The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTThe Ryzen Die
Throughout the time leading up to the launch of Ryzen, AMD reaffirmed its commitment to at least +40% IPC improvement over Excavator. This was specifically listed as a goal relating to performance, at an equivalent energy per cycle, resulting in a 40% increase in efficiency. At the Tech Day, AMD listed an overall 2.7x (or 270%) performance per watt improvement, split into the following:
Obviously a number of benefits come from moving the 28nm TSMC process to GloFo’s 14nm FinFET process which is used via a Samsung license. Both the smaller node and FinFET improvements have been well documented so we won’t go over them here, but AMD is stating that Zen is much more than this as a direct improvement to immediate performance, not just efficiency. While Zen is initially a high-performance x86 core at heart, it is designed to scale all the way from notebooks to supercomputers, or from where the Cat cores (such as Jaguar and Puma) were all the way up to the old Opterons and beyond, all with at least +40% IPC.
The first immediate image out of the presentation is the CPU Complex (a CCX), which shows the Zen core design as a four-CPU cluster with caches. This shows the L2/L3 cache breakdown, and also confirms 2MB of L3 per core with 8 MB of L3 per CCX. It also states that the L3 is mostly inclusive of the L2 cache, which stems from the L3 cache as a victim cache for L2 data. AMD is stating that the protocols involved in the L3 cache design allow each core to access the L3 of each other core with an average (but range) of latencies.
Over the next few pages, we’ll go through the slides. They detail more information about the application of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), New Instructions, the size of various queues and buffers, the back-end of the design, the front-end of the design, fetch, decode, execute, load/store and retire segments.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
If you have a Q6600, I can understand that, but the QX9650 ain't too bad. ;)Marburg U - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I'm on a Q9550 running at 3.8 for the past 6 years. I could still run modern games at 1050p, with a r9 270x, but that's the best i can squeeze out of it. Mind that i'm still on DDR2 (my motherboard turns 10 in a few months). I really want to embrace a ultra wide monitor.mapesdhs - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Moving up to 2560x1440 may indeed benefit from faster RAM, but it probably depends on the game. Likewise, CPU dependencies vary, and they can lessen at higher resolutions, though this isn't always the case. Still, good point about DDR2 there. To what kind of GPU were you thinking of upgrading? Highend like 1080 Ti? Mid-range? Used GTX 980s are a good deal these days, and a bunch of used 980 Tis will likely hit the market shortly. I've tested 980 SLI with older platforms, actually not too bad, though I've not done tests with my QX9650 yet, started off at the low end to get through the pain. :D (P4/3.4 on an ASUS Striker II Extreme, it's almost embarassing)Ian.
Meditari - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
I'm actually using a Q9550 that's running at 3.8 as well. I have a 980ti and it can do 4k, albeit at 25-30fps in newer games like Witcher 3. Fairly certain a 1080ti would work great with a Q9550, but I feel like the time for these chips is coming to an end. Still incredible that a 8 year old chip can still hold it's own by just upgrading the GPUmapesdhs - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Intriguing! Many people don't even try to use such a card on an older mbd, they just assume from sites reviews that it's not worth doing. Can you run 3DMark11/13? What results do you get? You won't be able to cite the URLs here directly, but you can mention the submission numbers and I can compare them to my 980 Ti running on newer CPUs (the first tests I do with every GPU I obtain are with a 5GHz 2700K, at which speed it has the same multithreaded performance as a stock 6700K).What do you get for CB 11.5 and CB R15 single/multi?
What mbd are you using? I ask because some later S775 mbds did use DDR3, albeit not at quite the speeds possible with Z68, etc. In other words, you could move the parts on a better mbd as an intermediate step, though finding such a board could be difficult. Hmm, given the value often placed on such boards, it'd probably be easier to pick up a used 3930K and a board to go with it, that would be fairly low cost.
Or of course just splash for a 1700X. 8)
Ian.
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Welcome to the 21:9 fan club brother.But be careful of the 1920x1080 screens, my brother's 21:9 doesn't look half as good as my 3440x1440 screen.. It just needs that little bit more verticle resoultion.
My pals 4k screen is lovely, and brings his 4GB 980 GTX to its knees. Worse aspect ratio (in my opinion), and too many pixels (for now) to draw.
Careful of second-hand purchases too, many panels with backlight-bleed issues out there, and they are returns for that reason, again, in my opinion.
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
Long story short:20% lower single-thread than Intel
70% higher multi-thread due to 8 cores
$330-$500
Mugur - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Actually, on average -6.8% IPC versus Kaby Lake (at the same frequency) - I believe this came directly from AMD. Add to this a lower grade 14nm process (GF again) that is biting AMD again and again (see last year RX480). Motherboard issues (memory, HPET), OS/application issues (SMT, lack of optimizations).All in all, I'm really impressed of what they achieved with such obstacles.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
Just looking at CineBench at a given TDP and price, AMD is 20% lower. That's the high level answer, regardless of IPC * clock frequency. I agree it's a huge win for AMD, and for users who need multicore performance.Cooe - Monday, March 1, 2021 - link
Maybe compare to Intel's Broadwell-E chips with actually similar core counts.... -_-