AMD Ryzen 2600 Benchmark Spotted

[Johan45]

Source: Guru3D https://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_ryzen_2600_benchmark_spotted.html

As you guys know, AMD is to release the Ryzen 2000 or let's just call it Zen+ In April. In January the Ryzen 5 2600 already surfaced in the SiSoft Sandra database. The entry showed a processor called Ryzen 5 2600, which obviously is Zen+, the model listed is a six-core twelve threaded processor.

The very same processor once again has surfaced and seems to be the counterpart of the Ryzen 5 1600. The Ryzen 5 1600 shows Family 23 Model 1 Stepping 1, the new Ryzen 2600 reads out as Family 23 Model 8 Stepping 2.

The entry within the SiSoft database is:

ZD2600BBM68AF_38/34_Y (6C 12T 3.4GHz, 1.1GHz IMC, 6x 512kB L2, 2x 8MB L3).
And yes you can deduct anything and pretty much everything from that, including a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz turbo. The new leak was spotted at GeekBench and seem to be interesting as it shows that exact same product code, the single core score returns a 4269 points and the multicore score now sees 20102 points. So let's call that a ~10% performance increase. Obviously, we will still need to learn if the new Ryzen 2000 series can tweak higher compared to its predecessor.

Now I know, it's not much to look at and Geekbench most definitely is not definitive and all saying, but I made the following comparison. BTW I assume the Ryzen 2600 is a non 'X' model much like a Ryzen 1600, and as such compared based on that being the fairest baseline. Note, the L 1/2/3 caches on the original Ryzen 5 1600 entry seems to be messed up, for the Ryzen 5 2600 they seem spot on. Also, the Insyde Software BIOS for Ryzen 5 2600 might seem weird, but that is a UEFI Firmware & Engineering Services Provider, indicating this test was using an engineering sample motherboard.

Have a peek:

 

[notarat]

Honestly, if the 2600x performs 10%-20% better and has a better power envelope I'll have no problem buying one to upgrade my 1600x.

 

[trickson69]

I do love the new Ryzen line. My Ryzen 1300X is amazing and for a quad core ...WOW!
Oh and other than gaining a larger Epeen I see no reason to change my R3 in, The video card now that.......

 

[Thick8]

My hope is that I can clock higher for DCS.

 

[trents]

I think if all we have are engineering sample components we don't know much of anything yet about performance improvements.

 

[trickson69]

We can extrapleate frpom what we know and how well AMD is doing now. The Ryzen chip is one that is a game changer. My little R3 1300X is smoking fast (IMHO Perspective) and Threadripper is going to DOMINATE!

 

[Woomack]

We can extrapleate frpom what we know and how well AMD is doing now. The Ryzen chip is one that is a game changer. My little R3 1300X is smoking fast (IMHO Perspective) and Threadripper is going to DOMINATE!

Ryzen is still selling much worse than Intel in the same price point and Threadripper is on the market for a long time ... so far it's the biggest market fail and I don't mean performance but general sales. There is a reason while the biggest brands have 1-3 X399 boards in their offer and some are not even releasing anything for this chipset.
AMD can take significant part of the market if they stop with all the BS and focus on releasing good products which will convince users that with high performance also comes high quality. Couple of days ago we had APU premiere which doesn't look so good if you check what BIOS is available for most motherboards. Vendors had not enough time to prepare most of their stock and release fully functional BIOS. Regardless of brand there are some issues and it would look much better if AMD provided new AGESA earlier. It looks like they don't trust their partners and it's not good as it affects end-users.

 

[trents]

Ryzen is still selling much worse than Intel in the same price point and Threadripper is on the market for a long time ... so far it's the biggest market fail and I don't mean performance but general sales. There is a reason while the biggest brands have 1-3 X399 boards in their offer and some are not even releasing anything for this chipset.
AMD can take significant part of the market if they stop with all the BS and focus on releasing good products which will convince users that with high performance also comes high quality. Couple of days ago we had APU premiere which doesn't look so good if you check what BIOS is available for most motherboards. Vendors had not enough time to prepare most of their stock and release fully functional BIOS. Regardless of brand there are some issues and it would look much better if AMD provided new AGESA earlier. It looks like they don't trust their partners and it's not good as it affects end-users.

Seems to me Intel has a bigger problem with qualtiy considering the recent vulnerability revelations. I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill in the AGESA issue at the APU premier. And the market stats that I see indicate AMD is gaining market share on Intel.

 

[EarthDog]

I think if all we have are engineering sample components we don't know much of anything yet about performance improvements.

At this point, it won't change much at all. These are out in the wild and it is what it is for the most part. The ES samples sent out might as well be retail.

 

[trickson69]

Ryzen is still selling much worse than Intel in the same price point and Threadripper is on the market for a long time ... so far it's the biggest market fail and I don't mean performance but general sales. There is a reason while the biggest brands have 1-3 X399 boards in their offer and some are not even releasing anything for this chipset.
AMD can take significant part of the market if they stop with all the BS and focus on releasing good products which will convince users that with high performance also comes high quality. Couple of days ago we had APU premiere which doesn't look so good if you check what BIOS is available for most motherboards. Vendors had not enough time to prepare most of their stock and release fully functional BIOS. Regardless of brand there are some issues and it would look much better if AMD provided new AGESA earlier. It looks like they don't trust their partners and it's not good as it affects end-users.

So AMD hasn't been putting out a good product? I smell some fanboy in this post.
First off AMD has managed to compete fully, If not then why is AMD still on the tongs of everyone? Why is it they are always competing with Intel? If AMD was such a bad performer why are we seeing them in the market? I don't hear of sun micro systems or IBM chips being any where at all in the PC market and hardly in the server market., The MAIN bosses are AMD and Intel. But every time you post about AMD it is always about how bad there Epeen is compared to Intels Epeen.
First off ask this does AMD do the job that AMD says it will?
Does Intel Do the job they say they will?
Yes yes benchmarks and all that Intel rules But from what I see not by much. Lets be honest here AMD is NOT completely blowen away at all by Intel and if you think so you are a fan boy. I know out there some where some has a AMD system that can trounce all over any Intel rig and some one some where has and Intel system that will trounce all over an AMD. It all comes down to the setup and just how = that system is to the other.
We use them all the time to do judge who's Eppen system is the fastest and really that is all it comes down to. I have a score higher than yours because my system is so tuned I can hit them scores.
What I am saying is when all you do is build a system to produce the fastest benchmark scores at the very limit of each and every hardware component then post it and say see look!!!!! My Epeen score is so huge!
I do not see the point to than but then again you "all" seem to, For 99% of the average user it is name recognition and that is all. If AMD just did some real advertising they would get more market.
No one ever hears about IBM or Oracle now do they?
Please lets try to keep an open mind about this. Again in my honest opinion, When you set out to build a benchmarking computer tax your hardware run it at max out put for benchmarking then post how good it is against what you have to me that is Epeen. Then say things like this about AMD ( or the comp) it is (to me ) all EPEEN.
That said AMD is fast strong and very powerful.
Intel is fast strong and a complete power house.
Is one better than the other?
That is a matter of perspective and how you build and setup the OS. IMHO. As even slight changes in the OS can affect most benchmarks as well.

I am trying to be open minded and not one sided. AMD and Intel are doth great chip makers and to sit there and say that AMD isn't, is just being a fanboy and Epeen happy. ( I know , when I ran my Q9650 I was in Epeen heaven. Thing is the system was no better and no worse than AMD's offering at the time, I set out to build a benchmark gaming system. Even the OS was tuned for performance.) I mean lets face it a Video card vs SLI or Crossfire? Benchmarks change dramatically depending on video card(s) used. And that reflects on the score biglly!

 

[EarthDog]

So AMD hasn't been putting out a good product? I smell some fanboy in this post.

Nope. AMD has been second in a two man race since the Core architecture came out in like 2006. The only thing that has changed with Ryzen is instead of the CPUs being 40% behind in IPC, its now a few percent behind. AMD chose to go the more cores route, which is fine, and forward thinking, but, how far ahead to where that REALLY matters? At least until Zen2 (not Zen+) IMO. We are fine now with 4c/8t CPUs in mainstream and will be for a couple of years, yet. So, no... in the past, it wasn't a good product comparatively. Now, they finally have something competitive.

Also, what you may have missed here in his post is he said AT THE SAME PRICE POINT. Unless a user actually needs the cores, at the same price, the Intel CPU is superior in most every way. About the only place it isn't is cost per core. Which, again, who cares you have 8 cores when you only utilize 4?

First off AMD has managed to compete fully, If not then why is AMD still on the tongs of everyone?

Compete fully? You may want to define what compete means... as finishing last in a race also means you competed. Being a bit less tongue (not tong) and cheek, they are solid CPUs, Zen, no doubt about it. But they are second in most races. To that end, if it was truly a superior chip, they wouldn't be forced to undercut Intel pricing for the same amount of cores/threads.

IBM chips being any where at all in the PC market and hardly in the server market.

Perhaps consider understanding what kind of chips IBM and others are putting in the market and see if that is an apples to apples comparison for consumers. IBM and Sun are players in the server market. I was in Mainframe and DC Operations for a huge water utility and Amazon Web Services (tech at AWS). I have an idea of what goes in Data Centers and for what reason.

We use them all the time to do judge who's Eppen system is the fastest and really that is all it comes down to. I have a score higher than yours because my system is so tuned I can hit them scores.

WHo does that? Maybe that is how it feels in your world, not sure others feel the same way. Both, NOW, have viable chips. AMD has more cores, but lags a bit in IPC, clockspeed, and overclocking headroom... it does cost less.

What I am saying is when all you do is build a system to produce the fastest benchmark scores at the very limit of each and every hardware component then post it and say see look!!!!! My Epeen score is so huge!
I do not see the point to than but then again you "all" seem to, For 99% of the average user it is name recognition and that is all. If AMD just did some real advertising they would get more market.

You did join Overclockers.com. This is not, letsrunstock.com. What do you expect from us? We have a benching team, we benchmark, we are the demographic looking for that last 1%!!!!!!! We help users out well here with asking their budget and system users then suggest a system which works for that specific user. Sometimes its AMD, sometimes it is Intel based...

No one ever hears about IBM or Oracle now do they?

That's the second time you mentioned IBM or others. Do tell why you believe these other players are important to consumers in the x86 market please....

Please lets try to keep an open mind about this. Again in my honest opinion, When you set out to build a benchmarking computer tax your hardware run it at max out put for benchmarking then post how good it is against what you have to me that is Epeen.

So what? If you don't like it, that's OK! Its no different than modding a car to go faster and have bragging rights at the track. But really, considering you joined a track (OCF), yet seemed to be offended when people talk track at the track, the comments feel a bit off here since this is where all the talk, prep, and 'racing' is done.

Is one better than the other?
That is a matter of perspective and how you build and setup the OS. IMHO. As even slight changes in the OS can affect most benchmarks as well.

Yes, one is better than the other. By how much of course varies. A 'slight OS change' can affect benchmarks, sure, but I don't understand your point as any review worth anything uses the same OS and settings.

Thing is the system was no better and no worse than AMD's offering at the time, I set out to build a benchmark gaming system. Even the OS was tuned for performance.) I mean lets face it a Video card vs SLI or Crossfire? Benchmarks change dramatically depending on video car(s) used. And that reflects on the score biglly!

Bigly?? Is that a word? I don't get the point of your SLI/Crossfire analogy. Please elaborate more clearly please.

LOL, trickson..... the Q9650 was much faster than anything AMD had out at the time. K10 and Bulldozer wewre both slower.


Brother, TPU may humor you, but you won't find the same oblivious people here en masse. My suggestion is for you to take your OWN advice and be open minded. You don't seem to want to hear anything about someone being better than your precious AMD.... that is, depending on the time of day and website. Its funny because, there are posts at TPU of you saying how "slow" your Ryzen is, yet here, its the next best thing since sliced bread??? Are you trolling here? It sure feels like it as less than two weeks ago, you mentioned this about your Ryzen CPU.....................

Here is a good laugh! OMG what a PATHETIC POS! This has GOT to be the WORST SO CALLED UPGRADE I EVER DONE! Never BUY AMD! WHAT A SORRY POS PLATFORM!
Utterly Sorry and Pathetic! Total waste of time and money!

you name it. poor weak not good.
look fine? a 6 year old i5 i7 and i3 smoke mine so yeah this CPU sucks!

Not much from AMD to be sure. The only way this CPU could get any faster is if it dies and comes back as a slug!

First off the hype and all the "good" stuff said about the AMD Ryzen ON TPU and other sites is the reason I went with the system! Do not precieve to think I went into this ignorant at all! I was told and by all the scores I seen that this CPU was better than a core i7 this thig can't even begin to compete with ANY Intel's Quad cores! I use Quad cores ONLY for Gaming. It is pointless to use anything with more cores.
I am in NO way seeing any of the speeds that I was told I would see! It is just not there! I have run the tests I have OC this to the MAX! The ONLY thing left is to max out the RAM modules with the MAX number and speed see if that will boost this CPU.

NO but surely it would compete with a 6 year OLD LINE FOR ****Z SAKE! And NO matter HOW you stack it the AMD LINE ALL of them so far are sub-par performance platforms. Far from the Intel offerings even there GPU line is a getto budget build! Never buying AMD again! I have proff and you can't see it? I have run the tests even in Cinabench My system gets walked on by a 6 year old LINE! WTF! 6 YEAR OLD CPU blows mine away? I am at a loose for emotion support I got kicked in the NUTS! And now my gut actually hurts! I can actually feel buyers remorse and I now feel the pain others have buying crap tech.

Amazing how just two weeks ago it was a monumental dud through and through, yet here, a couple days ago, its "smoking fast" and will "dominate"...

 

[trickson69]

You missed my point, you keep arguing but nothing is coming out. If you miss my point why bother? I will have to concede that YOU are right about EVERYTHING.
Moving on.

 

[EarthDog]

Keep arguing? This is my first post in the thread.

Instead of lashing out then taking your ball and going home, consider making your point more clear so those around you (me at this time) can understand it. I have an open mind and willing to learn, but, considering your posts over there at TPU and these here, I am left perplexed at the antithetic positions at two different sites. Not to mention some of the supporting points (IBM? Sun? Oracle?????) just really do not make sense at this time.

 

[trickson69]

All I know is that my Ryzen3 1300X is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It was and is smashing Intel's Core i3 7300 not only does it NOT back down it took over. The Ryzen CPU is just as good if not better than Intel's CPU line from every review I have seen yet you seem to refute this, Then you lay TPU on the table? LMAO! Bunch of snowflakes! I went on a reverse rant to prove a point over there and got BAN because of CUPCAKES!
I am making this point. AMD is KEEPING up fully with Intel. My Ryzen 3 1300X is a true QUAD core and SMASHES the **** out of the core i3! See I think your problem is that if an AMD CPU doesn't compete with the Flagship of the Blue team , well then it's no good, No matter if it was made to or not! LMOF! You still just DON'T get it.

So if you think I am wrong then I am very open to putting MY R3 1300X to the test. I am hamstrung with RAM and video but MY CPU is a MONSTER! But you keep tossing that BS forum TPU crap site in my face if that makes you feel better. It is exactly what you did over there to me as well. See you MISS the POINT!

LET me MAKE it clear to YOU MY Ryzen 3 1300X was AMD's answer to the Core i3 7300 and it out performs it in every way! You may say no it don't or my core i5 and i7 are faster and you would be correct in some instances. But at any rate think what you like because AMD is back!
It had a fairly hard time with the FX chips but all in all they are great Chips as well. And if you look at all the side by side tests done on them all you will see AMD is NOT as bad as you say. This is the reason I went AMD Ryzen it's the Athlon days all over again!

 

[EarthDog]

I am making this point. AMD is KEEPING up fully with Intel.

With you there. AMD is back. I just get confused by your disdain for it there and love for it here and curious supporting information at both sites.

I wouldnt compare that cpu with i5 or i7..id compare it core for core and thread for thread whatever its called You are comparing it to a last gen dual core + ht with a true quad. In the link im about to drop, its apples to apples with an i3 8100 quad core. That cpu is $40 cheaper as well. Of course the mobos are currently more expensive, but that will change when h series comes out.
https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1499-intel-core-i3-8100-i3-8350K/page5.html

Amd is back and is most certainly competitive, but its not beating the tar out of much...unless its compared to last gen cpus with less physical cores which cost 25% less. Compared to coffee lake i3...it has proce to performance crown until h series boards release.

Anyway, again, they are back, they are competitive. Ive never denied that fact. But Bulldozer was never competative except in price.


Anyhoo, I digress, this is about the new ryzen cpus.

 

[trickson69]

whatever. Tech spot
I will put my R3 1300x against any one here that has a i3 7300. ANY time! Tech spot Do you have one? Do you have a Ryzen? LET'S GO! Who's Epeen is the biggest?

 

[Kenrou]

It was and is smashing Intel's Core i3 7300 not only does it NOT back down it took over.

LET me MAKE it clear to YOU MY Ryzen 3 1300X was AMD's answer to the Core i3 7300 and it out performs it in every way!

Wouldn't exactly say "smash" as well, maybe "faster in multi-core operations" ? Then again we are comparing a 4c/4t against a 2c/4t. Regardless they are both good chips for everyday work and light gaming. Problem with Ryzen has (IMO) always been low OC clocks, and IPC was below Skylake from what i read at launch (?), so 2 gens behind Intel. I would say fix the clocks and you got very decent competition for the price.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X-vs-Intel-Core-i3-7300/3930vs3893

 

[trents]

So I am kind of guessing that the Ryzen 2xxx will be similar to what the Refresh was to Haswell. More of a tweak and refinement than anything else. Or maybe more like Kaby Lake was to Sky Lake.

 

[Kenrou]

~10% performance increase according to the link, TIC TOC Intel calls it ? not sure if it's worth it to upgrade from whoever already has one but maybe for newcomers...

 

[Woomack]

@trents
AMD is gaining market shares but what I mean is that end-users still don't trust AMD enough so it will take significant part of the market ( comparing to what they already had ). If you compare processors at the same price point then Intel has about 70% higher sales ( average numbers from distribution in EU ).
It doesn't mean that AMD is bad. Ryzens are actually huge success, just market is not prepared to move so fast. We can back to this topic in 2-3 years and then I guess we will have much more to say ... if AMD will keep the good work.

Both AMD and Intel failed something in pretty much every premiere in last ~7 years. Maybe I make too big problem from that APU release but it's just one example while every significant AMD product in last years had huge delay and users were beta-testers ( only Ryzen had various fixes for over half year ). On the other hand with Intel is almost the same. The only difference is that they are releasing products on time ... just not always what they were planning.

@trickson69
You are clearly mixing facts or have no idea what are you talking about. I find pointless to reply to your posts.
I only add that right now from new CPUs, I have 3 Ryzens and 2 Intels.

@Kenrou
IPC supposed to be about as good as Haswell. Ryzen was designed to compete with Haswell ... but because of huge delay in release, Intel had Skylake and Kaby Lake ... and if we look at R3/R5 premiere then also Coffee Lake. Other thing is that IPC improvement in Intel chips wasn't so big in these generations. Now Ryzens compete with Coffee Lake and they can't win core to core but they can win in prices. Since there are still no cheaper chipsets for Coffee Lake then AMD is winning in price/performance with any Intel.

What AMD needs now to move forward is higher frequency and higher overclocking potential. Something like 4.5GHz would be just right and I guess that more users would move from i5/i7 to new Ryzen.