Leaked Geekbench Results: AMD Zen Performance Extrapolated

Subject: Processors | September 6, 2016 - 03:05 PM |
Tagged: Zen, single thread, geekbench, amd

Over the holiday weekend a leaked Geekbench benchmark result on an engineering sample AMD Zen processor got tech nerds talking. Other than the showcase that AMD presented a couple weeks back using the Blender render engine, the only information we have on performance claims come from AMD touting a "40% IPC increase" over the latest Bulldozer derivative. 

The results from Geekbench show performance from a two physical processor system and a total of 64 cores running at 1.44 GHz. Obviously that clock speed is exceptionally low; AMD demoed Summit Ridge running at 3.0 GHz in the showcase mentioned above. But this does give us an interesting data point with which to do some performance extrapolation. If we assume perfect clock speed scaling, we can guess at performance levels that AMD Zen might see at various clocks. 

I needed a quick comparison point and found this Geekbench result from a Xeon E7-8857 v2 running at 3.6 GHz. That is an Ivy Bridge based architecture and though the system has 48 cores, we are only going to a look at single threaded results to focus on the IPC story.

Obviously there are a ton of caveats with looking at data like this. It's possible that AMD Zen platform was running in a very sub-optimal condition. It's possible that the BIOS and motherboard weren't fully cache aware (though I would hope that wouldn't be the case this late in the game). It's possible that the Linux OS was somehow holding back performance of the Zen architecture and needs update. There are many reasons why you shouldn't consider this data a final decision yet; but that doesn't make it any less interesting to see.

In the two graphs below I divide the collection of single threaded results from Geekbench into two halves and there are three data points for each benchmark. The blue line represents the Xeon Ivy Bridge processor running at 3.6 GHz. The light green line shows the results from the AMD Zen processor running at 1.44 GHz as reported by Geekbench. The dark green line shows an extrapolated AMD Zen performance result with perfect scaling by frequency. 

View Full Size

Continue reading our preview of AMD Zen single threaded performance!!

View Full Size

There are three tests in this benchmark, the AES encryption, Canny and Gaussian Blur, where the AMD Zen extrapolated results have an edge over Intel's Ivy Bridge. The AES results are probably the most compelling though we have definitely seen AES performance increases in Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake since this Xeon processor was released in early 2014. 

Basically all of the other compute task based tests show the advantage going to Intel's Xeon processor running at 3.6 GHz. On average, if these results are at all indicative of what AMD Zen will be in the next 4 months, then it will be ~70-80% of the IPC of Ivy Bridge. 

View Full Size

This relative performance graph removes the last three memory tests as it is very unlikely that memory bandwidth or latency will shift by simple linear scaling with clock speed. 

What does this mean for AMD and the Zen architecture? It could mean absolutely nothing if the benchmark results we have here from a Zen CPU running at 1.44 GHz are simply not accurate, or not optimized. It might tell us that AMD and its partners have some work to do to optimize the platform in general for better overall performance, but with only months until stated product availability and partners already receiving samples this month, it looks less likely that we'll see dramatic changes from the numbers above.

This is Zen going up against Ivy Bridge and a Xeon processor that was released in Q1 of 2014. AMD needs to make its next CPU competitive not just against this but against Skylake-K and Broadwell-E systems if they want to impress the consumer and the press like they did back at IDF in August. Is it possible that AMD will be able to get Zen to 4.0 GHz and beyond in 8-core systems and thus will utilize clock speed to make up some of this IPC performance gap we show here? It's possible - though AMD needs to do it while maintaining processor thermals within a reasonable level. Doing some quick napkin math, in order for the AMD Zen results to swap wins and loses with the 3.6 GHz Xeon running on Ivy Bridge, this pre-production setup would have to run at around 4.8 GHz.

Again, I must reiterate, the results and graphs we have here are nowhere near finalized and could be an AMD red herring or the result of very early prototype hardware.

If the summer of 2016 was the season of GPUs, it looks like winter 2016/2017 is about do the same for CPUs. 

Source: Geekbench

Video News

September 6, 2016 | 03:12 PM - Posted by Searching4Sasquatch (not verified)

You mean the AMD hype-machine potentially over-promised and under-delivered? It's almost like there's a pattern developing. :D

September 6, 2016 | 09:29 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)


September 6, 2016 | 03:13 PM - Posted by funandjam

Interesting theory and opinions you have, but until real products are reviewed and benchmarked, your article will remain just that: theory and opinion.

September 6, 2016 | 03:19 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Yes, exactly. In fact, I think that is stated precisely in the article.

September 6, 2016 | 03:37 PM - Posted by funandjam

Yup, had to make sure that you understood that it is indeed an opinion.

September 6, 2016 | 03:41 PM - Posted by Mark Schieldrop (not verified)

I read the same article and I think your comment and response comes across as condescending toward Ryan. I don't see how anyone could read the piece and suggest that he wasn't aware that it was theoretical.

September 6, 2016 | 07:10 PM - Posted by funandjam

Let's not get this all skewed. I made a simple statement that he has interesting opinions, but that is all they are.

And he follows it up with a condenscending remark, and somehow you don't have a problem with that, but you do with me giving it back to him? lol

September 6, 2016 | 08:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"Yup, had to make sure that you understood that it is indeed an opinion".

You didn't have to do anything. But you just wanted to sound like smartass - that ended up looking like a moron.


September 7, 2016 | 02:04 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Oh look a disgruntled AMD fanboy.

September 7, 2016 | 08:23 AM - Posted by malurt

Actually it's hypothetical, not theoretical.

September 6, 2016 | 04:48 PM - Posted by hoohoo (not verified)

What else would Ryan understand, given he wrote the article?

September 7, 2016 | 11:28 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You can make sure by not being a condescending drone and actually read the article.

September 6, 2016 | 03:39 PM - Posted by Mark Schieldrop (not verified)

You couldn't have been more clear. The reading comprehension problem on the internet is an epidemic.

I thought your piece was an excellent analysis based on known information and you didn't utter one misleading or unsupported statement. Even the headline isn't click bait.

September 6, 2016 | 04:07 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout


September 6, 2016 | 06:31 PM - Posted by Anon (not verified)

Yeah man there wasn't an issue with the way you wrote this piece. Perfectly reasoned and unbiased.

September 7, 2016 | 01:03 PM - Posted by WayneJetSki (not verified)

+1 to what this dude said.

September 7, 2016 | 08:39 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That multi-core performance scaling looks more like quad and/or octa socket AMD server configuration where scaling per core drops below 50% or worse. I suspect that a single AMD "32-core" Naples chip is very likely 4x 8-cores dies using MCM (Multi-Chip Module), just like AMD's previous high core count Opterons (linked together using HyperTransport). Thus with 2x AMD 32-core Naples that is equivalent to 8x 8-cores (for a total of 64 cores). Here is an example of quad socket server with 4x Opteron 6180 SE https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/83804 48 cores, and again note the bad multi-core performance scaling. A single Opteron 6180 SE is actually 2x 6-cores die using MCM. Thus with 4x Opteron 6180 SE that is equivalent to 8x 6-cores (for a total of 48 cores).

September 8, 2016 | 03:58 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Passive aggressive AMD fanboy? Most likely.

September 6, 2016 | 03:30 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

Another way to look at Zen is that it's going to have at least 40% higher IPC than Excavator; but likely 10% less clock speed (maybe even lower). A better way might be to extrapolate off of that to see how competitive it is.. 1.3 * the AMD A12-9800.

Geekbench is a horrible benchmark, but adding this to the extrapolation of Ashes of The Singularity, it's starting to feel like it's not going to match 4790K, and maybe not even match 4770K in many scenarios.. Let alone Sky or Kabylake.

September 6, 2016 | 04:09 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Other than being synthetic in nature, why do you consider Geekbench to be a "horrible benchmark"?

September 6, 2016 | 04:40 PM - Posted by John H (not verified)

The way I wrote that - I deserve a call out.

According to Linus Torvalds, many sub-tests of Geekbench fit within the L1 cache, meaning that it's not really any more useful for predicting real world app performance than dhrystone. (A larger L1 cache will always win.. almost regardless of the rest of the CPU).

Linus Torvald's opinion on Geekbench:

My main point was that using the recently released A12-9800 AMD chip should allow for significantly more accurate extrapolation on performance than Geekbench clock scaling.

September 7, 2016 | 09:00 AM - Posted by biohazard918

That part is still 28nm and still based on excavator its just updated for the new platform.

September 7, 2016 | 11:01 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

True, but AMD has publicly said Zen's IPC will be 40% higher than Excavator, so that's something concrete we can work with.

September 7, 2016 | 09:01 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The only benchmark I'm interested in is one using clang compile times.

September 7, 2016 | 12:42 PM - Posted by ppi (not verified)

This is completely new Geekbench 4 with new tests etc. Should not be compared to Geekbench 3.

September 9, 2016 | 01:17 PM - Posted by rs (not verified)

I don't think this Geekbench test says a lot. I don't even think the clock speed was reported correctly. Look at the sample identification, it starts with "2". Which means it's a prototype sample. Remember the AotS scores? Sample "2" scores were way lower than sample "1" scores.

September 6, 2016 | 03:33 PM - Posted by Thedarklord

I really hope for consumer/competition sake that this does not accurately reflect the finalized performance of Zen, otherwise Zen is dead of arrival.

From the demo's that AMD was showing, ZEN 8 Core vs a Broadwell-E 8 Core both running at 3.0 Ghz, it seemed like performance was nearly identical. Granted that was only running in one test, but I would think AMD knows they have a lot riding on Zen and that having another Bulldozer is almost a death sentence.

IMHO, I believe the end real world performance of Zen will be between Broadwell and Skylake, with trade offs in different benchmarks. If AMD can pull that level of performance and offer good prices, they will have a real winner.

September 6, 2016 | 10:02 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That's great let the sycophants worry about the IPC metric only! If Zen is between the Broadwell and Skylake levels of IPC then it will be good enough for more than just gaming! Add to that Zen APUs with Polaris graphics and there will be more value added in the graphics part of the APU equation from AMD. Price/Performance will be what most want from AMD.

September 6, 2016 | 03:42 PM - Posted by Joseph Taylor (not verified)

Fun read but with so many assumptions and extrapolations I can't really believe this will be representative of final product.

September 6, 2016 | 03:44 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Probably should have stated that at the start of the article.. i can already see bunch of fanboys posting these everywhere and crap like this hurts sales.

September 6, 2016 | 03:52 PM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

Over the years pcper have been fairly accurate on a lot of things.I don't expect any surprise from amd .end result will be within 15% of what pcper napkin prediction brought here. A die shrink help whats already awsome.this look to be a server chip tho. So this naptin result as zero % chance of accuracy.

September 6, 2016 | 04:50 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

Server CPUs have more in common with client than you might think.

September 6, 2016 | 04:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes for an engineering sample, and mostly there for early testing and software development it's not so bad, let’s go and get some of Intel's early engineering samples runs from the same benchmarking databases and see what the Intel engineering samples do at lower clocks. The real benchmarks are going to have to wait until there are really the final steppings and UEFI/BIOS and optimized OS/Software for Zen after the product is on the market and available to be randomly selected/purchased and then tested properly.

I’m only willing to take as proper testing some Zen 8 core systems meant for the consumer desktop market, and not any meant for other markets. Of course there will be the Price/performance metric for the consumer Zen SKUs against any of Intel’s newest CPU/SOC SKUs for actual gaming. AMD’s Polaris graphics against Intel’s IRIS Pro, at the same SKU price point will be important also, as Intel never appears to be offering its highest tiered graphics in its affordable range of products. I do not expect that Intel will be able to compete with AMD’s or Nvidia’s graphics and integrated Polaris graphics at 14nm will have more ACE units in use, so even Intel’s top end SOC graphics will have to compete with AMD’s Polaris on the APU/SOC graphics front.

AMD would only have to field a Zen/Polaris APU with a single HBM2 stack to really put Intel’s integrated graphics in the rear view mirror. So AMD could create a consumer high end Zen/Polaris APU on an interposer with one stack of HBM2(4GB) configured to act as a L4 cache with the remainder of the memory supplied by DDR4 DRAMs in a single or dual channel configuration while leveraging the HBM2 to provide the Polaris integrated graphics with plenty of bandwidth.

One thing is certain even if a Zen/Polaris/HBM2(Singe HBM2 stack/L4) APU was only supplied with one DDR4 DIMM memory channel by the OEMs, the APU’s HBM2 would do very well at hiding and single channel limited bandwidth/latency, as the HBM2/L4 cache would still be providing its bandwidth for textures and game/gaming engine code to run from. The HBM2 die would have its own 1024 bit dedicated channel to the Zen APU’s CPU cores with the regular DDR4 DIMM based DRAM acting as a second tier lower bandwidth RAM store, so single or dual DIMM DRAM channel would not have any detrimental effect on the APU’s integrated graphics bandwidth needs.

The OEM’s would have to figure out some other way to gimp a Zen/Polaris/HBM2 APU’s graphics performance relative to what they offer for Intel’s pricy kit under Intel’s nefarious incentive packages(Brown envelops with green inside).

September 6, 2016 | 04:48 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

By the time you get to the engineering sample stage, IPC isn't going to change much. The further tweaks after ES are just that, tweaks. Stepping optimizations to help increase yields and clocks. Changing the IPC of a CPU requires *big* changes to the layout. You don't just flip one transistor somewhere and suddenly some type of operation takes fewer clocks to complete.

September 6, 2016 | 05:43 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes but there are also the errata that may be there in an engineering sample that can not be fixed with a miro-code/other-code UEFI/BIOS patch that may require some amended tape out design modification to resolve. So I’ll not place my complete trust in any engineering sample benchmarks. I'll be looking for the Price/performance metric more than the overall IPC winner, and non gaming Graphics performance will play a bigger part in my final choice for any APU/SOC. I look at non gaming rendering performance more than gaming rendering performance and FPS. So maybe I’ll look at the total numbers of Ray interaction calculations that can be accelerated on the GPU’s FPUs per unit time rather than any FPS metrics that is more a function of ROPs.

I'll also look to see the total numbers of shader cores, as that will let me have better 3d graphics editor usability/performance in programs like Blender 3D as opposed to simply FPS for games. Intel's graphics does not play well with high polygon count mesh models in 3D edit mode in many graphics packages, simply because Intel lacks the total numbers of shader cores compared to AMD's or Nvidia's graphics. So for non gaming rendering a Zen/Polaris APU may be able to handle large polygon count mesh models in Blender’s 3D editing mode than Intel’s tuned for gaming only(Low polygon count gaming meshes) integrated graphics. Those total shader core counts from AMD and Nvidia offer more FP units for Ray Tracing accelerated on the GPU’s cores also, compared to Intel’s integrated graphics. AMD’s Polaris GCN GPUs have more FP resources/$ than Nvidia’s or Intel(Very few shader cores relative AMD’s total numbers) so on Polaris there are more FP units to accelerate Ray Tracing workloads on the GPU.

September 6, 2016 | 04:02 PM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

People expectarion are high in gaming. Ms , Sony and Nintendo have been all tweaking , so hopefully this will help them there.if twitch streamer love it , the rest will follow. Yep twitch streaer and YouTube game streamer will be the real story. People with brand new pc are complaining left and right with intel and NVidia inside .example how come 144hertz slowdown to 60hertz in window full screen world of warcraft etc)) faster rarelly translate to succesfull system on twitch. And now a day twitch gamer stream and YouTube vamer stream is the important metric and you vet to show it off too))

September 6, 2016 | 06:00 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I thought I'd put my 2 cents in as someone that has built servers for corporate applications. Low clock speeds and high core counts are completely normal in this kind of appkication

Depending on the chip the single threaded performance may be sub par depending on what the purpose of the chip is. For example xeon e5 chips have poor single thread performance compared to the xeon e3. It's simply because they have different target markets.

September 6, 2016 | 06:02 PM - Posted by William Henrickson (not verified)

This is not the same AMD that made such bad choices 5-7 years ago. Different people, different philosophy.

For example the Windows NT6 kernel was great, yet the shell team screwed up with Vista royally. Then another team with different people made the Windows 7 shell and everyone loved it.

Give it some time, and see what comes out. It only really matters to the people buying/building systems and AMD stockholders anyway.

September 6, 2016 | 06:08 PM - Posted by zgradt

I thought I read somewhere that 1.4Ghz was just the base clock? And how come it doesn't list any L3 cache? I think there are way to many assumptions being taken to draw anything meaningful from this.

September 6, 2016 | 07:22 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It might be interesting to lock a Broadwell-E to 1.4GHz to provide another datapoint.

September 6, 2016 | 07:23 PM - Posted by MSX68K (not verified)

That Zen processor had 0 KB L3 cache.
Thus, the overall performance is not indicative of final product.

September 6, 2016 | 07:58 PM - Posted by AnonX (not verified)

A 12 core CPU has an unfair advantage against a 32 core CPU on single-core performance. Low core count CPUs always have better single-thread performance than their high core count counterparts. I think you should have factored this in that extrapolation.

September 6, 2016 | 08:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I just want to know, how do you get off extrapolating Zen at 3.6GHz? You're literally just making shit up.

September 6, 2016 | 09:48 PM - Posted by MR SHEHZAAN M ABDULLA (not verified)

I think you've gravely misunderstood the point of this article.

ANY extrapolation they did would be 'making shit up', they 'get off' on it because the data they have for the Xeon they are making the comparison with is at that clock speed giving them a verified basis on which to do the 'napkin math'.

How else would you make an IPC/single-core performance comparison otherwise in lieu of all the details?

September 7, 2016 | 02:13 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You know you are right. Technically speaking performance should scale linearly, that is for example, double clock speed and, all things being equal, double the amount of work done over the same time period. Unfortunately, not all things are equal, different cores clock and turbo on different clock domains. Memory clock and data rates are on different domains than the core clock, so in fact, his extrapolation is an over estimate, it will likely be slower that what is estimated here.... You're right he 'just made this shit up'. It will be worse.

You gotta love the AMD fanboy. They are so entertaining.

September 8, 2016 | 08:13 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It's dirty math, and assumes perfect frequency scaling, so naturally it's not going to be an exact calculation. But for ballpark guesstimates, it's not all that difficult.

Here's basically how it works. We know that these are single-threaded benchmarks, so we can automatically throw the core count out the window; we're looking for per-core IPC and the benchmark only works one core/thread, so we're already halfway there.

Take the first result on the first picture, "AES". At 1.44 GHz, one core/thread of this alleged Zen CPU scores 1550. We'd like to find out how it might score at 3.6 GHz.

(1550 / 1.44) = (N / 3.60) - now solve for N.

(1550 / 1.44) = 1076.388888~

(1076.3888888~) = (N / 3.60)

(1076.3888888~) x 3.60 = (N / 3.60) x 3.60

3875 = N

Therefore, assuming perfect frequency scaling, one would expect a single core/thread of this alleged Zen CPU at 3.6 GHz should score somewhere around 3875.

No, it's not a perfect calculation. But in the absence of any other data, it's a decent way to get a ballpark guess as to what COULD be. Which is why Ryan made that very clear at the beginning of the article.

(note - I am a self-admitted AMD fanboy.)

September 6, 2016 | 09:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

They already have the samples running at 3ghz, lets hope they can deliver something around 3.8ghz with 6 cores 12 threads for less than $300, they will have no issues selling such a product.

Low level API's and higher resolutions will render most cpus mute going forwards anyway, they will become more like memory for most of us, just a component that is needed to make the rest of the rig run.
Vega is where its at, for better or worst.

September 6, 2016 | 11:13 PM - Posted by edselm (not verified)

ivy bridge is xeon e5 v1

September 6, 2016 | 11:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

as long as it matches the ipc of a i3 6100 with 4 real cores or more at 20-30$ less dollars

it will kick ass

September 7, 2016 | 01:05 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

ZEN will have ~twice the IPC of Jaguar and ~twice the clock.
With the same number of real cores ZEN will allow to game at 120fps (four times 30fps = console rate, HT to handle OS overhead).
What matters really is price and efficiency.

September 7, 2016 | 03:31 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)


Can we go back to AMDMB yet? Been waiting a decade.

September 7, 2016 | 08:49 AM - Posted by Buffalo (not verified)

Extrapolating 1.44ghz results to 3.6ghz? Wtf is this garbage? I expect better from PCPer. Lay off the bourbon while at work.

September 8, 2016 | 01:51 PM - Posted by gamerk2 (not verified)

It's a simple multiplier:

Performance = IPC * Clock * Number of Cores

Easy to extrapolate when three of the four variables are known; just solve for IPC, then redo the calculation using a different Clock and resolve for Performance.

September 7, 2016 | 09:46 AM - Posted by Alvaro Fernandez (not verified)

For many scientific applications memory bandwidth is the single most important determinant of performance. AMD Zen seems to do very well there. I'm not saying the other benchmarks aren't important because they really are. But for certain workloads bandwidth to memory is really the main determinant of speed.

September 7, 2016 | 10:30 AM - Posted by LucidMew (not verified)

Is this the magical desktop 4C8T Zen CPU that we've been waiting for?

September 7, 2016 | 10:46 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That doesn't look Right? The cache is missing in L3?

September 7, 2016 | 04:40 PM - Posted by Pay attention in details. (not verified)

See:AuthenticAMD Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1

Zen is Family 23(or Family 17h in hex).

September 9, 2016 | 05:45 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The processor ID (AuthenticAMD Family 21 Model 16 Stepping 1) points to that processor being an A10-4600M.

The Samsung model number given (SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 355V4C/356V4C/3445VC/3545VC) and the Motherboard model number given (SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. NP365E5C-S03US) points to it being a Samsung-branded Windows 8 laptop. That particular model appears on Samsung's website as an A6-equipped model, so likely whoever bought it had the APU upgraded.

September 7, 2016 | 10:45 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So were these test's for the Server CPU's coming from the Zen line? My understanding is there's different CPUs for this whole lineup of AM4 socket.

Like Bristol Ridge. Are these test's for their server cpu and not Desktop?

I just want to go team red on my new build at the end of the year, and if they can give me i7 4770k performance or close for 200$ I'm in.

If they are more in line with lower i5, then I guess I go intel again and pay their ridiculous prices.

September 7, 2016 | 12:46 PM - Posted by tbone8ty (not verified)

you should post the scores of a FX-8370 for reference.

September 9, 2016 | 05:49 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Here's one.


September 7, 2016 | 01:47 PM - Posted by Pay attention in details. (not verified)

To Ryan and all of you:
Take a nice look at memory bandwidth...ST will be higher than that.

September 7, 2016 | 03:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

well, for kicks i lookt up
AMD Athlon X4 845
result on geekbench. actually ifound it only on geekbench 3.

single core wise it scores on 1.9 ghz something roughly 2400 points.
the leaked info shows 1140 points at 1.44 ghz.
clearly a non-winner, even if i would scale it up by the freqvency.

what i suspect is, this is a sample made to see how well performance scales with core count.
probably a test chip to see what is going on if you squash 64 cores into 1 machine.
what i allso did, is compare it with the oldtimer fx series.
the fx 6300 can be found in geekbench4, so it was a not so hard thing. surely its verry old, but maybe it will give something for us who use that old am3+ platform.
single core the fx 6300 avarages arond 2500 points at 3,52 ghz, ad i do have to add that this is totally made up batshit crazy bullshit.
in real life things don't scale as well, its not 1:1 clock wise.
but it does sortha gives a bit of room for speculating.
surely the final product will give the final word, but if i was to upgrade from my curent fx 6300 that i bough utterly cheap, then i guess if the performance would scale cock to clock like this, i would hazard i would choose it.
will see how high will it closck, and how well will a desktop with 8 cores work.

September 7, 2016 | 06:48 PM - Posted by edselm (not verified)

as long as it can do rendering as fast as the same thread count of an intel cpu i will consider it.

September 7, 2016 | 10:02 PM - Posted by Timothy Isenhart (not verified)

I think your article was great, very informative explaining these supposed leaked benchmarks. People have to understand that engineering samples even if they are a few months away from launch, can and usually do have significant performance increases but this is the first benchmark I've seen where the sample is supposedly clocked @ 3.6 Ghz because the engineering samples are clocked @ 2.8 with a 3.0 turbo clock. But the consumer can make his or her own tweaks to increase IPC, I had a Phenom Iix4 980 with an overclocked north bridge @ 2.8 and CPU frequency @ 4.0 and it out performed my Intel 6 core Gulftown clocked @ 3.2 HT enabled in Cinebench, Passmark and AIDA 64.

September 8, 2016 | 07:41 AM - Posted by Anon64 (not verified)

If you look at the actual leaked page : http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/105227

You will see that the results are actually FAKE. They mixed up the following:
L1 Instruction Cache 32 KB x 32
L1 Data Cache 64 KB x 32

If you look at the HotChip slides and PCPers article you will notice that the cache sizes are:

L1 Instruction Cache 64 KB x 32
L1 Data Cache 32 KB x 32

September 9, 2016 | 07:30 AM - Posted by juanrga (not verified)

Geekbench doesn't scale linearly wityh frequency, thus the Zen results extrapolated to 3.6GHz are invalid. This can be observed comparing single thread score for Haswell at different clocks

Intel Haswell @1.6GHz: 1804 pts / 1.6 GHz -> 1127 pts / GHz
Intel Haswell @3.6GHz: 3075 pts / 3.6 GHz -> 854 pts / GHz

Linear scaling [(1804/1.6GHz)*3.6GHz] would give a wrong value 4059 for the Haswell chip at 3.6GHz. Linear scaling is giving fictitious IPC advantage to the low-clocked chips. You can do two things:

Apply an approx correction factor to linear scaling: e.g. 3075/4059 ~0.76 to all Zen scores at 3.6GHz.

Repeat the comparison using instead an Intel Xeon chip clocked similarly to Zen



This is a 6-core Haswell Xeon clocked so low as 1.6GHz without Turbo and without Hypertreading.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.