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
Maxiking - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link
"I just finished running Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmarks, 1080p, very high preset, FXAA.Unpatched:
Mountain Peak: 131.48 FPS (min: 81.19 max: 197.02)
Syria: 101.99 FPS (min: 62.73, max: 122.24)
Geothermal Valley: 98.93 FPS (min:76.48, max: 117.00)
Overall score: 111.31 FPS
Windows patch only:
Mountain Peak: 135.34 FPS (min: 38.21 max: 212.84)
Syria: 102.54 FPS (min: 44.22, max: 144.03)
Geothermal Valley: 96.36 FPS (min:41.35, max: 148.46)
Overall score: 111.93 FPS
Windows patch and BIOS update:
Mountain Peak: 134.01 FPS (min: 59.91 max: 216.16)
Syria: 101.68 FPS (min: 38.95, max: 143.44)
Geothermal Valley: 97.55 FPS (min:46.18, max: 143.97)
Overall score: 111.62 FPS
Average framerates don't seem affected."
From the link you posted, you got rekt by yourself.
Ranger1065 - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Nicely done Mr Aardvark. That made me smile.mikael.skytter - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link
Thanks for a great review. Any chance it would be possible to look into how SpeedShift 2 compares to AMD:s solution for short burst loads and clock ramp-up?Thanks!
koekkoe - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link
My favorite part in the article: fsfasd.Meow.au - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link
I’ve visited the comments section a few times since the publication. As a psychologist in training, I’ve found it interesting as the initial complaints about this review were reasonable (it doesn’t match other sites), but by page 45 are now bordering on paranoia and conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories are all the more puzzling when the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that the spectre patch has punished Intel processors rather severely. I’ve found trying to argue against conspiracy theories, be it the moon landing or anti-vaxers, to be singularly ineffective.The more you provide scientific evidence and rationality, the harder conspiracy theorists dig in their heels and defend their original position. Our natural confirmatory bias to only seek evidence which confirms pre-existing beliefs seems to be a flaw built into the wiring of the human brain. Psychologically protective? Yes... it’s nice to always be right. Useful for doing science? No.
I’d be delighted (and shocked) in a week’s time to learn of massive incompetence or a cover up. I expect there to be some interesting and unexpected details. But I’m guessing no evidence will be found for the commonly repeated conspiracy theories (spectre effect is minimal, heatsink throttling, bias against intel, etc.). But I guess that will just be further evidence there really is a conspiracy... whatever.
Keep up the good work guys. A long time reader.
RafaelHerschel - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
I think you need more training, psychologist in training, because it seems that you can't detect your own personal bias. As you stated yourself, the original complaints are quite reasonable. The problem is that AnandTech is not addressing these complaints in a timely manner and is mostly interested in damage control.The fact that some complaints are unreasonable doesn't change the fact.
Many other reviewers have applied all relevant patches, it is poor form to assume that they haven't. But I understand why you question their competence or integrity. It's cognitive dissonance. You trust AnandTech. In this case AnandTech is an outlier and has not clarified the unique results of their gaming test. Your trust in AnandTech is therefore not logical, and yet you consider yourself a logical person.
Therefore, you have decided that the 'logical' explanation is that all other reviewers haven't applied the patches... whatever.
divertedpanda - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Other reviewers admitted having not patched down to the bios since some used mobos where patches were not yet released.TrackSmart - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link
This comment by RafaelHerschel doesn't make sense. The person being maligned said exactly this: "I expect there to be some interesting and unexpected details. But I’m guessing no evidence will be found for the commonly repeated conspiracy theories..."And he/she was EXACTLY CORRECT in that prediction.
Your complaint, on the other hand, seems disingenuous. Anandtech's staff immediately flagged their gaming results as anomalous (on just about every page of the article). Then they dug deep to figure out what happened, which takes time to test, confirm, and then publish about). Then about 5 days later they posted updated results (2700x and i7-8700k, so far) and a VERY DETAILED explanation of what happened.
So.... What's the problem again? That sometimes unforeseen test parameters can lead to different results? That can happen. The only question is how was the situation handled. In this case, I think reasonably well under the circumstances.
mapesdhs - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
Grud knows now what "timely manner" is supposed to mean these days. Perhaps RafaelHerschel would only be happy if AT can go back in time and change the article before it's published.Meow.au, re what you said, Stefan Molyneux has some great pieces on these issues on YT.
schlock - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link
Why aren't we running DDR4-3200 across all systems? It may go a small ways to explaining the small discrepancy in intel performance ...