• 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.

Mhz for Mhz Comparison... 2013 tech v's Modern tech... who can join me?

CPU-Z is Floating Point and by the looks of it a bit crude at that, so the speed and bandwidth of the memory has an effect on the result, Higher Mhz - Dual vs Quad Channel.

Other than Bulldozer, which just has a bad Memory architecture there isn't actually a huge difference in performance between modern CPU's when it comes to Floating Point performance, with respect to the owner i was surprised to see the 2400G score damn near as high as a Ryzen 3000 series, the former is an older Zen+ architecture, a cut down one at that with the latter being full fat Zen 2, the per core difference in performance between the two in the vast majority of things is much larger than CPU-Z suggests, i had a Ryzen 1600, same architecture but full fat, the 3600 is 20% faster in everything but seemingly this, higher than that even in games.

Personally i think Cinebench is king for quick performance comparisons, Despite what Intel say it is representative of "real performance" its a real application, its Cinema 4D, which is the same thing as Blender and a whole host of similar applications, it measures up between applications that are a different type of workload, the performance differences you see in Cenebench are like what you would see in HandBreak, Davinci Resolve ecte....

Gaming is really the only thing that stands alone, because it depends as much on IPC and Mhz as it depends on Core Interconnect architectures, performance is quite different between Intel's own Ring Bus and Mesh architectures as it is between those and AMD's Infinity Fabric.
 
humbug said:
with respect to the owner i was surprised to see the 2400G score damn near as high as a Ryzen 3000 series, the former is an older Zen+ architecture, a cut down one at that
Click to expand...

2400G is actually a 14nm Zen 1, same as a 1600 ;) it does makes my Zen+ TR look bad but like you say the benefits of the newer ones are more than IPC, they hold higher clocks, more often and on more cores plus more cache etc. so in reality perform better than that benchmark would suggest, I would imagine bandwidth bares no relevance here, just latency as my apu and tr run same speed memory bar some minor timing differences and one has double bandwidth.

The 3200G posted above is the cutdown 12nm zen+ which appears to be quite strong.

I think the timings on the later crucial ram suit ryzen more vs my old old gskill ram on my 2400 vs 2920 and are probably what limits the TR in this bench, but it is fair to say my jump from zen1 to zen+ felt weak apart from running marginally better clockspeeds on the whole without the need for an overclock as boost is better on zen+ vs zen.
 
Last edited:
sandys said:
2400G is actually a 14nm Zen 1, same as a 1600 ;) it does makes my Zen+ TR look bad but like you say the benefits of the newer ones are more than IPC, they hold higher clocks, more often and on more cores plus more cache etc. so in reality perform better than that benchmark would suggest, I would imagine bandwidth bares no relevance here, just latency as my apu and tr run same speed memory bar some minor timing differences and one has double bandwidth.

The 3200G posted above is the cutdown 12nm zen+ which appears to be quite strong.

I think the timings on the later crucial ram suit ryzen more vs my old old gskill ram on my 2400 vs 2920 and are probably what limits the TR in this bench, but it is fair to say my jump from zen1 to zen+ felt weak apart from running marginally better clockspeeds on the whole without the need for an overclock as boost is better on zen+ vs zen.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 2000 Series thing threw me :) APU's are a generation behind, the next generation are names Ryzen 4000 G and H ecte.... but they are Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) damn it AMD.... unify your naming.
 
humbug said:
Yeah the 2000 Series thing threw me :) APU's are a generation behind, the next generation are names Ryzen 4000 G and H ecte.... but they are Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) damn it AMD.... unify your naming.
Click to expand...
If I remember right the APUs are also weird because of how they're not welded together like the 6 and 8 cores, so they have a performance advantage (in some scenarios) similar to how the Ryzen 3300X is faster than it should be compared to the 3100.
 
PhoenixUK said:
I have but I'm too lazy to change the clocks, it's still a good reference point and you can always just divide by 43 and multiply by 40.
Click to expand...
In that case here is mine, doing that it would be over 495 putting humbug's 3600 to shame :p

CPU-Z-Ryzen-3600-4-4-GHz-1-275v.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom