The publication of the benchmarks of the AMD Ryzen 2 by the French magazine CPCHardware, does not finish giving me confidence and there are things that I do not like and data that does not quite fit me.

After uploading the entry of the review of the AMD Ryzen 2 published by CPCHardware, to the French paper magazine, I have been ruminating the results. The first thing I should highlight is that the improvement of 10-15% in the synthetic benchmark and of approximately 5% in gaming, I find it interesting, but to what extent ?; and most importantly for me, to what extent are the data shown by the French magazine valid? They are valid, to get an idea, but really for very little else.

They have taken the benchmark data, they have individually converted it to a percentage, then they have taken the average. Is that correct? Well, in my opinion, it is not logical to mix different types of synthetic benchmark software on the one hand and gaming on the other hand in a blender and then present the result as if it were useful for something. It may be that the 3DMark Fire Strike gives us 14% more performance compared to the previous generation and 4% in the Cinebench R15. That doesn't give a 9% improvement performance on average, but the benchmarks are very different.

If we talk about games, the difference is even more beast. The games they have used are: GTA V, Grid Autosport, Battlefield 4, ARMA III, X3: TC, The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt and Company of Heroes 2. They couldn't be more different from each other. The GTA V is a lighter game than the ARMA III, for example, so the difference can be very big. I don't really like this data.

What I still do not see clearly is the issue of consumption. If I'm not mistaken, the Ryzen 2 are about 400MHz more powerful than the Ryzen on average and are developed in 12nm, which should improve consumption, not excessively, but a little, but instead, the Ryzen 7 2700X consumes about 10% more than the Ryzen 7 1800X, which seems pretty weird to me.

Each one to draw the conclusions they deem appropriate. I must emphasize that this magazine is the same one that hid the note: 'ZenOC @ Air = 5G'; With respect to the first Ryzen, something that in the end was not fulfilled, since the first Ryzen are not good at overclocking and this task is greatly limited. As a starting point it is worth, but little more. We can get an idea of ​​what we will see on April 19, when these processors are released, but drawing a conclusion or talking about 'safe' things, seems very premature to me.