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
eek2121 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Their benchmarks are garbage? You are welcome to buy a 2700X and test for yourself. The benchmarks they used are built in for the most part to each game. It coincides pretty much with what I know of Ryzen, Coffee Lake, and Ryzen 2xxx.AndersFlint - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
While out of respect for the reviewer's hard work, I wouldn't describe the results as "garbage", they certainly don't match up with results from other publications.ACE76 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Yes, Anandtech's are honest and objective...I believe Tech Radar was comparing Coffee Lake OC'd to 5.2ghz vs Ryzen 2700x at 4.1ghz...the stock turbo alone hits 4.3ghz...they are slanting to benefit Intel...a 5.2ghz stable overclock on Coffee Lake alone is very hard to achieve and maybe 10-15% of CPUs can do it.Luckz - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
I haven't really heard of anyone unable to reach 5 GHz.SkyBill40 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Well, golly gee... did the other reviewers use the *exact* setup as used here? No? Hmm... I guess that then makes your grouchy mcgrouchface missive not worth consideration then, no? If anyone is to not be taken seriously here, it's you.Typical ad hominem and burden of proof fallacies. Well done, Chris113q.
Flying Aardvark - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
WRONG. AT has it right, these are properly patched systems. Heavy IO perf loss with Intel Meltdown patches has been well known for months. See top comment here. https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7obo...Prove your claim that the data is incorrect or misleading in any way whatsoever, child.
RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
One of the problems is that other reviewers see a less pronounced difference between the new AMD Ryzen CPU's and the older ones. Most reviewers claim that they have tested with all available patches in place.Your conclusion that AT has it right is based on what? Your belief that AT can't make mistakes? Maybe there is a logical explanation, but for now, it seems that AT might have done something wrong.
Flying Aardvark - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
I have evidence to backup my claim, users with no motivation to mislead agree with AT, and did months ago. You have no evidence, simply butthurt. Good luck.boozed - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Let's ask a total jerk from the internet what he thinks.aliquis - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
They definitely used slower memory. Don't know if that's the thing. Don't know what fps others get in the same games and settings. Otherwise maybe it's ASUS doing special tricks like with MCE before or have better memory timits or can use some trick to get similar of precision boost overdrive already. Or a software mistake.Sweclockers is the best for game performance. They do 720p medium so the gpu limits will be smallest there.