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 Legacy Tests
Our legacy tests represent benchmarks that were once at the height of their time. Some of these are industry standard synthetics, and we have data going back over 10 years. All of the data here has been rerun on Windows 10, and we plan to go back several generations of components to see how performance has evolved.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
3D Particle Movement v1
3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.
CineBench 11.5 and 10
Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.
x264 HD 3.0
Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.
545 Comments
View All Comments
ComposingCoder - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
just an FYI, they tested on different settings..... Toms Hardware for example used High on civ VI vs ultra that was used here.fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Try techradar who actually patchedThey too are showing massive Intel hits
RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TechRadar seems to have tested only two games and provides minimal information on how they tested. Plus, Intel is still a bit faster in their tests.fallaha56 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Look at the geekbench scoresThey also include ‘before and after’ Spectre2 patches for Intel
The reliance of Intel on prefetch is well-known and now it’s busted
Crazyeyeskillah - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
AMD hardware crushes intel on GEEKBENCH. You have to look at all tests together, and never focus on one test, unless that is the only thing you are buying your processor for, like gaming, or video encoding.sardaukar - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
There's no need to be a dick about it.SkyBill40 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Burden of proof fallacy?ACTIVATE!
xidex2 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
So you are now Intel engineer or what? How do you know what impact those patches have on Intel CPUs? Get a grip and delete these childish comments.RafaelHerschel - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
I'll add Hardware Unboxed on YouTube.ACE76 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Anandtech isn't the only one to have come to this conclusion bud.