Home / Component / CPU / AMD shows off how Zen compares to a 6900K in benchmark

AMD shows off how Zen compares to a 6900K in benchmark

Just last week we finally saw some performance numbers for Zen in an unofficial leak from the Ashes of Singularity database. Now this week, AMD has given us our first official look at performance for its 8 Core/16 Thread Zen CPU up against an Intel Core i7 6900k, a similarly clocked 8 Core chip. The two processors were pitted against each other in a rendering benchmark, with AMD's upcoming CPU pulling ahead.

During its event, AMD ran an engineering sample of its ‘Summit Ridge' Zen CPU against an Intel Core i7 6900K in Blender, a multi-threaded rendering software. The 6900K's Turbo Boost mode was disabled and both CPUs ran with a clock speed of 3GHz to get a direct clock-for-clock comparison.

00a - Zen_678x452

Essentially, the Zen CPU came out on top in this particular demonstration on a clock-for-clock basis, demonstrating the strength of AMD's new architecture, with multi-core performance greatly improved over its last generation chips. However, we have yet to find out what the final clock speed of this CPU will be, so it will be interesting to see how the final version stacks up.

The final bit of information to come out of the event was confirmation that the first high-performance 8 Core/16 Thread Zen processor will be available early next year, just slipping out of the previous 2016 release date.

KitGuru Says: If AMD's upcoming Zen CPU can continue to perform at this level in other benchmarks and other software suites, then it could end up giving Intel quite a run for its money. We still haven't seen enough of Zen to draw any real conclusions but it is clear that it will be a nice jump over the CPUs AMD currently has available. 

Become a Patron!

Check Also

AMD confirms Ryzen 7000X3D will be faster in gaming than Ryzen 9000

If you've already got a Ryzen X3D processor, you may want to wait upgrade for …

18 comments

  1. in-house benchmarks =/= real world performance. wouldn’t take benchmarks released by either company as fair and unbiased.

  2. I agree to a point – it’s still an interesting comparison, and uses a real-world demonstration to show that, in this particular application, when both CPUs are at the same clock, Zen performs better. Still, one benchmark isn’t exactly scientific.

  3. That’s obvious but real world performance should be incredibly similar

  4. I planned on buying a whole new rig anyway 😛 I guess I’ll keep money and wait for Zen to release 🙂

  5. People are claiming its gonna be sold for 299 usd.. At that level of competetiveness, id expect pricings closer to the 6900K at about 800 usd.

    I just hope that for the money spent, it will also fix all the previous problems with AMDs architectures/platforms, namely IMC performance and the lack of IO.

    Note to mobo manufacturers.. Please no sata express.. Maybe if there was an actual drive that used it.. Other than the singlr obscure one that is aimed more towards workstations.

    Pretty interested in zen just hope its as or more efficient than intels chips, which looking at the RX480 vs 1080 power consumption, it is a little worrying… My i7 6850K is great, just a little toasty for my liking. Wondering was the intel 200 series chipsets and motherboards along with kabylakr will bring along.

  6. That’s what i’m doing, buy the best Zen, then when vega comes out get that too.

    Currently on i5 6600 and hating it.

  7. I doubt AMD will be asking $800 for the Zen octo-core. All of their marketing of this CPU thus far seems to indicate that it’s an enthusiast-level chip released at a price point that many will be able to afford. If it’s anywhere close to the 6900k and priced at around $500, I’d say they have a real winner here.

  8. What’s wrong with your i5? I got my old i7-860k still lol.

  9. James Stephen Edge

    AMD will never try $800 again, they know from the FX-9590 that they cannot charge Intel level money.

  10. with a clock speed of 3GHz to get a direct clock-for-clock comparison. ok so amd crap as usual

  11. I have a 6600K which I upgraded from a 3570K and I find the improvements to be phenomenal and I havent noticed any drawbacks at all. What is the issue with yours ? I have to ask as I want to know everything I can about the CPU both good and bad bits as we all know there is no such thing as a perfect product.

  12. just because they ran bench at 3Ghz does NOT mean it WILL be 3Ghz MAX, also clock speed means nothing if they have IPC 10x the normal rate IPC rules far more these days then raw clock speed(it did way back P4 vs Athlon with Athlon though being slower also performing faster and even modern core I vs Bulldozer and derivatives which suffer a major IP disadvantage hence their raw clock speed to keep it simple does jacksh^t)

    the Zen they are “showing off” is 2.8Ghz stock and 3Ghz turbo, I highly highly highly doubt they would sell something like this they know better(shareholders would murder them in their sleep and this is also 14nm am pretty sure can clock up significantly) they are just showing how much they advanced their lack of raw performance, power usage etc.

    If you don’t use your head to think about possible ramifications of the reason why they do this or that, then don’t bother posting BS SPAM like commentary, it just hogs space up you tool.

  13. i was just thinking the same thing, what could be going wrong with the 6600 on his setup. Im currently running an i7-3770K but thinking of going to either a 6600 or a Zen

  14. Just not enough overall oomph. Read all the reviews looked at benchmarks etc, but it’s just not enough.

  15. The problem with the FX-9590 was that it wasnt a great chip. Its just a hellishly overclocked FX-8350. It had 0 extra features and still couldnt compete with intels chips, and with its own quite serious problems, it was clear it wasnt going to sell at that price.

    Whatever AMD comes out with next though wil hopefully be ganechanging. Either they will be able to charge prices similar to that of a equally performing intel chip, or they will undercut heavily. In a way I hope they do a little of both. Undercutting too much will sell more but in all it will end up hurting them as they wont get enough money to continue the RnD of the architecture. If they charge too much, then its just gonna go the same way as the 9590 did, and theyre back to scenario 1.

    Theyll have to balance the price very carefully. To try take sales away from Intel but also to not hurt themselves in the bigger scale.

  16. If it can compete with the 6900K it will be closer to 700 usd, thats unless intel decides to drop their silly prices. If anything its good that intels prices are so high because amd can milk a bit by charging more at first till intel lowers their prices. If the 6900K still blows it out of the water thoigh i would expect more like 500 usd.

  17. I upgraded from an FX8350 and in real life scenarios, most games there’s hardly a difference.

    For the money, it should have been better. Wish i’d skipped it and bought an i7 instead.

    I will note I bought an i5 6600 non-K

    I will be selling this and the motherboard, possibly even the ddr4 ram cheap and build a brand new AMD system.

  18. <<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il361r:….,……..