The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
by Ian Cutress on April 19, 2018 9:00 AM ESTTranslating to IPC: All This for 3%?
Contrary to popular belief, increasing IPC is difficult. Attempt to ensure that each execution port is fed every cycle requires having wide decoders, large out-of-order queues, fast caches, and the right execution port configuration. It might sound easy to pile it all on, however both physics and economics get in the way: the chip still has to be thermally efficient and it has to make money for the company. Every generational design update will go for what is called the ‘low-hanging fruit’: the identified changes that give the most gain for the smallest effort. Usually reducing cache latency is not always the easiest task, and for non-semiconductor engineers (myself included), it sounds like a lot of work for a small gain.
For our IPC testing, we use the following rules. Each CPU is allocated four cores, without extra threading, and power modes are disabled such that the cores run at a specific frequency only. The DRAM is set to what the processor supports, so in the case of the new CPUs, that is DDR4-2933, and the previous generation at DDR4-2666. I have recently seen threads which dispute if this is fair: this is an IPC test, not an instruction efficiency test. The DRAM official support is part of the hardware specifications, just as much as the size of the caches or the number of execution ports. Running the two CPUs at the same DRAM frequency gives an unfair advantage to one of them: either a bigger overclock/underclock, and deviates from the intended design.
So in our test, we take the new Ryzen 7 2700X, the first generation Ryzen 7 1800X, and the pre-Zen Bristol Ridge based A12-9800, which is based on the AM4 platform and uses DDR4. We set each processors at four cores, no multi-threading, and 3.0 GHz, then ran through some of our tests.
For this graph we have rooted the first generation Ryzen 7 1800X as our 100% marker, with the blue columns as the Ryzen 7 2700X. The problem with trying to identify a 3% IPC increase is that 3% could easily fall within the noise of a benchmark run: if the cache is not fully set before the run, it could encounter different performance. Shown above, a good number of tests fall in that +/- 2% range.
However, for compute heavy tasks, there are 3-4% benefits: Corona, LuxMark, CineBench and GeekBench are the ones here. We haven’t included the GeekBench sub-test results in the graph above, but most of those fall into the 2-5% category for gains.
If we take out Cinebench R15 nT result and the Geekbench memory tests, the average of all of the tests comes out to a +3.1% gain for the new Ryzen 2700X. That sounds bang on the money for what AMD stated it would do.
Cycling back to that Cinebench R15 nT result that showed a 22% gain. We also had some other IPC testing done at 3.0 GHz but with 8C/16T (which we couldn’t compare to Bristol Ridge), and a few other tests also showed 20%+ gains. This is probably a sign that AMD might have also adjusted how it manages its simultaneous multi-threading. This requires further testing.
AMD’s Overall 10% Increase
With some of the benefits of the 12LP manufacturing process, a few editors internally have questioned exactly why AMD hasn’t redesigned certain elements of the microarchitecture to take advantage. Ultimately it would appear that the ‘free’ frequency boost is worth just putting the same design in – as mentioned previously, the 12LP design is based on 14LPP with performance bump improvements. In the past it might not have been mentioned as a separate product line. So pushing through the same design is an easy win, allowing the teams to focus on the next major core redesign.
That all being said, AMD has previously already stated its intentions for the Zen+ core design – rolling back to CES at the beginning of the year, AMD stated that they wanted Zen+ and future products to go above and beyond the ‘industry standard’ of a 7-8% performance gain each year.
Clearly 3% IPC is not enough, so AMD is combining the performance gain with the +250 MHz increase, which is about another 6% peak frequency, with better turbo performance with Precision Boost 2 / XFR 2. This is about 10%, on paper at least. Benchmarks to follow.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
545 Comments
View All Comments
John_M - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
What edition of Windows 10 to typical gamers use and why?johnsmith222 - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
In the meantime we have a lot benches to analyse :)Sum of web benches:
https://www.3dcenter.org/news/ryzen-2000-launchrev...
oRAirwolf - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
I would really like to see some storage bench mark to compare pre and post Spectre/Meltdown patching of Intel CPUs as well as an apples-to-apples comparison of nvme storage performance compared to an Intel 8700k.Silma - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
It's really hard to generalize on why people purchase the processors they do.I met a guy online with an over the top, super expensive computer. His sole purpose seems to be the first in the online tests and he will spend hours fine tuning the overclocking and whatnot.
Another guy mostly playing D3 purchased a 3K euro computer, which is absolutely over the top for what he plays/does. His reasoning is, I change my computer every 10 years, so when i do, I want the best components.
In my opinion, for most people without special needs (YouTube encoding, 3D rendering and whatnot), most processors have been good enough for years, and there is no reason to invest a lot in a processor when money is much better spent in an x4 PCIe SSD where you'll instantly feel the difference vs a hard drive or a medium quality SSD.
To me, power consumption and noise of processor as well as graphic card is a consideration at least as important as price.
The sole reason I would change processor today would be to get a fully Thunderbolt 3 compatible system, since the first TB3 audio interfaces are slowly coming to market.
Then again, I'm sure many people will have other priorities and reasons for purchasing their processors.
Targon - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Many of these high end systems are overpriced, or they come with components that are not worth it for what is being done. With that being said, going for a higher end CPU does make sense for those looking to keep their systems for a long time. Video cards and storage are areas that people should pay close attention to when it comes to price.NVMe drives are VERY expensive if you go up to the 1TB level, so spending that sort of money doesn't make sense when the prices will drop in the next two years. A 250-500GB NVMe drive would make more sense when combined with a traditional hard drive for additional storage. Video cards are also at a premium right now, as is RAM. If the system were purchased back in April of 2017, then yea, not too horrible to go for 32GB of RAM back then, but now, I'd stick with 16GB of RAM due to the prices being so much higher than they were.
For desktops, Thunderbolt isn't all that amazing when you can add a video or sound card to the system that will do what you want it to. Laptops are another story, and you need to pick and choose your priorities.
Flying Aardvark - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
That's if you're short on money. I don't spend much extra other than vacations & eating very well. So when I upgrade, which is every 5 to 10 years, I buy the best available like Silma. I have a 1TB 960 Pro for that reason, it was $650 and I didn't think twice about it. I need the most reliable, fastest drive at the time. The 960 Pro is a MLC memory configuration, I've always used higher end MLC drives and they've served me very well.I'm not waiting a year or two, when I have over $100,000 sitting in my bank account doing nothing. What's the point, it's just $650. Same goes for the rest of my computer, which I only own/maintain one of.
Not everyone is a child or someone who doesn't spend the majority of their time progressing their careers so they can make more money. The price consideration is not the end-all, ultimate rule on hardware for every single consumer.
mapesdhs - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Indeed, though I guarantee some here will react poorly at the notion of someone who can make such a purchasing decision. :) Sometimes the best makes perfect sense, and if one can afford it, then why not.Kaihekoa - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Why are Anand's gaming numbers showing the 2700X beating all Intel CPUs when every other reviewer still shows the 8700K/7700K still being the best gaming CPUs?Flying Aardvark - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
TechRadar & the wccftech preview has the same results. If you have been following Spectre as I have, you would've seen even users find this result. See the top comments here. https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7obo...AT, TR & WCCF's results are accurate. Many reasons for this.
- Many reviewers used the old Ryzen balanced power setting which cripples the 2700X
- Disallowed the motherboard settings that push the chip over TDP
- Fully patched as possible for Spectre v1 & v2, which cripples Intel up to 50% in IO heavy tasks (streaming textures for games that do so).
There is naturally, lots of resistance to the fact that AMD is dominating. It's over for now, time for people to just admit it, they got screwed if they don't have Ryzen. Or at least, bought the inferior product.
mapesdhs - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
I don't think those posting so much venom about the results will change their minds until AMD releases something that really is just right out the gate blatantly faster, including for IPC. Another year or two and I think that will happen.