Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Jun 2017 21:55 UTC
Intel

This review comes in two big meaty chunks to sink your teeth into. The first part is discussing the new Skylake-X processors, from silicon to design and covering some of the microarchitecture features, such as AVX-512-F support and cache structure. As mentioned, Skylake-X has some significantly different functionality to the Skylake-S core, which has an impact on how software should be written to take advantage of the new features.

The second part is our testing and results. We were lucky enough to source all three Skylake-X processors for this review, and have been running some regression testing of the older processors on our new 2017 testing suite. There have been some hiccups along the way though, and we'll point them out as we go.

An extra morsel to run after is our IPC testing. We spend some time to run tests on Skylake-S and Skylake-X to see which benchmarks benefit from the new microarchitecture design, and if it really does mean anything to consumers at this stage.

As always, AnandTech delivers the goods when it comes to CPU reviews.

Thread beginning with comment 645764
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Benchmarks ...
by cade on Tue 20th Jun 2017 01:01 UTC
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

Those benchmark results/graphs should also have been normalized w.r.t CPU power (Watts).

Comparing a 140W Intel CPU with a 95W AMD CPU would not necessarily show the benefit of CPU architecture.

CPU architecture efficiency/design should be compared while using the same CPU power level.

The above-mentioned Intel/AMD CPU power levels corresponds to the Intel CPU being ~50% greater in power than the AMD CPU (w.r.t AMD CPU power level) and the inferred relative performance/price shows that Intel's latest CPU architecture offerings are not impressive.

I believe the "bang for buck" is with the AMD CPU offerings.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Benchmarks ...
by Kochise on Tue 20th Jun 2017 04:15 in reply to "Benchmarks ..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html : Ryzen doesn't looks that impressive on such benchmark

Was also done on GPU in 2014 : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gpu_comparison_s...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Benchmarks ...
by Fergy on Tue 20th Jun 2017 17:43 in reply to "RE: Benchmarks ..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html : Ryzen doesn't looks that impressive on such benchmark
Most of those cpus are low power mobile cpus so not comparable to a desktop cpu.
Interesting:
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3Ghz 212 65watt
AMD GX-412HC 1.2Ghz 209 7 watt
Intel Core i7-7Y75 @ 1.30GHz 873 4.5watt
So AMD's new desktop cpu is as power efficient as their 2014 embedded low power soc. Guess what happens when they release a cpu for laptops.

Edited 2017-06-20 17:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2