Ryzen 5 1500X + AB350M Pro4 |
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Author | |
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Let's move on to a few gaming related benchmarks. First up Firestrike (averages of five runs):
Old 3DMark Score: 9628.2 Graphics Score: 13367 Physics Score: 7807 Combined Score: 3504.6 Graphics Test 1: 63.514 fps Graphics Test 2: 53.57 fps Physics Test: 24.788 fps Combined Test: 16.304 fps New 3DMark Score: 11312.8 Graphics Score: 13504 Physics Score: 12454.4 Combined Score: 4805.8 Graphics Test 1: 64.292 fps Graphics Test 2: 54.028 fps Physics Test: 39.542 fps Combined Test: 22.354 fps Nothing that surprising here. In the graphics tests the results are in practice the same, in the physics test there's a big difference and in the combined test there's a smaller, yet still notable difference. There's another way of seeing these results: In graphically demanding games - note that this was just Firestrike - my GPU was already performing at its limit with the old Phenom II. The Ryzen upgrade only helps in situations where the Phenom II would be stressed to its limit due to complex physics/AI or where my GPU is overkill and the CPU sets the pace. Unfortunately I didn't benchmark any such games. I was, however curious to see whether the upgrade would have an effect on the lowest FPS figures in a game I was about to start playing, so I did one gaming benchmark: Metro Last Light Redux (3.00 x64), max settings @1080p (Averages of five benchmark runs) Old Total Frames: 8573.6 Total Time: 171.0154 Average Framerate: 50.168 fps Maximum Framerate: 112.44 fps Minimum Framerate: 15.144 New Total Frames: 8814 Total Time: 171.15328 Average Framerate: 51.534 fps Maximum Framerate: 162.356 fps Minimum Framerate: 15.004 Not much of a difference, except for the maximum framerate. The minimum framerate is practically the same, although it has to be said that with the Phenom II it varied between 13.72 fps and 16.27 fps, whereas with the Ryzen 5 it varied between 9.73 fps and 18.25 fps. Maybe more benchmark runs would have given a more representative average, maybe the test is just sensitive to whatever Windows is doing in the background or maybe frametimes just are a bit all over the place with my Ryzen 5 at its current settings. To sum up the benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 1500X is a good replacement for my old Phenom II, which was still totally usable despite its age. In gaming I am limited by my GPU at the moment, so that's what I'll upgrade next, but I could also try to overclock my GPU a bit further. As for the 1500X, I know there's still some performance to be squeezed out of it. I'll start with memory timings and see where I end up. I'll post the timings and some benchmark results when I'm ready to move on to bumping the CPU multiplier a bit higher. |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The series continues. All results again the average of five benchmark runs.
Geekbench 4.2 Old OpenCL Score: 131094 (Single-Core Score / Multi-Core Score) Total Score: 2425.8 / 9565 Crypto Score: 153.8 / 908.2 Integer Score: 2805.6 / 13045.4 Floating Point Score: 1935.6 / 9826.4 Memory Score: 2874.4 / 3506.4 New OpenCL Score: 133389.2 (Single-Core Score / Multi-Core Score) Total Score: 4356.4 / 15474.6 Crypto Score: 5695.4 / 14259.6 Integer Score: 4059.4 / 18739.6 Floating Point Score: 3959.2 / 16889.4 Memory Score: 5285.6 / 6309.6 Here we see a ~80% increase in single-core score and ~62% increase in multi-core score for the total result. The crypto results for the Phenom II are abysmal in comparison, possibly due to a more limited collection of instruction sets. Single-threaded floating point performance is in turn doubled when moving to Ryzen, whereas (single-threaded) integer performance sees a comparatively mild 45% increase. The OpenCL test is a separate test and didn't affect the CPU results. The increase is roughly 2%, which is not surprising. After all, the benchmark should measure GPU performance. |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Next up with the averages of five runs:
Passmark 9.0 Old Total: 3094* (*this is the average of four values, since I forgot to write down the total points for the first run) CPU Mark: 6149.98 2D Graphics Mark: 551.58 3D Graphics Mark: 7641.66 Memory Mark: 1295.94 Disk Mark: 4043.28 For the CPU Mark, I also took the more detailed values: Integer Math: 10374.2 Floating Point Math: 7508 Prime Numbers: 21.4 Extended Instructions (SSE): 29 Compression: 8093.4 Encryption: 1451.6 Physics: 335 Sorting: 5734.8 CPU Single Threaded: 1300.6 New Total: 5287.7 CPU Mark: 10674.8 2D Graphics Mark: 872.58 3D Graphics Mark: 11031.1 Memory Mark: 2178.12 Disk Mark: 11806.84 Integer Math: 21671.8 Floating Point Math: 7992 Prime Numbers: 36.4* (*this contains an outlier value of 30, with the rest being 36-39 and the Phenom also exhibiting only a ~10% difference between runs) Extended Instructions (SSE): 383 Compression: 13391 Encryption: 2117.8 Physics: 638.4 Sorting: 8056.6 CPU Single Threaded: 1970.2 A lot of values to compare, but for the CPU single threaded we're looking at a slightly over 50% increase and for the CPU mark a slightly over 70% increase. There's a nice increase in the overall system score as well, but the 3D graphics mark is strangely CPU bound (in other words it's too easy for the GPU) and the disk mark varied roughly 30% between tests on my new system, so not all the numbers are very reliable or indicative of real world performance gains. |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
More benchmark results. Again, all results are the average of five benchmarks runs and the systems are as described in the previous post.
Cinebench R15 Old OpenGL: 69.896 fps CPU: 538.4 cb CPU (Single core): 95.4 cb MP Ratio: 5.66x New OpenGL: 115.248 fps CPU: 824.6 cb CPU (Single core): 150.8 cb MP Ratio: 5.47x Thus, a 56%-65% increase and an MP ratio that's pretty close to the six-core Phenom II. Cinebench doesn't scale very well with threads (for an Intel Xeon with 12C/24T the MP ratio is below 14, and a similar trend is seen for other Intel CPUs as well), so the Ryzen results are as expected. There are two noteworthy things about these results: 1. The first multi-core result with the Phenom II was only 502, without which the average (of four results) would have been about 10 cb higher and the MP ratio would have been over 5.7x. The single-core result for that run was in line with the other results, so I can only assume Windows was doing something in the background when I started the benchmark. 2. The OpenGL results were worse on each run with both CPUs. With the Phenom II the results were (first/last) 73.42 fps/ 67.68 fps and with the Ryzen they were 126.98 fps/109.98 fps. It's not because of thermal throttling, so I'm not quite sure what is going on. Maybe quitting Cinebench and launching it again between every bencmark would have solved this issue, but I'll have to test that later. Edit: Found a typo in the Cinebench results for Ryzen. Edited by PetrolHead - 31 Dec 2017 at 6:12am |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Okay, time to look at some CPU-Z comparisons. I'll post more benchmarks later. But first, these are the systems I'm comparing to each other:
Old CPU: Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7GHz GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5 @ stock RAM: 2 x 8 GB Kinsgston HyperX Fury Black @ 1600MHz CL9 HDD: Samsung 850 EVO SSD 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB OS: Windows 10 64-bit New CPU: Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.7GHz GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5 @ stock RAM: 2 x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3200MHz CL14 HDD: Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB OS: Windows 10 64-bit Neither system was maxed out, but I preferred running the Phenom at 3.7GHz and wanted to see what the Ryzen would be like at the same clock speed, even though it will still be an apples to oranges comparison due to all the other factors. Anyways, here are the averages of five benchmark runs for CPU-Z 1.82: Old CPU Single Thread: 179.36 CPU Multi Thread: 1078.20 New CPU Single Thread: 426.42 CPU Multi Thread: 2294.32 So, an increase of 137% and 113%. Not bad. However, as l will show later, the gains vary a lot depending on the benchmark, and games especially can be totally oblivious to the new CPU due to a GPU bottleneck. Edited by PetrolHead - 19 Dec 2017 at 2:11am |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
PetrolHead
Groupie Joined: 07 Oct 2015 Status: Offline Points: 403 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A new rig, a new thread. Here are the specs:
CPU: Ryzen 5 1500X GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 SC 6GB GDDR5 MB: ASRock AB350M Pro4 RAM: 2 x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ (F4-3466C16D-16GTZSK) PSU: Corsair RM550x HDD: Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB + Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500GB Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv mATX Tempered Glass CPU Cooler: AMD Wraith Spire Fans: 2 x Phanteks 140 mm case coolers OS: Windows 10 64-bit At the moment I haven't pushed the system very far, since I'm interested in doing comparisons to my old rig at the same CPU clockspeed (even though it's a bit of an arbitrary limitation with CPU architecture, RAM speeds etc. being different). I've also left BIOS settings mostly to their default settings due to the fact that the manual doesn't explain any of them. So, here are the few things I've done: -Set CPU clockspeed to 3.7 GHz -Set core voltage to 1.25 V (seems to stay around 1.28 V when running prime95) -Set the RAM speed to 3200 MHz, since the XMP speed 3466 MHz didn't work (no surprises there) -Set RAM CL to 14 I haven't really stress tested the system - apart from a minute or two in prime95 just to test the temperature behaviour - since I only need it to be "bench stable" at the moment, but so far there have been no issues with stability. Compared to stock settings the CPU seems to run cooler(!) in prime95 and the Vcore has stopped bouncing around like a lunatic and reaching numbers above 1.4 V. The stock cooler does seem to be working very hard even with this four core CPU, and I'm hitting at least 75 C with these settings in prime95. I'm not sure if I want to push the CPU any further than that without upgrading the cooling... P.S. For some reason the CPU cooler seems to be at full blast all the time, even though the BIOS setting should allow it to slow down when the CPU is idle. I'll probably need to do a few checks before blaming the motherboard, but I'm a bit worried. I _really_ do not want to RMA the board. |
|
Ryzen 5 1500X, ASRock AB350M Pro4, 2x8 GB G.Skill Trident Z 3466CL16, Sapphire Pulse RX Vega56 8G HBM2, Corsair RM550x, Samsung 960 EVO SSD (NVMe) 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO SSD 500 GB, Windows 10 64-bit
|
|
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |