• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Unless there is an IPC change together with the small clockspeed bump(or some other fixes which improve performance),looks like I might be skipping this too for Ryzen 2(or maybe the next stepping of Coffee Lake).
There's a supposed leaked SiSoft Sandra benchmark of the R5 2600 showing a ~10% IPC gain over the R5 1600 (both at 3.4 GHz) in 6 out of 7 tests (only 3% in the other one). It also states that the IMC is clocked 10% higher on the R5 2600 sample though, which might account for all of the difference. Or it could just be utter rubbish as a lot of early leaks turn out to be. :)
 
There's a supposed leaked SiSoft Sandra benchmark of the R5 2600 showing a ~10% IPC gain over the R5 1600 (both at 3.4 GHz) in 6 out of 7 tests (only 3% in the other one). It also states that the IMC is clocked 10% higher on the R5 2600 sample though, which might account for all of the difference. Or it could just be utter rubbish as a lot of early leaks turn out to be. :)

Jim thinks its a combination of higher precision boost and +5% IPC.

If true its 11% performance uplift with the higher clock rates +IPC, as expected.

 
I think he is a bit off in that vid.
I still recon AMD will hit the low hanging fruit and reach 5% on ipc which for a simple refresh is fine - a ~10% clock uplift (disregarding xfr) would be on the books as well.

~15% on like for like ... not too bad and would put AMD in a very strong position with intel, having near similar single core speeds (games) and better multithread performance.
 
There's a supposed leaked SiSoft Sandra benchmark of the R5 2600 showing a ~10% IPC gain over the R5 1600 (both at 3.4 GHz) in 6 out of 7 tests (only 3% in the other one). It also states that the IMC is clocked 10% higher on the R5 2600 sample though, which might account for all of the difference. Or it could just be utter rubbish as a lot of early leaks turn out to be. :)

I hope its a 10% to 15% overall improvement,as that will be important in some games where AMD is not so hot,that should get it a bit closer to Intel.
 
If we look at 11% on single thread performance it will give Ryzen a cinebench single thread score of approx 185 vs 198 for coffelake. It is still an edge to intel but a significantly smaller one.
It is going to be really interesting to see if there is much overclocking headroom, we also saw distinctly slower engineering samples that final release so we dont have any real idea what final speeds might be. I think they might get closer that that, but I dont see them achieving enough on this change to quite grab the single thread lead though.
 
We need more leaks before we can make any serious conclusions and as others have pointed out Intel have been giving us very small incremental increases each generation for ages.
 
Interesting that AMD's official spec sheet for Raven Ridge has a maximum supported memory speed of 2933 MHz, compared to Summit Ridge's 2666 MHz. That certainly suggests they've improved the IMC somewhat. Amusingly Intel only state 2666 MHz for Coffee Lake; clearly they are much more conservative with their figures.
 
Interesting that AMD's official spec sheet for Raven Ridge has a maximum supported memory speed of 2933 MHz, compared to Summit Ridge's 2666 MHz. That certainly suggests they've improved the IMC somewhat. Amusingly Intel only state 2666 MHz for Coffee Lake; clearly they are much more conservative with their figures.

For the graphics performance, it's critical to have higher memory bandwidth. Even these 2933 MHz are little bit on the lower side for a good graphics performance.
You know, it should be 3400+ MHz....

Intel are conservative maybe because they want to insure maximum compliance with all types of modules.
In reality, their configurations work with memory modules 4000+ MHz.
 
They've intended to use on-die HBM for a while but I guess it's just too expensive (and maybe too power hungry) right now. Maybe we'll see it in the desktop parts but I doubt it.

HBM2 is prohibitive not only because of the cost, but also because its yields are low. Too complicated and difficult production.
 
True, even a tiny on package memory would help. Intel proved it with their Iris Pro IGPs, it was only around 128mb odd but the speed itself allowed the IGP to flex a little more. Can't AMD do that as well? Or is it expensive to do?
 
True, even a tiny on package memory would help. Intel proved it with their Iris Pro IGPs, it was only around 128mb odd but the speed itself allowed the IGP to flex a little more. Can't AMD do that as well? Or is it expensive to do?
I'm sure they could, on APU's the realistic amount of HBM an APU will get is effectively just a large cache buffer rather then full on video memory, using HBCC they should be able to stream assets to and from system memory when needed without a huge drop in performance.
 
TBH,even the 2200G IGP will easily beat anything Intel has at similar cost,and you would still need to spend £50 to £60 to get a faster discrete graphics card. Looking at the RRP of the 2200G,unless they are any surprises,it looks like a very solid part for the price.

Also,I have a feeling AMD might not want to crash sales of cards like the RX550,since adding some high speed RAM for the IGP would essentially make their lower end graphics cards a tad pointless for AMD systems.
 
I think you may be wrong there, AMD have massively pushed APU's in the past and I will be really interested to see just how far ahead these are from the A6-A12 range. If you want a desktop with lite gaming capabilities in the living room for instance, those chips were really popular... it will be interesting to see if the same happens again - but this time they are on mainstream motherboards that are going to have support all the way to Ryzen 2 so you have a massive upgrade path...
I am already sitting on a bunch of components - just a PSU, CPU and Mainboard away from a PC... I am holding out for Ryzen+ to see which way to jump.
 
Back
Top Bottom