x86_64 assembly pack: fill some blanks in Ryzen results.

# Silvermont	5.75/3.54	3.56	4.12	3.87(*)	4.11

# Goldmont	3.82/1.26	1.26	1.29	1.29	1.50

# Bulldozer	5.77/0.70	0.72	0.90	0.70	0.95

# Ryzen		2.71/0.35	0.35	0.44	?	?

# Ryzen		2.71/0.35	0.35	0.44	0.38	0.49

#

# (*)	Atom Silvermont ECB result is suboptimal because of penalties

#	incurred by operations on %xmm8-15. As ECB is not considered

# Goldmont	10.6/+17%	5.10/-		3.28

# Sledgehammer	7.28/+52%	-/14.2(ii)	-

# Bulldozer	9.66/+28%	9.85/11.1	3.06(iv)

# Ryzen		5.96		?		2.40        2.09

# Ryzen		5.96/+50%	5.19/-		2.40        2.09

# VIA Nano	10.5/+46%	6.72/8.60	6.05

#

# (i)	compared to older gcc 3.x one can observe >2x improvement on

# VIA Nano	1.82/+150%	-

# Sledgehammer	1.38/+160%	-

# Bulldozer	2.30/+130%	0.97

# Ryzen		1.15/?		1.08		1.18

# Ryzen		1.15/+200%	1.08		1.18

#

# (*)	improvement coefficients relative to clang are more modest and

#	are ~50% on most processors, in both cases we are comparing to

# Haswell	5.45		4.15/+31%	3.57/+53%

# Skylake	5.18		4.06/+28%	3.54/+46%

# Bulldozer	9.11		5.95/+53%

# Ryzen		4.75		?		1.93/+150%(**)

# Ryzen		4.75		3.80/+24%	1.93/+150%(**)

# VIA Nano	9.32		7.15/+30%

# Atom		10.3		9.17/+12%

# Silvermont	13.1(*)		9.37/+40%

# Haswell	12.2	9.28(+31%)  7.80(+56%)	    7.66    5.40(+42%)

# Skylake	11.4	9.03(+26%)  7.70(+48%)      7.25    5.20(+40%)

# Bulldozer	21.1	13.6(+54%)  13.6(+54%(***)) 13.5    8.58(+57%)

# Ryzen		11.0	?           2.05(+440%)     7.05    5.67(+20%)

# Ryzen		11.0	9.02(+22%)  2.05(+440%)     7.05    5.67(+20%)

# VIA Nano	23.0	16.5(+39%)  -		    14.7    -

# Atom		23.0	18.9(+22%)  -		    14.7    -

# Silvermont	27.4	20.6(+33%)  -               17.5    -