1. The tests were performed with an engineering sample AMD Ryzen-cpu;

2. The sample had a base clock of 3.15 GHz, whereas AMD already confirmed that the official product will have a base clock of 3.4 GHz (with higher turbo).

As for game performance, take into consideration that PC games do not fully use 16 threads, and very few use 8 threads. Most probably the quad core variants for the Ryzen will be higher clocked and they will get very close to Intel quad cores in gaming. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 6:37 Reply

#7 Imsochobo

ic3r0ck Apparently there are 2 important details that are not mentioned in this article, but can be found on the web:

1. The tests were performed with an engineering sample AMD Ryzen-cpu;

2. The sample had a base clock of 3.15 GHz, whereas AMD already confirmed that the official product will have a base clock of 3.4 GHz (with higher turbo).

As for game performance, take into consideration that PC games do not fully use 16 threads, and very few use 8 threads. Most probably the quad core variants for the Ryzen will be higher clocked and they will get very close to Intel quad cores in gaming. 1.\ Yes, IPC will probably not increase much if anything.

2.\ Yes, baseclock plays a major role, and for avg fps for gaming for the average consumer for a 4 thread game, 6 core bests higher clocked 4 core for common people as background tasks is very inefficient.

That old flash game you never stopped playing, those TechPowerup tabs, youtube tabs etc, usually swallows two cores alone! 1.\ Yes, IPC will probably not increase much if anything.2.\ Yes, baseclock plays a major role, and for avg fps for gaming for the average consumer for a 4 thread game, 6 core bests higher clocked 4 core for common people as background tasks is very inefficient.That old flash game you never stopped playing, those TechPowerup tabs, youtube tabs etc, usually swallows two cores alone! Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:10 Reply

#8 Nosada

ic3r0ck Most probably the quad core variants for the Ryzen will be higher clocked and they will get very close to Intel quad cores in gaming. One can only hope. I do not need AMD to beat Intel hands down (though it would be nice). I need it just good enough so that they become a viable alternative to Intel, forcing Intel to either up their game or drop their prices.



Either way, if AMD gets it pricing right and Vega does what it is supposed to, 2017 could become a VERY good year for some upgrades, no matter which brand you prefer! One can only hope. I do not need AMD to beat Intel hands down (though it would be nice). I need it just good enough so that they become a viable alternative to Intel, forcing Intel to either up their game or drop their prices.Either way, if AMD gets it pricing right and Vega does what it is supposed to, 2017 could become a VERY good year for some upgrades, no matter which brand you prefer! Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:14 Reply

#9 Imsochobo

Nosada One can only hope. I do not need AMD to beat Intel hands down (though it would be nice). I need it just good enough so that they become a viable alternative to Intel, forcing Intel to either up their game or drop their prices.



Either way, if AMD gets it pricing right and Vega does what it is supposed to, 2017 could become a VERY good year for some upgrades, no matter which brand you prefer! my gaming rig is expiring, started looking at prices, the top end intel cpu's is the same price as the complete system cost 10 years ago!

This no competition is just downright disgusting, same with the midrange GTX1080... (by design a midrange card just made big cause marketing") my gaming rig is expiring, started looking at prices, the top end intel cpu's is the same price as the complete system cost 10 years ago!This no competition is just downright disgusting, same with the midrange GTX1080... (by design a midrange card just made big cause marketing") Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:34 Reply

#10 P4-630

btarunr but faster than the i5-6500 Well my i5 6500 is still doing fine in gaming. :D Well my i5 6500 is still doing fine in gaming. :D Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:50 Reply

#11 Recon-UK

Ryzen ES at 3.15ghz

Ryzen will have a turbo mode like intel, not conclusive data. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:52 Reply

#12 theoneandonlymrk

ic3r0ck Apparently there are 2 important details that are not mentioned in this article, but can be found on the web:

1. The tests were performed with an engineering sample AMD Ryzen-cpu;

2. The sample had a base clock of 3.15 GHz, whereas AMD already confirmed that the official product will have a base clock of 3.4 GHz (with higher turbo).

As for game performance, take into consideration that PC games do not fully use 16 threads, and very few use 8 threads. Most probably the quad core variants for the Ryzen will be higher clocked and they will get very close to Intel quad cores in gaming. Your right, that's what makes this little better than the click bait thread that got shut yesterday about the same benches, don't leave out critical facts Op, ffs you should do better than a forum poster. Your right, that's what makes this little better than the click bait thread that got shut yesterday about the same benches, don't leave out critical facts Op, ffs you should do better than a forum poster. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 7:59 Reply

#13 dj-electric

Here's what i want to know:



4C 8T 6700K > 8C\16T 3.?ghz ryzen - in gaming

will,

6C\12T ryzen 3.?ghz +300-400Mhz > 4C 8T 6700K - in gaming at 350$?



We'll wait to see Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 8:11 Reply

#14 ZoneDymo

If the price is right, it will be my next cpu Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 8:24 Reply

#15 HD64G

Dj-ElectriC Here's what i want to know:



4C 8T 6700K > 8C\16T 3.?ghz ryzen - in gaming

will,

6C\12T ryzen 3.?ghz +300-400Mhz > 4C 8T 6700K - in gaming at 350$?



We'll wait to see Wrong question since even i7-6900K isn't as good as 6700K in gaming due to less threads being utilised and higher clocks of the latter win over the more cores of the prior. The only logical question for gamers is what clocks will the 4C/8T zen cpu have and what price? Wrong question since even i7-6900K isn't as good as 6700K in gaming due to less threads being utilised and higher clocks of the latter win over the more cores of the prior. The only logical question for gamers is what clocks will the 4C/8T zen cpu have and what price? Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 8:36 Reply

#16 R-T-B

CAPSLOCKSTUCK Gaming underwhelming?..........oh dear. Unfortunately for AMD, it seems it's only hope to really earn a place in the market is price slashing vs it's competition.



I hope they can recoup R&D costs with a strategy like that, for all our sakes. Unfortunately for AMD, it seems it's only hope to really earn a place in the market is price slashing vs it's competition.I hope they can recoup R&D costs with a strategy like that, for all our sakes. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 8:51 Reply

#17 JMccovery

Not totally sure if I'd call the gaming results "underwhelming"; An ES RyZen at 3.15GHz (that more than likely doesn't have working turbo) places between two Skylake i5s in gaming?



It isn't setting-the-world-on-fire performance, but it is better than what a majority of realistic people expected.



Most realistic people were expecting total performance to be in the Haswell range when it comes to lightly-threaded workloads.



It's world's ahead of anything Bulldozer and it's ilk could ever imagine accomplishing, and if the ES 8C/16T chip can land there, think what the 4C/8T chips could do. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 9:07 Reply

#18 DeathtoGnomes

didnt we just close a thread on this very "french review"?



Its not even the same chip that was in the announcement stream. Its not even a released chip. Its also been said that the clocks are lowered during the pre-release. Far as I'm concerned, its a bogus review of a stolen prototype, so not a review worth its salt. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 9:16 Reply

#19 Ed_1

Also remember these are all compared to older 6xxx, by time Zen is out for at least 4/8 ( 7700) it be fighting a 4.5ghz chip that seems to OC pretty good (4.8-5.0)

So that raises the bar on its clock speed needed. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 9:31 Reply

#20 P4-630

Ed_1 Also remember these are all compared to older 6xxx, by time Zen is out for at least 4/8 ( 7700) it be fighting a 4.5ghz chip that seems to OC pretty good (4.8-5.0)

So that raises the bar on its clock speed needed. If the price it right people will buy this AMD CPU even if it's at stock performing a little under a 4c/8t intel CPU. If the price it right people will buy this AMD CPU even if it's at stock performing a little under a 4c/8t intel CPU. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 9:43 Reply

#21 64K

TPU members judge a CPU by it's merits but that has very little to do with it's success. Ryzen will be a winner if, and only if, they can get PC manufacturers to buy more of their chips. It does no good for AMD to have a great CPU if their chips are sitting on a shelf collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 9:57 Reply

#22 Recon-UK

64K TPU members judge a CPU by it's merits but that has very little to do with it's success. Ryzen will be a winner if, and only if, they can get PC manufacturers to buy more of their chips. It does no good for AMD to have a great CPU if their chips are sitting on a shelf collecting dust in a warehouse somewhere. I'm buying 100 of these chips and making a rendering farm, easy AMD profit and win. I'm buying 100 of these chips and making a rendering farm, easy AMD profit and win. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 10:01 Reply

#23 Prima.Vera

Just to be clear, AMD had such a huge success with Athlon because...GAMES. If this is underwhelming...well... Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 10:05 Reply

#24 P4-630

Recon-UK I'm buying 100 of these chips and making a rendering farm, easy AMD profit and win. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 10:09 Reply

#25 elijahk33

gaming results are not underwhelming. Clocked at 3.15Ghz it beats a Skylake i5 clocked at 3.20-3.60Ghz. Knowing that games use on average 4 cores, that actually shows very closely matching IPC between Zen and Skylake. With the retail editions enabling Turbo, performance will likely get closer to a 4-core i7. Posted on Dec 26th 2016, 10:09 Reply