TL;DR; The 2700X is already higher IPC than the 9900k in Cinebench, and it would be safe to assume IPC is equal or greater in the next gen Ryzen. The score was roughly 14% better than a 2700X in the best case (assuming a 2700X in the same system scores 1817).

Details:

A Ryzen 3 of some unknown frequency with 8 cores, 16 threads is 14% faster in Cinebench than a 2700X. However, without knowing the RAM or timings, its hard to know what 2700X score to compare it to. A 2700X on the same sytem that AMD used might score higher than my reference numbers, which knock down the improvement a lot, from 14% to 10%

Lets just use the numbers here: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i9_9900k-890-vs-amd_ryzen_7_2700x-876

9900k at 4.7Ghz all core scores 2081 for Cinebench 15 multi.

2700X at 4.0Ghz all-core scores 1817 for Cinebench 15 multi.

Ryzen 3 at ??? Ghz scores 2081. (I'm just assuming parity, its very close to 9900k in the AMD test)

Its a fair assumption that the IPC is not _worse_ than the 2700X, because it has more cache, is next gen, and Cinebench is not very RAM latency sensitive. Therefore, its unrealistic to think that this is running at more than maybe 10% faster than a 2700X if we assume marginal IPC gains. So I guess at best this is a 4.5Ghz all-core part with equal IPC to Zen -- or a 4.0Ghz one with fantastic IPC gains (14%). Anything outside of that is unrealistic IMO.

Honestly, I would place my bets on the 4.0Ghz to 4.4Ghz range (assuming that all core 4.0Ghz 2700X is really 1817 or so in the same system setup that AMD used).

4Ghz would be 14% IPC improvement.

4.2Ghz would be 9% IPC improvement.

4.4Ghz would be 4% IPC improvement.

Note:

This estimate is going to be off by at least 100Mhz and 5% IPC if a 2700X plugged into the same system that AMD demo'd scores significantly more or less than the 1817 used in my calculations above. There is some reason to think that the system is tweaked well and some tweaked 2700X's get 1880 or so. This lowers the expected IPC gains above and shifts the clock expectation a tad higher.

​

Further Discusssion:

Cinebench IPC is rather unrelated to things that many people care about. For example, gaming IPC is qutie different and very RAM latency sensitive, Cinebench is not. Additionally, its one of the places that Zen does better per clock than Intel's latest. I'm also not sure what sort of changes in Zen2 would really help its IPC. A lot of the IPC improvement people want and that I would guess AMD targets is in other areas. If so, then I'd lean towards the lower end of the IPC improvement spectrum and higher Ghz. Either way, I'm having a hard time seeing 5Ghz parts after this demo and in combination with the reality that 7nm frequency scaling at the high end is not likely to be all that great for some time (It took Intel years to get their 14nm on par with the previous gen, every shrink is getting harder and harder to push max Ghz).