[NEWS] AMD Zen stream, Ryzen!

[FlanK3r]

stream will be at AMDTwitch in few minutes!
https://www.twitch.tv/amd

Or second link: New Horizon

[AliG]

Lisa Su seems like an energetic person

[AliG]

Can someone confirm the 6900k frequency in the Handbrake test?

AMD clearly was 5 seconds faster - but I thought it looked like the 6900k was running at just 3.2 GHz in task manager? Something just seemed fishy to me (especially because they covered up the Zen frequency).


Edit:
Re-watched that portion of the livestream. Definitely running at 3.2 GHz. On top of that, Su clearly re-iterated the Zen CPU wasn't boosting, but the clockspeed wasn't shown. As far as we know it was just running at a flat 4 GHz and that's why it was faster..... Really wish AMD wouldn't pull these tricks...

[FlanK3r]

i7-6900K never running at base clock, because Intel Turboobost working in hard load with i7-6900K at 3.5 GHz.
But Im sure, Zen boost was also more than 3.4 GHz behind the render (maybe around the 3.7 GHz)

[vario]

Can someone confirm the 6900k frequency in the Handbrake test?

AMD clearly was 5 seconds faster - but I thought it looked like the 6900k was running at just 3.2 GHz in task manager? Something just seemed fishy to me (especially because they covered up the Zen frequency).


Edit:
Re-watched that portion of the livestream. Definitely running at 3.2 GHz. On top of that, Su clearly re-iterated the Zen CPU wasn't boosting, but the clockspeed wasn't shown. As far as we know it was just running at a flat 4 GHz and that's why it was faster..... Really wish AMD wouldn't pull these tricks...

AliG, Lisa stated earlier that Ryzen runs at FLAT 3,4ghz no boost, and 6900K Runs at default speed ie 3.2ghz base 3.7ghz boost.
That means in blender it has almost the same performance as BDE (same speed, but Ryzen at 3,4 and BDE 3,2Ghz) and is faster in handbrake.

PEOPLE WITH 5960x and 6900K, set your Cpus at FLAT 3,4ghz and download blender 2.78 and test file from AMD page we can compare IPC properly then (we can assume 2400mhz DDR4) .
Mine 5820K (6 core haswell-e) just did that test at 4.2ghz in 55s, ryzen does it in 35s (along with 6900K)

So, i set mine 5820K to 4.53ghz, and redid the blender test, 51 secs, :-/ it gives me the same aggregate amount of jiggahurts as 3,4x8 =27.2 /6x4,53=27.2 .Something doesnt add up or my setup is wrong.

[NEOAethyr]

I see today's news includes a new name for amd's cpu.
Okdokey lol, I thought ryzon was spelled rizon or raizen, I think it came from yuyu hakusho lol.

If this was years ago, I would learn towards the idea that amd potentially has a one up on intel when it comes to tdp.
I would hope that I guess if I were going to buy the cpu.
I'm guessing this should at least bridge the diff in gaming, but the real ? is, does it clock to the mid 4 ghz range (24/7, turbo voltage) ?
If not, then maybe it's possible for them to continue to lose out even to intel's mainstream quad core's, let alone the next gen 6 cores (still with dual chan though).

That's what I want to know, do I recommend intel mainstream, or amd zen ver +...


Edit:
People have been complaining of lack of info from amd.
Yet amd often does there little monthly (or whatever) stock boosts advertising spam whatever you wanna call it.
What I'm trying to say I guess, it's between overhyping and it's to quiet, there must be something wrong lol.
You can't win either way I guess.

And then there's the (insert random pantsuit lady comment) on how lisa su is so tech savy, or so business savy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care lol, I just think it's funny how it pops up randomly in the topics on other sites from time to time when amd news is on the front page .


Anyways the mem scores for the new socket type look horrible on the apu, I hope zen or whatever it's called... looks completely diff in that respect, 40k or go away... (not 12-13k geez...)

[drmrlordx]

The 6900k should be able to sustain a boost clock of 3.5 GHz in both workloads demonstrated by AMD.

[AliG]

AliG, Lisa stated earlier that Ryzen runs at FLAT 3,4ghz no boost, and 6900K Runs at default speed ie 3.2ghz base 3.7ghz boost.
That means in blender it has almost the same performance as BDE (same speed, but Ryzen at 3,4 and BDE 3,2Ghz) and is faster in handbrake.

PEOPLE WITH 5960x and 6900K, set your Cpus at FLAT 3,4ghz and download blender 2.78 and test file from AMD page we can compare IPC properly then (we can assume 2400mhz DDR4) .
Mine 5820K (6 core haswell-e) just did that test at 4.2ghz in 55s, ryzen does it in 35s (along with 6900K)

So, i set mine 5820K to 4.53ghz, and redid the blender test, 51 secs, :-/ it gives me the same aggregate amount of jiggahurts as 3,4x8 =27.2 /6x4,53=27.2 .Something doesnt add up or my setup is wrong.

I'm talking about the Handbrake test where they actually showed the task manager. They not only intentionally covered up the Ryzen clockspeed (Lisa specifically said no boost, not that it was running stock), but you could visibly see the 6900k was running at 3.2 GHz - i.e. turbo was turned off.

Just seemed very fishy to me, and reminded me of their RX 480 demo where they used different settings for the Nvidia card.

[zanzabar]

I'm talking about the Handbrake test where they actually showed the task manager. They not only intentionally covered up the Ryzen clockspeed (Lisa specifically said no boost, not that it was running stock), but you could visibly see the 6900k was running at 3.2 GHz - i.e. turbo was turned off.

Just seemed very fishy to me, and reminded me of their RX 480 demo where they used different settings for the Nvidia card.

you may be forgetting how turbo works. how we on XS use it and most other DIY users is not the same as stock. at stock that chip runs 1 core at 3.7ghz, 2 cores at 3.6ghz, and 3 or more cores at 3.4ghz. that puts a stock 6900k and a 3.4ghz SR amd part at the same frequency (3.4ghz) for the benches they ran.

the task manager also only shows the lowest speed core value and does not change with turbo unless you set the bios to all cores.

[AliG]

No I understand how turbo works. I also know my task manager shows the turbo speed on my 2500k.

All of those cores were fully loaded - it just seemed very odd to me to see 3.2 GHz and have them cover up the Zen speed.

[zanzabar]

do you not set turbo to all cores in the bios? if you set turbo to all cores (the normal default on diy boards) it sets the turbo multi is the top speed step and does not actually use turbo. the way it reports was a PITA when i was working retail and trying to explain it to people who complained when they saw it had a lower speed than the tag there, and then showed them what it did in cpuz

[vario]

I'm talking about the Handbrake test where they actually showed the task manager. They not only intentionally covered up the Ryzen clockspeed (Lisa specifically said no boost, not that it was running stock), but you could visibly see the 6900k was running at 3.2 GHz - i.e. turbo was turned off.

Just seemed very fishy to me, and reminded me of their RX 480 demo where they used different settings for the Nvidia card.

I get that, but if in the beginning Lisa said that ryzen runs at 3,4Ghz flat, then we know in handbrake it also runs at 3,4ghz.
Because if not, AMD would have a court case on their hands ...
Yes they did cover Clockspeed of zen, and there could be a million reasons for that on engineering hardware.My guess it shows wrong info.Just imagine if it showed 1,7ghz and screens of that would hit the web, like 90% of people would assume that clock is correct and AMD would have a disaster on their hands.

[StAndrew]

My prediction:
Ryzen may match Intel's performance but I doubt it will be a clear cut win in any sector except maybe performance/watt (and lower prices). For AMD to admit silicon is still be optimized just months before launch is a red flag for me and I have serious doubts these chips will clock well. The next revision of Ryzen will probably be very soon after initial launch and the release will see a lot of "what Ryzen should have been" reviews.

[FlanK3r]

Anyways the mem scores for the new socket type look horrible on the apu, I hope zen or whatever it's called... looks completely diff in that respect, 40k or go away... (not 12-13k geez...)

Two reasons for low score
1)15h family
2) no L3 cache and half size of L2, AIDA memroy somehow working with cache in memory subtest (compare example 15h chips with L3, 4MB L2 and 2MB L2 with same memory)


Example of stock IMC Carizzo


stock Kaveri/Godavari


Vishera FX has around 30k/20k/28k (read/write/copy) at 2133 MHz memory

[Particle]

No I understand how turbo works. I also know my task manager shows the turbo speed on my 2500k.

All of those cores were fully loaded - it just seemed very odd to me to see 3.2 GHz and have them cover up the Zen speed.

Unless you want to make the explicit accusation that Lisa was lying about the test conditions, there is really nothing to debate here. She stated the test conditions during the stream before the tests started. The Zen processor was running at 3.4 GHz without dynamic clocking and the 6900K was running at its default specifications--3.2 GHz base clock with 3.7 GHz boost. That they covered part of the screen for a pre-release product demo isn't shocking, surprising, or anything else.

[Tim]

Unless you want to make the explicit accusation that Lisa was lying about the test conditions, there is really nothing to debate here. She stated the test conditions during the stream before the tests started. The Zen processor was running at 3.4 GHz without dynamic clocking and the 6900K was running at its default specifications--3.2 GHz base clock with 3.7 GHz boost. That they covered part of the screen for a pre-release product demo isn't shocking, surprising, or anything else.

Lying? Nah, let's call it AMD PR speak shall we. They've only been doing that for as long as I can remember.

I honestly will not believe anything AMD has to say in their PR spin until I see unbiased tests. I'm not entirely against AMD, only against the nonsense they continue to pull off and are getting away with because such a large amount of enthusiasts are fainting like teenage girls whenever AMD comes out with a paperlaunch or press event.

But hell to the yes if it's a home run for AMD. AMD still outnumbers Intel 7-4 in my builds since the late 90s!

[verndewd]

My prediction:
Ryzen may match Intel's performance but I doubt it will be a clear cut win in any sector except maybe performance/watt (and lower prices). For AMD to admit silicon is still be optimized just months before launch is a red flag for me and I have serious doubts these chips will clock well. The next revision of Ryzen will probably be very soon after initial launch and the release will see a lot of "what Ryzen should have been" reviews.

i think this is reasonable, but it doesnt mask the idea or importance of AMD finally being back in the game either. i wouldnt expect AMD to really be a clear winner anytime soon But at least they are officially competing.

[StAndrew]

i think this is reasonable, but it doesnt mask the idea or importance of AMD finally being back in the game either. i wouldnt expect AMD to really be a clear winner anytime soon But at least they are officially competing.

But I don't think they will compete unless they have a chip that can overclock decently. They might take some OEM market shares back with lower chip prices but system builders may not jump on the Ryzen if it proves to be a lack luster overclocker.

[qcmadness]

But I don't think they will compete unless they have a chip that can overclock decently. They might take some OEM market shares back with lower chip prices but system builders may not jump on the Ryzen if it proves to be a lack luster overclocker.

DIY market is tiny compared to server market where AMD can take much profit.

[StAndrew]

DIY market is tiny compared to server market where AMD can take much profit.

True... But it will be tough to compete with Intel. Qualcom's 48 core chip was just released and it MIGHT be enough to keep their server shares alive but I kind of doubt it. If AMD wants to get a new foothold in the server market, they need a very successful launch now...

[Buckeye]

My prediction:
Ryzen may match Intel's performance but I doubt it will be a clear cut win in any sector except maybe performance/watt (and lower prices). For AMD to admit silicon is still be optimized just months before launch is a red flag for me and I have serious doubts these chips will clock well. The next revision of Ryzen will probably be very soon after initial launch and the release will see a lot of "what Ryzen should have been" reviews.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of AMD systems out there for sale and most people do not OC or even know what that is. They go to BestBuy/Newegg/Fry's etc and buy pre-built systems.

I was looking around at Laptops for a friend yesterday, so many AMD systems out there, same with Desktops.

The main selling point for most consumers is ... price. This is where AMD can shine big time.
The average consumer does not even know what cores/threads are and what more can do for you, not that it matters much as they do not fully use them.

It goes... how fast does my system boot ... does it take a long time for my favorite app to fire up ... is the internet slow ?
Most of these can be dealt with by using SSD's.

[AliG]

Lying? Nah, let's call it AMD PR speak shall we. They've only been doing that for as long as I can remember.

I honestly will not believe anything AMD has to say in their PR spin until I see unbiased tests. I'm not entirely against AMD, only against the nonsense they continue to pull off and are getting away with because such a large amount of enthusiasts are fainting like teenage girls whenever AMD comes out with a paperlaunch or press event.

But hell to the yes if it's a home run for AMD. AMD still outnumbers Intel 7-4 in my builds since the late 90s!

That's my thought. Remember what they did with the RX 480 demo? Sure the crossfire beat the 1080 single card, but they used different system configs and different in-game settings (I think notably medium vs high settings). I'm just saying, it was very peculiar to me that Lisa Su kept specifically saying "no boost", but they covered the clocks. Zen is guaranteed for 3.4 GHz+ - as far as we know that means the top SKU runs at 4 GHz.

And again, full disclosure: I own a non-trivial amount of AMD stock. I want nothing but them to do well.

But I don't think they will compete unless they have a chip that can overclock decently. They might take some OEM market shares back with lower chip prices but system builders may not jump on the Ryzen if it proves to be a lack luster overclocker.

AMD is claiming Zen not only overclocks well, but responds to internal temp and voltage sensors for a far more aggressive boost clock. Hard to say until we put it in the hands of average overclockers (I really don't care what it does on LN2).

[StAndrew]

I don't know about that. There are plenty of AMD systems out there for sale and most people do not OC or even know what that is. They go to BestBuy/Newegg/Fry's etc and buy pre-built systems.

I was looking around at Laptops for a friend yesterday, so many AMD systems out there, same with Desktops.

The main selling point for most consumers is ... price. This is where AMD can shine big time.
The average consumer does not even know what cores/threads are and what more can do for you, not that it matters much as they do not fully use them.

It goes... how fast does my system boot ... does it take a long time for my favorite app to fire up ... is the internet slow ?
Most of these can be dealt with by using SSD's.

I mentioned OEM systems and costs in my post so I'm right with you. Its just concerning for me that silicon optimizations are still ongoing. In the context of this forum I think a large chunk of us prefer a chip that can clock well, not just perform well at stock speeds. I think AMD will release this chip without fully refining the silicon, it won't clock well, and in this community, may not get received well. Again, I'm speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see new chips based on a new revision before the end of 2017 with much better results. To this end, I'm not committed to buying a Ryzen at launch.

AMD is claiming Zen not only overclocks well, but responds to internal temp and voltage sensors for a far more aggressive boost clock. Hard to say until we put it in the hands of average overclockers (I really don't care what it does on LN2).

I haven't seen any claims from AMD on overclocking (not implying anything, just haven't seen it) but I have seen the boost concept which looks like it would work well (if the silicon would allow it). I also know what they claimed in the past so forgive me if I temper my expectations a bit. Considering the fact they are still revising silicon, this soon before launch, makes those claims sound very optimistic. That's all I'm saying.

[vario]

... Zen is guaranteed for 3.4 GHz+ - as far as we know that means the top SKU runs at 4 GHz.
.

We ABSOLUTELY do not know that, if anything from all the rumours and the presentation itself we can extrapolate that they ATM cant clock this stably higher.maybe im wrong, but im trying to be up to date, and have not seen anything to the contrary.
Lisa said that they are runnigng 3,4ghz flat because they "have not finished optimizations" and the clock WILL NOT BE LOWER than 3,4Ghz.But it only means they can run 3,4Ghz reliably and will attempt more.

[AliG]

We ABSOLUTELY do not know that, if anything from all the rumours and the presentation itself we can extrapolate that they ATM cant clock this stably higher.maybe im wrong, but im trying to be up to date, and have not seen anything to the contrary.
Lisa said that they are runnigng 3,4ghz flat because they "have not finished optimizations" and the clock WILL NOT BE LOWER than 3,4Ghz.But it only means they can run 3,4Ghz reliably and will attempt more.

Way to take what I said entirely out of context...

First you snip just half a line of my 2 paragraphs (I'm guessing just to troll), then you ignore the "as far as we know" part. That kind of implies we don't know anything...

Really wish XS still had the ignore button at times...