AMD Ryzen 5 Series Launch & Reviews

AMD Logo

Today marks the day AMD’s latest Ryzen 5 series launches (6C/12T 1600X, 1600 and 4C/8T 1500X, 1400) and the reviews – including Sandra benchmarks have hit the web:

Congratulations to AMD a great product and look forward our review of Ryzen 5 here too!

AMD Ryzen Review & Benchmarks – 2-channel DDR4 Cache & Memory Performance

What is “Ryzen”?

“Ryzen” (code-name ZP aka “Zeppelin”) is the latest generation CPU from AMD (2017) replacing the previous “Vishera”/”Bulldozer” designs for desktop and server platforms. An APU version with an integrated (GP)GPU will be launched later and likely include a few improvements as well.

This is the “make or break” CPU for AMD and thus greatly improve performance, including much higher IPC (instructions per clock), higher sustained clocks, better Turbo performance and “proper” SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). Thus there are no longer “core modules” but proper “cores with 2 SMT threads” so an “eight-core CPU” really sports 8C/16T and not 4M/8T.

The desktop version uses the AM4 socket and requires new boards based on various south-bridges with names similar to Intel’s aka X370 (performance), B350 (mainstream), etc.

In this article we test CPU Cache and Memory performance; please see our other articles on:

Hardware Specifications

We are comparing the 2nd-from-the-top Ryzen (1700X) with previous generation competing architectures (i7 Skylake 4C and i7 Haswell-E 6C) with a view to upgrading to a mid-range high performance design. Another article compares the top-of-the-range Ryzen (1800X) with the latest generation competing architectures (i7 Kabylake 4C and i7 Broadwell-E 8C) with a view to upgrading to the top-of-the-range design.

CPU Specifications AMD Ryzen 1700X
Intel 6700K (Skylake)
Intel 5820K (Haswell-E) Comments
TLB 4kB pages
64 full-way

1536 8-way

64 8-way

1536 6-way

64 4-way

1024 8-way

Ryzen has comparatively ‘better’ TLBs than even SKL while the 2-generation older HSW-E is showing its age.
TLB 2MB pages
64 full-way

1536 2-way

8 full-way

1536 6-way

8 full-way

1024 8-way

Nothing much changes for 2MB pages with Ryzen leading the pack again.
Memory Controller Speed (MHz) 600-1200 800-4000 1200-4000 Ryzen’s memory controller runs at memory clock (MCLK) base rate thus depends on memory installed. Intel’s UNC (uncore) runs between min and max CPU clock thus perhaps faster.
Memory Speed (Mhz) Max
2400 / 2666 2533 / 2400 2133 / 2133 Ryzen supports up to 2666MHz memory but is happier running at 2400; SKL supports only up to 2400 officially but happily runs at 2533MHz; old HSW-E can only do 2133MHz but with 4 memory channels.
Memory Channels / Width
2 / 128-bit 2 / 128-bit 4 / 256-bit HSW-E leads with 4 memory channels of DDR4 providing massive bandwidth for its cores; however both Ryzen and Skylake can use faster DDR4 memory reducing this problem somewhat.
Memory Timing (clocks)
14-16-16-32 7-54-18-9 2T 16-18-18-36 5-54-21-10 2T 14-15-15-36 4-51-16-3 2T Despite faster memory Ryzen can run lower timings than HSW-E and SKL reducing its overall latencies.

Core Topology and Testing

As discussed in the previous article, cores on Ryzen are grouped in blocks (CCX or compute units) each with its own 8MB L3 cache – but connected via a 256-bit bus running at memory controller clock. This is better than older designs like Intel Core 2 Quad or Pentium D which were effectively 2 CPU dies on the same socket – but not as good as a unified design where all cores are part of the same unit.

Running algorithms that require data to be shared between threads – e.g. producer/consumer – scheduling those threads on the same CCX would ensure lower latencies and higher bandwidth which we will test with presently.

We have thus modified Sandra’s ‘CPU Multi-Core Efficiency Benchmark‘ to report the latencies of each producer/consumer unit combination (e.g. same core, same CCX, different CCX) as well as providing different matching algorithms when selecting the producer/consumer units: best match (lowest latency), worst match (highest latency) thus allowing us to test inter-CCX bandwidth also. We hope users and reviewers alike will find the new features useful!

Native Performance

We are testing native arithmetic, SIMD and cryptography performance using the highest performing instruction sets (AVX2, AVX, etc.). Ryzen supports all modern instruction sets including AVX2, FMA3 and even more.

Results Interpretation: Higher values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest AMD and Intel drivers. Turbo / Dynamic Overclocking was enabled on both configurations.

Native Benchmarks Ryzen 1700X 8C/16T (MT)
8C/8T (MC)
i7-6700K 4C/8T (MT)
4C/4T (MC)
i7-5820K 6C/12T (MT)
6C/6T (MC)
Comments
CPU Multi-Core Benchmark Total Inter-Core Bandwidth – Best (GB/s) 47.7 [+3%] 39 46 With 8 cores (and thus 8 pairs) Ryzen’s bandwidth matches the 6-core HSW-E and is 22% higher than SKL thus decent.
CPU Multi-Core Benchmark Total Inter-Core Bandwidth – Worst (GB/s) 13 [-23%] 16 17 In worst-case pairs on Ryzen must go across CCXes while on Intel CPUs they can still use L3 cache to exchange data – thus it ends up about 23% slower than both SKL and HSW-E but it is not catastrophic.
CPU Multi-Core Benchmark Inter-Unit Latency – Same Core (ns) 15.7 [-2%] 16 13.4 Within the same core (sharing L1D/L2) , Ryzen inter-unit is ~15ns comparative with both Intel’s CPUs.
CPU Multi-Core Benchmark Inter-Unit Latency – Same Compute Unit (ns) 45 [-8%] 49 58 Within the same compute unit (sharing L3), the latency is ~45ns a bit lower than either SKL and much lower than HSW-E thus so far so good!
CPU Multi-Core Benchmark Inter-Unit Latency – Different Compute Unit (ns) 131 [+3x] Going inter-CCX increases the latency by 3 times to about 130ns thus if the threads are not properly scheduled you can end up with far higher latency and far less bandwidth.
The multiple CCX design does present some challenges to programmers and threads will have to be carefully scheduled to avoid inter-CCX transfers where possible. As the CCX link runs at UMC speed using faster memory increases link bandwidth and decreases its latency which helps no end.
Aggregated L1D Bandwidth (GB/s) 727 [-17%] 878 1150 SKL has 512-bit data ports so Ryzen cannot compete with that but it does well against BRW-E.
Aggregated L2 Bandwidth (GB/s) 557 [+38%] 402 500 The 8 L2 caches have competitive bandwidth thus overall Ryzen has though BRW-E does well.
Aggregated L3 Bandwidth (GB/s) 392 [+58%] 247 205 Even spread over the 2 CCXes the L3 caches have huge aggregated bandwidth  – over over SKL.
Aggregated Memory (GB/s) 28.5 [-8%] 31 42.5 Running at lower memory speed Ryzen cannot beat SKL nor BRW-E with its 4 memory controllers but has higher comparative efficiency.
The 8x L2 caches and 2x L3 caches have much higher aggregated latency than either Intel CPU while the memory controller is also more efficient though it cannot compete with 4-channel BRW-E. But its 8x L1D caches are not “wide enough” to compete with SKL’s widened data ports (again widened in HSW). This may be one reason SIMD performance is not as high with Ryzen and AMD may have to widen them going forward especially when adding AVX512 support.
Data In-Page Random Latency (ns) 74 [+2.9x] (4-17-36) 20 (4-12-21) 25.3 (4-12-26) In-page latency is surprisingly large, almost 3x old SNB-E and ~4x SKL! Ryzen’s TLBs seem slow. L1 and L2 latencies are comparative (4 and 17 clk) but L3 latency is already ~50% higher than HSW and almost 2x SKL.
Data Full Random Latency (ns) 95 [+31%] (4-17-37) 65 (4-12-34) 72 (4-13-52) Out-of-page latencies are ‘better’ with Ryzen ‘only’ ~30% slower than HSW-E and about 50% slower than SKL. Again L1 is and L2 are fine (4 and 17 clk) and L3 is comparative to SKL (37 vs 34 clk) while old HSW-E trails (52 clk)!
Data Sequential Latency (ns) 4.2 [+1%] (4-7-7) 4.1 (4-12-13) 7 (4-12-13) Ryzen’s prefetchers are working well with sequential access pattern latency at ~4ns matching SKL and much better than old HSW-E.
We finally discover an issue – Ryzen’s memory latencies (in-page) are very high compared to the competition – TLB issue? Fortunately sequential and out-of-page performance is fine so perhaps its memory prefetchers can alleviate the problem somewhat but it is something that will need to be addressed
Code In-Page Random Latency (ns) 16.6 [+5%] (4-9-25) 10 (4-11-21) 15.8 (3-20-29) With code we don’t see the same problem – with in-page latency matching HSW-E, though still about 50% higher than SKL. The twice as large (64kB) L1I cache seems to have the same (4ckl) latency as SKL’s. No issues with L2 nor L3 latencies either.
Code Full Random Latency (ns) 102 [+20%] (4-13-49) 70 (4-11-47) 85 (3-20-58) Out-of-page latency is a bit higher than both Intel CPUs, ~50% higher than SKL but nothing as bad as we’ve seen with data.
Code Sequential Latency (ns) 8.9 [-12%] (4-9-18) 5.3 (4-9-20) 10.2 (3-8-16) Ryzen’s prefetchers are working well with sequential access pattern latency at ~9ns comparative to HSW-E but again about ~67% higher than SKL.
While code access latencies are higher than the new SKL – they are comparative with the older HSW-E and nowhere near as bad as that we’ve seen with data. Even the twice as large L1I (L1 instruction cache) behaves itself with 4clk latency similar to Intel’s L1I smaller versions. It is thus a mystery with data is affected but not code.
Memory Update Transactional (MTPS) 4.23 [-39%] 32.4 HLE 7 SKL is in a World of its own due to support for HLE/RTM but Ryzen is still about 40% slower than HSW-E with just 6 cores.
Memory Update Record Only (MTPS) 4.19 [-23%] 25.4 HLE 5.47 With only record updates the difference drops to about 20% but again HLE shows its power for transaction processing.
Without HLE/RTM Ryzen is not going to win against Intel’s latest – but then again HLE/RTM are disabled in all but the very top-end CPUs – not to mention killed in previous HSW and BRW architectures so it is not a big problem. But if future models were to enable it, Intel will have a big problem on its hands…

Ryzen’s core, memory and cache bandwidths are great, in many cases much higher than its Intel rivals partly due to more cores and more caches (8 vs 6 or 4); overall latencies are also fine for caches and memory – except the crucial ‘in-page random access’ data latencies which are far higher – about 3 times – TLB issues? We’ve been here before with Bulldozer which could not be easily fixed – but if AMD does manage it this time Ryzen’s performance will literally fly!

Still, despite this issue we’ve seen in the previous article that Ryzen’s CPU performance is very strong thus it may not be such a big problem.

SiSoftware Official Ranker Scores

Final Thoughts / Conclusions

Ryzen’s memory performance is not the clean-sweep we’ve seen in CPU testing but it is competitive with Intel’s designs, especially the older HSW (and thus BRW) cores while the newer SKL (and thus KBL) cores sporting improved caches and TLBs which are hard for Ryzen to beat. Still it’s nothing to be worried about and perhaps AMD will be able improve things further with microcode/firmware updates if not new steppings and models (e.g. the APU model 10).

Overall we’d still recommend Ryzen over Intel CPUs unless you want absolutely tried and tested design which have already been patched by microcode and firmware/BIOS updates. The platform has a bright future with more CPUs destined to use the AM4 socket while both 1551 (SKL/KBL) and 2011 (HSW-E/BRW-E) platforms due to be replaced again with no future upgrades.

AMD Ryzen Review & Benchmarks – CPU 8-core Performance

What is “Ryzen”?

“Ryzen” (code-name ZP aka “Zeppelin”) is the latest generation CPU from AMD (2017) replacing the previous “Vishera”/”Bulldozer” designs for desktop and server platforms. An APU version with an integrated (GP)GPU will be launched later and likely include a few improvements as well.

This is the “make or break” CPU for AMD and thus greatly improve performance, including much higher IPC (instructions per clock), higher sustained clocks, better Turbo performance and “proper” SMT (simultaneous multi-threading). Thus there are no longer “core modules” but proper “cores with 2 SMT threads” so an “eight-core CPU” really sports 8C/16T and not 4M/8T.

The desktop version uses the AM4 socket and requires new boards based on various south-bridges with names similar to Intel’s aka X370 (performance), B350 (mainstream), etc.

In this article we test CPU core performance; please see our other articles on:

Hardware Specifications

We are comparing the 2nd-from-the-top Ryzen (1700X) with previous generation competing architectures (i7 Skylake 4C and i7 Haswell-E 6C) with a view to upgrading to a mid-range high performance design.

Another article compares the top-of-the-range Ryzen (1800X) with the latest generation competing architectures (i7 Kabylake 4C and i7 Broadwell-E 8C) with a view to upgrading to the top-of-the-range design.

CPU Specifications AMD Ryzen 1700X
Intel 6700K (Skylake)
Intel 5820K (Haswell-E) Comments
Cores (CU) / Threads (SP) 8C / 16T 4C / 8T 6C / 12T Ryzen has the most cores and threads – so it will be down to IPC and clock speeds. But if it’s threads you want Ryzen delivers.
Speed (Min / Max / Turbo) 2.2-3.4-3.9GHz (22x-34x-39x)  0.8-4.0-4.2GHz (8x-40x-42x)  1.2-3.3-4.0GHz (12x-33x-40x) SKL has the highest rated speed @4GHz but all three have comparative Turbo clocks thus depends on how long they can sustain it.
Power (TDP) 95W 91W 140W Ryzen has comparative TDP to SKL while HSW-E almost 50% higher.
L1D / L1I Caches 8x 32kB 8-way / 8x 64kB 8-way 4x 32kB 8-way / 4x 32kB 8-way 6x 32kB 8-way / 6x 32kB 2-way Ryzen instruction cache is 2x the data cache a somewhat strange decision; all caches are 8-way except the HSW-E’s L1I.
L2 Caches 8x 512kB 8-way 4x 256kB 8-way 6x 256kB 8-way Ryzen L2 is 2x as big as either Intel CPU which should help quite a bit though still 8-way
L3 Caches 2x 8MB 16-way 8MB 16-way 15MB 20-way With 2x as many cores/threads, Ryzen has 2 8MB caches one for each CCX.

Thread Scheduling and Windows

Ryzen’s topology (4 cores in 2 CCXes (compute clusters)) makes it akin to the old Core 2 Quad or Pentium D (2 dies onto 1 socket) effectively a SMP (dual CPU) system on a single socket. Windows has always tended to migrate running threads from unit to unit in order to equalise thermal dissipation though Windows 10/Server 2016 have increased the ‘stickiness’ of threads to units.

As the Windows’ scheduler is inter-twined with the power management system, under ‘Balanced‘ and other power saving profiles – unused cores are ‘parked’ (aka powered down) which affects which cores are available for scheduling. AMD has recommended ‘High Performance‘ profile as well as initially claiming the Windows’ scheduler is not ‘Ryzen-aware’ before retracting the statement.

However, there does seem to be a problem as in Sandra tests when using less than the total 16 threads (e.g. MC test with 8 threads) in tests where Sandra does not hard schedule threads based on its own scheduler (e.g. .Net, Java benchmarks) the scheduling does not appear optimal:

 Ryzen Hard Affinity  Ryzen no Affinity
Ryzen Hard Affinity (e.g. Native) Ryzen No Affinity (e.g. Java/.Net)

While in the left image we see Sandra at work assigning the 8 threads on the 8 different cores – with 100% utilisation on those units and almost nothing on the other 8 – on the right image we see 10 units (!) used, 4 not used at all but still 50% utilisation.

This does not seem to happen on Intel hardware – even SMP systems – thus it may be something to be adjusted in future Windows versions.

Native Performance

We are testing native arithmetic, SIMD and cryptography performance using the highest performing instruction sets (AVX2, AVX, etc.). Ryzen supports all modern instruction sets including AVX2, FMA3 and even more like SHA HWA (supported by Intel’s Atom only) but has dropped all AMD’s variations like FMA4 and XOP likely due to low usage.

Results Interpretation: Higher values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest AMD and Intel drivers. Turbo / Dynamic Overclocking was enabled on both configurations.

Native Benchmarks Ryzen 1700X 8C/16T (MT)
8C/8T (MC)
i7-6700K 4C/8T (MT)
4C/4T (MC)
i7-5820K 6C/12T (MT)
6C/6T (MC)
Comments
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark Native Dhrystone Integer (GIPS) 290 [+24%] | 242 [+13%] AVX2 185 | 146 233 | 213 Right off the bat Ryzen beats both Intel CPUs in both MT and MC tests with SMT providing a good gain (hard scheduled of course).
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark Native Dhrystone Long (GIPS) 292 [+27%] | 260 [+22%] AVX2 185 | 146 230 | 213 With a 64-bit integet workload nothing much changes, Ryzen still beats both in both tests, 27% faster than HSW-E! AMD has ri-sen from the ashes like the Phoenix!
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark Native FP32 (Float) Whetstone (GFLOPS) 185 [+23%] | 123 [+23%] AVX/FMA 109 | 74 150 | 100 Even in this floating-point test, Ryzen beats both again by a similar margin, 23% better than HSW-E. What performance for the money!
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark Native FP64 (Double) Whetstone (GFLOPS) 155 [+33%] | 102 [+32%] AVX/FMA 89 | 60 116 | 77 With FP64 the winning streak continues, with the difference increasing to 33% over HSW-E a huge gain.
From integer workloads in Dhyrstone to floating-point workloads in Whestone Ryzen rules the roost blowing both SKL and HSW-E away being between 23-33% faster, with or without SMT. SMT does yield bigger gain than on Intel’s designs also.
BenchCpuMM Native Integer (Int32) Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 535 [-16%] | 421 [-13%] AVX2 513 | 389 639 | 485 In this vectorised AVX2 integer test Ryzen just overtakes SKL but cannot beat HSW-E and is just 16% slower; still it is a good result but it shows Intel’s SIMD units are really strong with AMD’s 8 cores matching Intel’s 4 cores.
BenchCpuMM Native Long (Int64) Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 159 [-16%] | 137 [-18%] AVX2 191 | 158 191 | 168 With a 64-bit AVX2 integer vectorised workload again Ryzen is unable to beat either Intel CPU being slower by a similar margin -16%.
BenchCpuMM Native Quad-Int (Int128) Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 3.61 [+30%] | 2.1 [+11%] 2.15 | 1.36 2.74 | 1.88 This is a tough test using Long integers to emulate Int128 without SIMD and here Ryzen comes back on top being 30% faster similar to what we saw in Dhrystone.
BenchCpuMM Native Float/FP32 Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 530 [-11%] | 424 [-4%] FMA 479 | 332 601 | 440 In this floating-point AVX/FMA vectorised test we see again the power of Intel’s SIMD units, with Ryzen being only 11% slower than HSW-E but beating SKL.
BenchCpuMM Native Double/FP64 Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 300 [-13%] | 247 [=] FMA 271 | 189 345 | 248 Switching to FP64 SIMD code, again Ryzen cannot beat HSW-E but does beat SKL which should be sufficient.
BenchCpuMM Native Quad-Float/FP128 Multi-Media (Mpix/s) 13.7 [+14%] | 9.7 [+2%] FMA 10.7 | 7.5 12 | 9.5 In this heavy algorithm using FP64 to mantissa extend FP128 but not vectorised – Ryzen manages to beat both CPUs being 14% faster. So AVX2 or FMA code is not a problem.
In vectorised AVX2/FMA code we see Ryzen lose for the first time to Intel’s SIMD units but not by a large margin; in non-vectorised code as with Dhrystone and Whetstone Ryzen is again quite a bit faster than either Intel CPUs. Overall Ryzen would be the preferred choice unless number-crunching vectorised code.
BenchCrypt Crypto AES-256 (GB/s) 13.8 [-31%] | 14 [-32%] AES 15 | 15.4 20 | 20.7 All three CPUs support AES HWA – thus it is mainly a matter of memory bandwidth – and 2 memory channels is just not enough; with its 4 channels HSW-E is unbeatable for streaming tests. But Ryzen is only marginally slower than its counterpart SKL.
BenchCrypt Crypto AES-128 (GB/s) 13.9 [-31%] | 14 [-33%] AES 15 | 15.4 20.1 | 21.2 What we saw with AES-256 just repeats with AES-128; Ryzen would need more memory channels to beat HSW-E but at least is marginally slower than SKL.
BenchCrypt Crypto SHA2-256 (GB/s) 17.1 [+2.25x] | 10.6 [+49%] SHA 5.9 | 5.5 AVX2 7.6 | 7.1 AVX2 Ryzen’s secret weapon is revealed: by supporting SHA HWA it soundly beats both Intel CPUs even running multi-buffer vectorised AVX2 code – it’s 2.2x faster! Surprisingly disabling SMT (MC mode) reduces performance appreciably, not what would be expected.
BenchCrypt Crypto SHA1 (GB/s) 17.3 [+14%] | 11.4 [-14%] SHA 11.3 | 10.6 AVX2 15.1 | 13.3 AVX2 Ryzen also accelerates the soon-to-be-defunct SHA1 but the AVX2 implementation is much less complex allowing SNB-E to come within a whisker of Ryzen and beat it in MC mode by a similar amount 14%. Still, much better to have SHA HWA than finding multiple buffers to process with AVX2.
BenchCrypt Crypto SHA2-512 (GB/s) 3.34 [-37%] | 3.32 [-36%] AVX2 4.4 | 4.2 5.34 | 5.2 SHA2-512 is not accelerated by SHA HWA (version 1) thus Ryzen has to use the same vectorised AVX2 code path where Intel’s SIMD units show their power again.
Ryzen’s secret crypto weapon is support for SHA HWA (which Intel only supports on Atom currently) which allows it to beat both Intel’s CPUs. For streaming algorithms like encrypt/decrypt it would probably benefit from more memory channels to feed all those cores. But overall it would still be the overall choice.
BenchFinance Black-Scholes float/FP32 (MOPT/s) 234 [+49] | 166 [+36%] 129 | 97 157 | 122 In this non-vectorised test we see Ryzen shine brightly again beating even SNB-E by 50% an incredible result. The choice for financial analysis?
BenchFinance Black-Scholes double/FP64 (MOPT/s) 198 [+51%] | 139 [+39%] 108 | 83 131 | 100 Switching to FP64 code, Ryzen still shines beating SNB-E by 50% again and totally demolishing SKL. So far so great!
BenchFinance Binomial float/FP32 (kOPT/s) 85.1 [+2.25x] | 83.2 [+3.23x] 27.2 | 18.1 37.8 | 25.7 Binomial uses thread shared data thus stresses the cache & memory system; we would expect Ryzen to falter here but nothing of the sort – it actually totally beats both Intel CPUs to dust – it’s 2.25 times faster than SNB-E! Even a 12 core SNB-E would not be sufficient.
BenchFinance Binomial double/FP64 (kOPT/s) 45.8 [+37%] | 46.3 [+38%] 25.5 | 24.6 33.3 | 33.5 With FP64 code the situation changes somewhat – with Ryzen only 37% faster than SNB-E; but it’s still an appreciable win. Very strange not to see Intel dominating this test.
BenchFinance Monte-Carlo float/FP32 (kOPT/s) 49.2 [+55%] | 41.2 [+52%] 25.9 | 21.9 31.6 | 27 Monte-Carlo also uses thread shared data but read-only thus reducing modify pressure on the caches; Ryzen reigns supreme here also being 50% faster than even HSW-E. SKL is left in the dust.
BenchFinance Monte-Carlo double/FP64 (kOPT/s) 37.3 [+75%] | 31.8 [+41%] 19.1 | 17.2 21.2 | 22.5 Switching to FP64 Ryzen increases its dominance to 75% over SNB-E and destroying SKL completely.
Intel should be worried: across all financial tests, 64-bit or 32-bit floating-point workloads Ryzen reigns supreme beating even 6-core Haswell-E into dust by such a margin that even a 12-core HSW-E may not beat it. For financial workloads there is only one choice: Ryzen!!! Long live the new king!
BenchScience SGEMM (GFLOPS) float/FP32 68.3 [-63%] | 155 [-27%] FMA 109 | 162 185 | 213 In this tough vectorised AVX2/FMA algorithm Ryzen falters and gets soundly beaten by both SKL and HSW-E. Again the powerful SIMD units of Intel’s CPUs allow them to finally beat it as we’ve seen in previous tests. It’s its Achille’s heel.
BenchScience DGEMM (GFLOPS) double/FP64 62.7 [-28%] | 78.4 [-23%] FMA 72 | 67.8 87.7 | 103 With FP64 vectorised code, the gap reduces with Ryzen just 28% slower than HSW-E and just a bit slower than SKL. Again vectorised SIMD code is problematic.
BenchScience SFFT (GFLOPS) float/FP32 8.9 [-50%] | 9.85 [-39%] FMA 18.9 | 15 18 | 16.4 FFT is also heavily vectorised (x4 AVX/FMA) but stresses the memory sub-system more; here Ryzen is again much slower than both SKL and HSW-E; for vectorised code it seems it needs 2x more SIMD units to match Intel.
BenchScience DFFT (GFLOPS) double/FP64 7.5 [-31%] | 7.3 [-30%] FMA 9.3 | 9 10.9 | 10.5 With FP64 code, Ryzen does improve (or Intel gets slower) only 30% slower than HSW-E and 15% slower than SKL.
BenchScience SNBODY (GFLOPS) float/FP32 234 [-15%] | 225 [-16%] FMA 273 | 271 158 | 158 N-Body simulation is vectorised but many memory accesses to shared data and here SKL seems to do unusually well beating Ryzen in 2nd place but only by 15%. Strangely HSW-E does badly in this test even with 6-cores.
BenchScience DNBODY (GFLOPS) double/FP64 87 [+10%] | 87 FMA 79 | 79 40 | 40 With FP64 code Ryzen improves beating its SKL rival by 10%; again SNB-E does pretty badly in this test.
With highly vectorised SIMD code Ryzen is again the loser but not by a lot; Intel has just one chance – highly vectorised SIMD algorithms that allow the powerful SIMD units to shine. Everything else is dominated by Ryzen.
CPU Image Processing Blur (3×3) Filter (MPix/s) 750 [-1%] | 699 [+4%] AVX2 655 | 563 760 | 668 In this vectorised integer AVX2 workload Ryzen ties with HSW-E, a good result considering we saw it lose in similar algorithms.
CPU Image Processing Sharpen (5×5) Filter (MPix/s) 316 [-8%] | 301 AVX2 285 | 258 345 | 327 Same algorithm but more shared data used sees Ryzen now 8% slower than SNB-E but still beating SKL.
CPU Image Processing Motion-Blur (7×7) Filter (MPix/s) 172 [-8%] | 166 AVX2 151 | 141 188 | 182 Again same algorithm but even more data shared does not change anything, Ryzen is again 8% slower.
CPU Image Processing Edge Detection (2*5×5) Sobel Filter (MPix/s) 292 [-7%] | 279 AVX2 271 | 242 316 | 276 Different algorithm but still AVX2 vectorised workload sees Ryzen still about 7% slower than HSW-E but again still faster than SKL.
CPU Image Processing Noise Removal (5×5) Median Filter (MPix/s) 58.5 [+16%] | 37.4 AVX2 35.4 | 26.4 50.3 | 37 Still AVX2 vectorised code but here Ryzen manages to beat even SNB-E by 16%. Thus it is not a given it will lose in all such tests, it just depends.
CPU Image Processing Oil Painting Quantise Filter (MPix/s) 9.6 [+26%] | 5.2 6.3 | 4.2 7.6 | 5.5 This test is not vectorised though it uses SIMD instructions and here Ryzen manages a 26% win even over SNB-E while leaving SKL in the dust.
CPU Image Processing Diffusion Randomise (XorShift) Filter (MPix/s) 852 [+50%] | 525 422 | 297 571 | 420 Again in a non-vectorised test Ryzen just flies: it’s 2x faster than SKL and no less than 50% faster than SNB-E! Intel does not have its way all the time – unless the code is highly vectorised!
CPU Image Processing Marbling Perlin Noise 2D Filter (MPix/s) 147 [+47%] | 101 75 | 55 101 | 77 In this final non-vectorised test Ryzen really flies, it’s again 2x faster than SKL and almost 50% faster than SNB-E! Intel must be getting desperate for SIMD cectorised versions of algorithms by now…

With all the modern instruction sets supported (AVX2, FMA, AES and SHA HWA) Ryzen does extremely well beating both Skylake 4C and even Haswell-E 6C in all workloads except highly vectorised SIMD code where the powerful Intel SIMD units can shine. Overall it would still be the choice for most workloads but SIMD number-crunching tasks which are somewhat specialised.

While we’ve not tested memory performance in this article, we see that in streaming tests (e.g. AES, SHA) more memory bandwidth to feed all the 16-threads would not go amiss but the difference may not justify the increased cost as we see with Intel 2011 platform and HSW-E.

Software VM (.Net/Java) Performance

We are testing arithmetic and vectorised performance of software virtual machines (SVM), i.e. Java and .Net. With operating systems – like Windows 10 – favouring SVM applications over “legacy” native, the performance of .Net CLR (and Java JVM) has become far more important.

Results Interpretation: Higher values (GOPS, MB/s, etc.) mean better performance.

Environment: Windows 10 x64, latest Intel drivers. .Net 4.6.x (RyuJit), Java 1.8.x. Turbo / Dynamic Overclocking was enabled on both configurations.

VM Benchmarks Ryzen 1700X 8C/16T (MT)
8C/8T (MC)
i7-6700K 4C/8T (MT)
4C/4T (MC)
i7-5820K 6C/12T (MT)
6C/6T (MC)
Comments
BenchDotNetAA .Net Dhrystone Integer (GIPS) 36.5 [+18%] | 25 23.3 | 17.2 30.7 | 26.8 .Net CLR integer performance starts off very well with a 36% better performance even over HSW-E which admittedly does not do much better over SKL.
BenchDotNetAA .Net Dhrystone Long (GIPS) 45.1 [+60%] | 26 23.6 | 21.6 28.2 | 25 Ryzen seems to greatly favour 64-bit integer workloads, here it is 60% faster than even HSW-E and over 2x faster than SKL. All CPUs perform better with 64-bit workloads.
BenchDotNetAA .Net Whetstone float/FP32 (GFLOPS) 100.6 [+53%] | 53 47.4 | 21.4 65.4 | 39.4 Floating-Point CLR performance is pretty spectacular with Ryzen beating HSW-E by over 50% a pretty incredible result. Native or CLR code works just great on Ryzen.
BenchDotNetAA .Net Whetstone double/FP64 (GFLOPS) 121.3 [+41%] | 62 63.6 | 37.5 85.7 | 53.4 FP64 performance is also great (CLR seems to promote FP32 to FP64 anyway) with Ryzen just over 40% faster than HSW-E.
It’s pretty incredible, for .Net applications Ryzen is king – no point buying Intel’s 2011 platform – buy Ryzen! With more and more applications (apps?) running under the CLR, Ryzen has a bright future.
BenchDotNetMM .Net Integer Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 92.6 [+22%] | 49 55.7 | 37.5 75.4 | 49.9 Just as we saw with Dhrystone, this integer workload sees a 22% improvement for Ryzen. While RiuJit supports SIMD integer vectors the lack of bitfield instructions make it slower for our code; shame.
BenchDotNetMM .Net Long Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 97.8 [+23%] | 51 60.3 | 39.5 79.2 | 53.1 With 64-bit integer workload we see a similar story – Ryzen is 23% faster than even HSW-E. If only RyuJit SIMD would fix integer workloads too.
BenchDotNetMM .Net Float/FP32 Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 272.7 [-4%] | 156 AVX 12.9 | 6.74 284.2 | 187.1 Here we make use of RyuJit’s support for SIMD vectors thus running AVX/FMA code; Intel strikes back through its SIMD units with Ryzen 4% slower than SNB-E. Still Intel usually wins these kinds of tests.
BenchDotNetMM .Net Double/FP64 Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 149 [-15%] | 85 AVX 38.7 | 21.38 176.1 | 103.3 Switching to FP64 SIMD vector code – still running AVX/FMA – Ryzen loses again, this time by 15% against SNB-E.
The only tests Intel’s CPUs can win are vectorised ones using RyuJit’s support for SIMD (aka SSE2, AVX/FMA) and thus allowing Intel’s SIMD units to shine; otherwise Ryzen dominates absolutely everything without fail.
Java Arithmetic Java Dhrystone Integer (GIPS)  513 [+29%] | 311  313 | 289  395 | 321 We start JVM integer performance with an even bigger gain, Ryzen is ~30% faster than HSW-E and 60% faster than SKL.
Java Arithmetic Java Dhrystone Long (GIPS) 514 [+28%] | 311 332 | 299 399 | 367 Nothing much changes with 64-bit integer workload, we have Ryzen 28% faster than HSW-E.
Java Arithmetic Java Whetstone float/FP32 (GFLOPS) 117 [+31%] | 66 62.8 | 34.6 89 | 49 With a floating-point workload Ryzen continues its lead over both Intel’s CPUs. Native or CLR or JVM code works just great on Ryzen.
Java Arithmetic Java Whetstone double/FP64 (GFLOPS) 128 [+40%] | 63 64.6 | 36 91 | 53 With FP64 workload the gap increases even further to 40% over HSW-E and an incredible 2x over SKL! Ryzen is the JVM king.
Java performance is even more incredible than what we’ve seen in .Net; server people rejoice, if you have Java workloads Ryzen is the CPU for you! 40% better performance than Intel’s 2011 platform for much lower cost? Yes please!
Java Multi-Media Java Integer Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 99 [+20%] | 52.6 59.5 | 36.5 82 | 49 Oracle’s JVM does not yet support native vector to SIMD translation like .Net’s CLR but here Ryzen manages a 20% lead over HSW-E but is almost 2x faster than SKL.
Java Multi-Media Java Long Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 93 [+17%] | 51 60.6 | 37.7 79 | 53 With 64-bit vectorised workload Ryzen maintains its lead of about 20%.
Java Multi-Media Java Float/FP32 Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 86 [+40%] | 42.3 40.6 | 22.1 61 | 32 Just as we’ve seen with Whetstone, Ryzen is about 40% faster than HSW-E and over 2x faster than SKL! It does not get a lot better than this.

Intel better hope Oracle will add vector primitives allowing SIMD code to use the power of its CPU’s SIMD units.

Java Multi-Media Java Double/FP64 Vectorised/Multi-Media (MPix/s) 82 [+30%] | 42 40.9 | 22.1 63 | 32 With FP64 workload Ryzen’s lead somewhat unexplicably drops to ‘just’ 30% but remains over 2x faster than SKL. Nothing to grumble about really.
Java’s lack of vectorised primitives to allow the JVM to use SIMD instruction sets (aka SSE2, AVX/FMA) gives Ryzen free reign to dominate all the tests, be they integer or floating-point. It is pretty incredible that neither Intel CPU can come close to its performance.

Ryzen absolutely dominates .Net and Java benchmarks with CLR and JVM code running much faster than on Intel’s (ex)-top-of-the-range Haswell-E – thus current and future applications running under CLR (WPF/Metro/UWP/etc.) as well as server JVM workloads run great on Ryzen. For .Net and Java code, Ryzen is the CPU to get!

SiSoftware Official Ranker Scores

Final Thoughts / Conclusions

What a return of fortune from AMD! Despite a hurried launch and inevitable issues which will be fixed in time (e.g. Windows scheduler), Ryzen puts a strong performance beating Intel’s previous top-of-the-range Skylake 6700K and Haswell-E 6820K into dust in most tests at a much cheaper price.

Of course there are setbacks, highly vectorised AVX2/FMA code greatly favour Intel’s SIMD units and here Ryzen falls behind a bit; streaming algorithms can overload the 2 memory channels but then again Intel’s mainstream platform has only 2 also. Still if you were replacing a 2011 4-channel platform with Ryzen then very high-speed memory may be required to sustain performance.

It’s dual-CCX design may also affect non-symmetrical workloads where different threads execute different code with thread data-sharing across CCX naturally slower. Clever thread assignment to the ‘right’ CCX should fix those issues but that is down to each application with Windows (or other OSes) may not be able to fix. Considering we have SMP and NUMA systems out there – it is not a new problem but perhaps one not usually seen on normal desktop systems due to the high-cost of SMP/NUMA systems.

All in all Ryzen is a solid CPU which should worry Intel at the high-end, we shall have to see how the lower-end 4-core and even 2-core versions perform.