The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM ESTCPU Web Tests
One of the issues when running web-based tests is the nature of modern browsers to automatically install updates. This means any sustained period of benchmarking will invariably fall foul of the 'it's updated beyond the state of comparison' rule, especially when browsers will update if you give them half a second to think about it. Despite this, we were able to find a series of commands to create an un-updatable version of Chrome 56 for our 2017 test suite. While this means we might not be on the bleeding edge of the latest browser, it makes the scores between CPUs comparable.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
SunSpider 1.0.2: link
The oldest web-based benchmark in this portion of our test is SunSpider. This is a very basic javascript algorithm tool, and ends up being more a measure of IPC and latency than anything else, with most high-performance CPUs scoring around about the same. The basic test is looped 10 times and the average taken. We run the basic test 4 times.
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: link
Kraken is another Javascript based benchmark, using the same test harness as SunSpider, but focusing on more stringent real-world use cases and libraries, such as audio processing and image filters. Again, the basic test is looped ten times, and we run the basic test four times.
Google Octane 2.0: link
Along with Mozilla, as Google is a major browser developer, having peak JS performance is typically a critical asset when comparing against the other OS developers. In the same way that SunSpider is a very early JS benchmark, and Kraken is a bit newer, Octane aims to be more relevant to real workloads, especially in power constrained devices such as smartphones and tablets.
WebXPRT 2015: link
While the previous three benchmarks do calculations in the background and represent a score, WebXPRT is designed to be a better interpretation of visual workloads that a professional user might have, such as browser based applications, graphing, image editing, sort/analysis, scientific analysis and financial tools.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
545 Comments
View All Comments
fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
I’m not -I’m jst showing how stupid your OP wasIf someone is selling an entry level chip for the same price as someone else’s that’s the comparison
Include the platform costs if you like but that’s what matters -bang for buck
Only for .1% of people does performance at any costs matter
Ninjawithagun - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Actually no. Once again proving you do not know how to count to 8.LurkingSince97 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Um... NO.Sure, in some cases it is possible to compare two processors of 'equal quality' and then look at cost second.
But that is an impossible task in a review. And for some processors it is impossible for anyone.
This is impossible because there is no such thing as an 'equal quality chip'. Subjectively, I might be able to find two chips that I think are roughly equal, then compare price. But this is subjective -- depending on what my needs are.
Price is objective. We can compare two system builds at nearly equal cost directly, then see what is better. Comparing 'roughly equal' chips first starts out in the wrong place for most consumers. Only those that are not very price sensitive do that -- get the 'best' for what they want, and if there are two equal things use price as a tie breaker. Most people are looking for the best they can get for a price, rather than the lower price for what they want.
Now, to make it worse, by your reasoning the 2700X can not be compared to anything, because the core counts differ. Bull$#17. I could just as easily say that the 8700K can not be compared to the 2600X because it can overclock to 5Ghz, so they are not technically the same.
There is absolutely reason to compare 8C/16T products to 6C/12T to 4C/8T products -- BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO PICK ONE TO BUY.
LurkingSince97 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Incorrect. Q.E.D.bji - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
You are completely wrong, and Krysto is correct. Performance per dollar is the metric of greatest relevance for the vast majority of users and thus is the most useful metric to use in reviews.mapesdhs - Saturday, April 21, 2018 - link
Maybe Ninjawithagun is just crazy rich and doesn't care about price. :)Targon - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Performance per dollar for the workload you care about is what you are talking about, since game performance doesn't matter much in business, but being able to do whatever the day to day work as quickly as possible is. That may mean lower core counts with high clock speeds will be more important, or higher core counts will beat out most other things(16+ cores at 1.5GHz might beat out 4 cores at 5GHz). It all depends.Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
"Why does every review keep making the same mistake?? It has nothing to do with price. Comparing like CPU architectures is the only logical course of action."To abuse an already overused meme here, why not both? This is why we have the data for all of these parts.
Our focus is on price comparisons, because at the end of the day most readers will make their buying decisions around a given budget. But there is also plenty here looking into IPC and other architectural elements.
Cooe - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Lol don't feed him Ryan! As one of our so gracious and glorious overloads it pains me to see you get into the mud with that dingus. Leave that to us nobodies :).Ninjawithagun - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Ignorance is your bliss.