AMD's Ryzen CPU's (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPU's

Add .gif and copy and paste

 

https://wccftech.com/amd-2nd-generation-ryzen-5-2600-asus-crosshair-vii-hero-x470-leak/
So, compared to last gen, you have a 200MHz jump on the new process (not final). That means, 6% of the 15% is likely attributable to the increase in speed. That means 9% increase due to the process compared to last gen, from what is known. This also does not give an idea of ability to overclock. Also, this is NOT an X processor, so is expected to be lower just like the non-K variants from Intel. So before those comments roll in. A 15% on sisoft is pretty nice, and you cannot say it is JUST cinebench or a prime run, which I do want to know if prime performance was improved. Further, we cannot extrapolate from the 1.1GHz IMC the exact speed of the ram, as when I ran it with 3600 in Nov., I had 1.46GHz. That means maybe 3200MHz on ram, but possibly lower than that with lower latency or some other speed control or gearing mechanism. Because of that, of the remaining 9%, we do not know the amount attributed to the new process, the tweaks to memory, or the tweaks to the uarch. I am assuming that it was fully loaded on the multi-threading and that it settled at its stock or the amount for all core above stock, similar to 1600 scores. Lots of assumptions. But 15% in a single gen, and looking at least that much, if not more, with Zen 2, they should be able to hit 30% over Zen with Zen 2 7nm, if not the 40% previously mentioned. This is good news, especially with not getting hit as much on VMs and I/O as Intel. But, let's hear your thoughts....

 

I was expecting higher clock speeds based on what people here were saying, more along the lines of the 4.5Ghz of Intel. When does Zen 2 7nm come out?

 

So did I.
The 12nm LP is per technical specs designed for high clocks and high performing parts... the previous/existing 14nm LPP is not.
200 MhZ bump is not even a 10% increase... at best it's a 6.5% bump in clocks alone.

Then again, it WAS hinted that this could be an engineering sample... we will see what the final product ends up with at the official release (as we had a lot of speculations about other Ryzen parts and early benchmarks that turned out to be wrong or faked)... and besides, this is a non X version of the Ryzen 6 core cpu... plus, AMD might have revised the TDP specs for the refresh... but we hadn't heard anything about that yet.

Still, we were told at least 10% increase in comparison to 16nm process from TSMC (which is already designed for high performing parts)... and there's 15% higher chip density to take into account.
Something is definitely amiss... and this could be an ES (engineering sample), fake benches, or potentially really low yields (which would be surprising given what the technical specs implied).

I doubt AMD would be messing about with IPC increases for a simple refresh (as it would be out of character... but I guess it's not impossible if they were planning this for a while).

Zen 2 7nm seems to be slated for early next year.

 

First off, remember how much lower non-X variants clock. For example, the 1700 is a 3..0/3.7GHz chip, and the X variant is 3.4/3.8. The 1600 is a 3.2/3.6 chip and the 1600X is a 3.6/4.0GHz chip. This is a 3.4/3.8GHz chip for the 2600. [Edit: by an increase of 200, we are looking at 4.4GHz on the X series. Further, we don't know whether more will hit that amount other than golden chips or not. But going from 4.0 to 4.2, if it adds 200 regular on top and more chips can reach it, that is right near your 4.5GHz.]

Now, this is early silicon and we did see a difference last year.

Next, @Deks - reread my comment above, it shows 15% increased performance. NOT EVERYTHING IS SPEED. Also, the 200MHz is within the 65W TDP envelope. NONE OF THIS SPEAKS TO OVERCLOCKING ABILITY, TWEAKS TO THE POWER CURVE FOR THROTTLING AT DIFFERENT WORKLOADS due to changes in sense, or what the 95W variants will see.

Also, performance doesn't scale to chip density. Intel proved that multiple times and you can see that with Nvidia graphics cards also. More density, more heat, so efficiencies in refinement can be slightly retarded due to increases in heat. Use basic physics before pointing to such things.

Further, AMD said they made changes to SenseMI, to the IMC and memory latency, die shrink, power efficiency, and clockspeed and overclocking. We have seen 15% on early silicon, which 6% is only attributed to the speed bump, with the other 9% to all other changes to the CPU, which would include IPC. It is a 65W non-x chip. And there may have been a slight slowdown with redesigns to help protect against Spectre and Meltdown, which won't be seen in coffeelake until this summer, and it suggests that AMD pushed off the launch of this to April from beginning of March to deal with the redesign slowing it down, meaning they started looking at that, likely, once they were made aware in June.

Yes, Zen 2 7nm will be a more drastic change, but nothing suggested 12nm, which is a less than half node refinement, would be that much different than 14nm. It seems to still be made on Samsung's design, which is a more power efficient design, whereas 7nm is licensed from IBM's design, which is known to target 5GHz, not to say AMD hits that. So you seem to be missing a LOT! The bench DIRECTLY shows a 15% increase between the generations. Do you not understand that you multiply Instructions per Cycle (IPC) by the Speed? They are NOT the same. One says how many instructions can be processed in a given cycle, the other, speed, dictates the number of cycles in a period.

 

Given the lack of OC headroom in the first release of Ryzen perhaps AMD is only going to extend the stock numbers a bit, leaving the rest for user OC headroom?

If AMD uses 50% of the headroom, that means another 200mhz for OC, or 400mhz overall for the 1600 - probably across the board for all the 2xxx CPU's.

That would be a conservative 4.4ghz, and pushing the better samples into the 4.5ghz+ range.

It's all guesses for now, we don't know if the new process really offers any more headroom for performance, or if it's just more power efficient with a little more headroom that AMD used up when bumping the stock numbers. There may be no additional OC headroom.

Looking forward to release day + reviews

 

Its still early days though.
The product is as of yet unreleased, so we don't know conclusively where the clocks will end up, or if what we see in those benchmarks isn't false.

 

It would be nice if they followed AMD type Phenom releases. 1st Gen sucked at overclocking, but the second gen was fabulous for overclocking.

 

I always felt there was something of a bottleneck in a small part of Zen 1 causing the 4.2ghz OC ceiling, it doesn't seem to be an obvious power, temp, or volts limitation. If AMD have found and fixed/tweaked that part of the chip, OC headroom may be beyond a linear extrapolation from a pure frequency increase due to process.

 

Clock speeds and overclocking tend to rely quite a bit on the manuf. process a CPU/GPU is made on.
Look at Pascal. It's nothing more than highly overclocked Maxwell using a 16nm process designed for high clocks to begin with.
AMD has been using a low power process suitable for mobile and lower clocks, which is why Ryzen couldn't really break 4GhZ reliably or at all.

Considering this 12nm LP was described per documentation as a high performing process, it seems to be a complete opposite to 14nm LPP, at least in that it should allow high clocks.

We'll see how it pans out.