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
danjw - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
They Anandtech used the rated speeds that the processors were stated to support by the manufactures. Anandtech, is using everything at stock. Anandtech ran all the processors through fully patched systems (both bios and OS). Not every website other tests to these same methodology. So, there will be differences in their results. None the less, Anandtech, is auditing their results to double check them. I really don't think they are going to see anything wrong. Toms, ran their Intel parts without the latest bios updates. Others overclocked their systems.Most users do not overclock their systems. Sure, a lot of us readers do, but not everyone. I overclock my systems, but, my two brothers who are both just as technical as I am, do not. It is a choice some make and others do not. The majority of users do not overclock. So, Anandtech does not overclock in their most reviews. They have at times in the past and may in the future include overclocking results in reviews, but they have are always broken out the overclocking results in a separate section and/or labeled the overclocked results to differentiate them from the standard clocked results. These are editorial choices that Anandtech makes, I don't see any problem with that.
Luckz - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Intel for some reason have 4 memory sticks. Weird idea.werpu - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
Well the main difference is they tested against fully meltdown and specte patched systems, which in fact is the norm, while all other reviewers simply tested against bare metal. It is known that Intel took a pretty serious hit especially with Meltdown and a more serious hit with Spectre compared to AMD which did not have meltdown at all and to a lesser degree Spectre than Intel did.I would say Anandtechs tests are spot on.
And this reflects the sad state of nowadays performance testing which seems to be done to 99.9% by incompetent idiots or fanboys (especially the youtubers are the worst)
However in extreme situations Intel again wins since the 8700k can be oced by decapping and good cooling to 5GHz while the OC capabilities of the 2700x are basically non existent. It really depends, which is better. But the performance gap is closing and in non OCed system it is not existent anymore. It will be interesting next year when AMD has moved to 7nm while Intel still will be stuck at 10nm which they currently try to pull it but not have yet managed. Then the game might be entirely reversed.
Alphasoldier - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
Unfortunatelly, you are the only idiot and fanboy here. Pretty much everyone stated in their reviews, the system were fully patched, all cpus were reused and everything was retested, because AMD fanboys were screaming Meltdown here, Spectre there.Now, the internet is full of this garbage review, it spreads like cancer, because AMD fanboys have nothing better to do, once again they are disappointed that 6 cores from Intel outperformed 8 cores from AMD and they are now like the Liverpool fans repeating "The next year will be ours"
But at least they got some fancy RBG cooler.
Fallen Kell - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
Alphasoldier, I've been reading the reviews, and while many have stated they have applied the software (OS) patches, very few have stated they applied both the software and BIOS patches for the Spectre variant 2. Thew few places that I have seen which have stated both the software and BIOS patches were applied all seem to be showing much more similar results as the AT article.In anycase, Ryan stated they are looking into it, and I am certain we will see an update within the next few days. And don't come saying that I am a AMD fanboi, I havn't purchased a AMD CPU since the Thunderbird (i.e. a slot A CPU).
mapesdhs - Saturday, April 21, 2018 - link
werpu, oc an 8700K to 5GHz? Makes me laugh that a 300MHz bump over a CPU's max single core turbo is even called an oc these days. Sheesh, it's a far cry from the days of SB, oc hardly seems worth bothering with now.mkaibear - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
It's here, it's here!Dr. Swag - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
What is with the gaming benchmarks? On your tests the whole ryzen 2 series is a step above everything else, but all other reviews show it between ryzen and coffee lake...fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
This is the Spectre2 patch effectNot looking great for Intel and HFR gaming
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
"What is with the gaming benchmarks?"We're looking into it right now. Some of these results weren't in until very recently, so we're going back and doing some additional validation and logging to see if we can get to the bottom of this.