PDA

View Full Version : First AMD Threadripper Cinebench R15 results published - Intel Crushed!



Rayek
07-14-2017, 12:10 PM
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-1950X-and-1920X-Announced-Flagship-Performance-999

https://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-07-13/cb15-2.jpg&key=658261b2577cf4be62e8786e35523e7e907c7d67c38f0c 8f793c87590fbaee63

$999 for the 1950X, $799 for the 1920X. Single thread performance is very good too: 3.5ghz, with a 4ghz boost. Great temps, low wattage, and an amazing 64 PCIe lanes: it is confirmed that 1TB of RAM is supported!!! To bring this into perspective, Intel's $13,000 Xeon Platinum has 48 lanes.

Intel got caught with their pants down. The only answer from Intel so far: a paper-based $1990 18-core i9 which will be out next year, I believe.

Good times for the consumer!

paulk
07-14-2017, 01:21 PM
Looks Good!

Does AMD play nice with NVIDVIA/Octane, and the rest of the Lightwave ecosystem? I recall from years ago that Intel was orthodoxy.

Just sayin. . . .

And how you gonna fit/afford 1TB of RAM on a mobo?

Rayek
07-14-2017, 01:27 PM
In order to put 1TB of DRAM in the system, users will have to populate each of the eight slots with 128GB LRDIMM modules. These are 'relatively rare' - Crucial's 128GB LRDIMMs should be coming out in Q3, and will cost north of $2000 each, or we can find no-name brand modules for $4000+ today.
https://www.mrmemory.co.uk/all-products/128gb-ddr4-pc4-17000-2133mhz-288-pin-lrdimm-ecc-load-reduced

Source (video at the bottom of the article): http://www.anandtech.com/show/11636/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-1950x-16-cores-4g-turbo-799-999-usd

ActionBob
07-14-2017, 02:50 PM
Sweet, this means my local Microcenter which has been having some really good sales on intel 7700k's will be dropping the price even more. Looks like a new Intel CPU is in my forecast.

:-)

-Adrian

Rayek
07-14-2017, 03:01 PM
I am waiting 6 months, or so, and see that the situation is at that time. I am currently still running an overclocked i7 920, and till this time I never saw any reason to update to newer hardware (outside video cards, etc.). Never before waited this long to upgrade the CPU and motherboard!

I did just purchase a GTX 1080 - which will be great for GPU rendering.

rustythe1
07-15-2017, 06:57 AM
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-1950X-and-1920X-Announced-Flagship-Performance-999

https://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2017-07-13/cb15-2.jpg&key=658261b2577cf4be62e8786e35523e7e907c7d67c38f0c 8f793c87590fbaee63

$999 for the 1950X, $799 for the 1920X. Single thread performance is very good too: 3.5ghz, with a 4ghz boost. Great temps, low wattage, and an amazing 64 PCIe lanes: it is confirmed that 1TB of RAM is supported!!! To bring this into perspective, Intel's $13,000 Xeon Platinum has 48 lanes.

Intel got caught with their pants down. The only answer from Intel so far: a paper-based $1990 18-core i9 which will be out next year, I believe.

Good times for the consumer!

as far as I am aware both the intel 16 and 18 core will be out by Q4 also the i97900 has already dropped to £899 in the uk so it has sparked a rather useful price war, remember the intels can be overclocked far past the AMDs without overheating, and that is a lot of ram! shame it would be fairly useless with octane!

Imageshoppe
07-15-2017, 07:52 AM
Sweet, this means my local Microcenter which has been having some really good sales on intel 7700k's will be dropping the price even more. Looks like a new Intel CPU is in my forecast.

:-)

-Adrian

For the fun of it, I nabbed one of the first 1800X from that very same Microcenter on launch day... it's been a solid work-horse rendering box, zero issues, with very few hours off rendering LW work for all these months. AMD has earned new respect from me, as that was the first AMD in my fleet since early Athalon days.

I'll be jumping back into the water with this new 1950X, but a few weeks out from launch to let the dust settle on motherboard support, etc.

Regards,

Jim A.

rustythe1
07-15-2017, 09:36 AM
by the way, I think those intel cinebench scores are the very first ones before the motherboard upgrades were rolled out, all the recent 7700 scores I have seen have been way over 1000, the 7900 I have seen at 2454 when running with turbo, which technically is not overclocking as they run turbo under stock, so that puts it higher than the 12 core ripper although not when you compare GHz to processing speed,
also there is a 12 and 14 core intel in a month or so, which looking at the numbers will push just past the amd slightly, it looks like in the uk the prices of the 1920 and the 7900 will be about equal (infact I have seen on a few websites in the us they are both exactly $999 in google) although the RRP for the intel is more,
and if you divide the score by core, the intel wins by nearly 20 points per core

Rayek
07-15-2017, 01:41 PM
by the way, I think those intel cinebench scores are the very first ones before the motherboard upgrades were rolled out, all the recent 7700 scores I have seen have been way over 1000, the 7900 I have seen at 2454 when running with turbo, which technically is not overclocking as they run turbo under stock, so that puts it higher than the 12 core ripper although not when you compare GHz to processing speed,
also there is a 12 and 14 core intel in a month or so, which looking at the numbers will push just past the amd slightly, it looks like in the uk the prices of the 1920 and the 7900 will be about equal (infact I have seen on a few websites in the us they are both exactly $999 in google) although the RRP for the intel is more,
and if you divide the score by core, the intel wins by nearly 20 points per core

The 7900x runs hot, is power hungry, and the really ugly part is that Intel decided to delid it. And I believe it requires an additional £100 for a physical key that unlocks certain VROC RAID features.

All in all, it is a confusing product, and probably released by Intel to offer some sort of panic counter response to Ryzen. I wouldn't touch that 7900x CPU myself (would literally burn my skin off ;-) ).

The 7900x only serves to make AMD look better in (almost) all respects at this point.

Anyway, good to see AMD kicking Intel's behind again for a change. It's been too long.

Rayek
07-15-2017, 04:31 PM
Well, there you go. It's been confirmed that Intel's i9 has SEVERE overheating issues.


Again, I recommend reading the full story, but the bottom line is this: Even at 160W, Skylake-X canít run a high-end air cooler like the Noctua DH-15 for more than a few minutes before it begins to throttle. At least a decent CLLC (closed loop liquid cooler) is required, and a top-end system is mandatory for full performance. These settings, however, do not push temperatures on the VRMs or other components all that high. Keep in mind, no overclocking is being done in either of these cases.

You read that right: even with a high-end air cooler the CPU will be throttled after a few minutes.

It basically means it is worthless for 3d rendering at anything beyond a couple of minutes, unless you invest heavily in a costly high-end water cooled system.

Read up on the story here:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/252354-investigations-sheds-fresh-light-intels-x299-overheating-problem-implicates-skylake-xs-design-well

And all because Intel decided to scrape the bottom in favour of profits. Intel is looking pretty bad at this point, while AMD is looking better and better.

Danner
07-15-2017, 05:22 PM
I am waiting 6 months, or so, and see that the situation is at that time. I am currently still running an overclocked i7 920, and till this time I never saw any reason to update to newer hardware (outside video cards, etc.). Never before waited this long to upgrade the CPU and motherboard!

I did just purchase a GTX 1080 - which will be great for GPU rendering.

How could you not see any reason to update? You must be rendering with Octane. The 920 is very, very slow! And I know since I used to also be on an overclocked 920, 10 years ago, it was later upgraded to a 960 and it became twice as fast, but even with the 960 it has now been sitting unused for a few years, not even worth it for the render farm as I have much faster and more watt efficient machines. I've been working with a one that is 6 times faster for 5 years now. I urge everyone in 3d to get the fastest machine possible as your work will improve, the faster you get previews the better quality your end result will be because you can iterate more, and also you can use higher quality settings.

The thread ripper does look attractive, there are faster intel chips than the i9 that was presented in the test, but they are way more expensive.

Rayek
07-15-2017, 06:31 PM
I had a long answer for you, but it got deleted by the forum software... Grumble.

Short answer: I get 554 points in Cinebench for rendering. I update to a new CPU when I receive at least two-three times better rendering speed at a reasonable cost. With AMD out of the race, it just did not happen for 7 years, or so. Only small incremental speed-ups. Even the 7700 is only about twice as fast. It did not seem worth the hassle for the upgrade, because....

...I discovered GPU rendering: ridiculous fast rendering, and no need to invest in a completely new build. Only get a new video card - which I did twice. For my requirements I did not need a lot of rendering ram. And Cycles and Octane were improving in speed as well. In short, CPU versus GPU: easy win for GPU due to both speed and value (for my work and situation).

AMD changed the playfield: a cheap Ryzen 1800 is faster than an i7 5960X for rendering- at less than half the price. The Threadripper 1950 is almost six times(!) faster than my i7 920.

I do need to update my machine in the upcoming six months - I am waiting a bit until the kinks have been wrought out, and by then Threadripper will have completely changed the CPU market. Probably even faster AMD CPUs will become available, since their architecture is pretty much easily scalable.

Intel has no viable counter move at this point - it will probably take them at least till the first quarter of next year to have a fitting answer ready.

All good for us, the consumer.

Check out the Ryzen benchmark results here: http://cbscores.com/

- - - Updated - - -

I had a long answer for you, but it got deleted by the forum software... Grumble.

Short answer: I get 554 points in Cinebench for rendering. I update to a new CPU when I receive at least two-three times better rendering speed at a reasonable cost. With AMD out of the race, it just did not happen for 7 years, or so. Only small incremental speed-ups. Even the 7700 is only about twice as fast. It did not seem worth the hassle for the upgrade, because....

...I discovered GPU rendering: ridiculous fast rendering, and no need to invest in a completely new build. Only get a new video card - which I did twice. For my requirements I did not need a lot of rendering ram. And Cycles and Octane were improving in speed as well. In short, CPU versus GPU: easy win for GPU due to both speed and value (for my work and situation).

AMD changed the playfield: a cheap Ryzen 1800 is faster than an i7 5960X for rendering- at less than half the price. The Threadripper 1950 is almost six times(!) faster than my i7 920.

I do need to update my machine in the upcoming six months - I am waiting a bit until the kinks have been wrought out, and by then Threadripper will have completely changed the CPU market. Probably even faster AMD CPUs will become available, since their architecture is pretty much easily scalable.

Intel has no viable counter move at this point - it will probably take them at least till the first quarter of next year to have a fitting answer ready.

All good for us, the consumer.

Check out the Ryzen benchmark results here: http://cbscores.com/

UNREALONE1
08-21-2017, 12:55 AM
Will there be a Lightwave threadripper benchmark?

jwiede
08-21-2017, 03:56 AM
Will there be a Lightwave threadripper benchmark?

Given the extremely widespread adoption of Cinebench, it would be difficult to displace it now it even if a free equivalent benchmark using LW existed (and it doesn't). As implementing such a benchmark would require non-trivial engineering effort, seems kind of counter-productive for LW3DG to put effort there (with minimal hope of return), versus putting effort towards product that can potentially earn them revenue.

Keep in mind, there's negligible incentive to replace an existing, well-characterized and understood benchmark with another relatively-unknown/-uncharacterized benchmark that claims to measure the same effective performance characteristics. Characterizing and validating the newcomer requires significant investment of time and effort, so unless it offers a compelling benefit over the existing benchmark, there's inadequate motive to justify the risk inherent in switching.

rustythe1
08-21-2017, 06:28 AM
also bear in mind that the processors will give different results in real situations over just the numbers, I posted in the other cpu thread
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?154024-PC-build-help!
scan have been testing the threadripper and for applications such as max, maya, solidworks etc it was actually a lot slower than the smaller I9 7900x, which has 6 less cores, but nearly 15% faster at those apps, they also had problems when adding more than 16gb (that's a bit of a problem for a processor that's supposed to be able to use 1TB!) of ram having to lower mem and clock speeds, so the big I9 when it comes may be nearly twice the price, but it may also perform twice as fast with many apps, cinema4D was one of the only notable advances as that ran nearly 38% faster, which actually fits the number of cores, but if you pair an intel with a ROG board you can almost gain 15% over the equal standard board due to the extra pin arrangement and exclusive over clock Rog has with intel.

Strider_X
08-21-2017, 02:42 PM
Will there be a Lightwave threadripper benchmark?

Well i'm upgrading my old i7920 at 4GHz to the 1950X. Its almost together just waiting on a CPU cooler. When that arrives I will run the 2015 content benchmark.

rustythe1
08-21-2017, 05:01 PM
well i would like to see the results of that one as that will paint a good picture, I would be very disappointed if it was much more than 15 to 20 mins

UNREALONE1
08-21-2017, 07:08 PM
Threadripper Light wave benchmark? is Newtek to busy?
Has Lightwave been optimised for Threadripper ?

rustythe1
08-25-2017, 02:23 PM
good news, the intel I9 in the uk has been dropped to £880, so its now over £200 cheaper than the threadripper, you can actually almost buy an I9 7900x and an I7 7700k (also just had a big price reduction) together from scan for the same price as a threadripper!

UNREALONE1
08-25-2017, 08:13 PM
Well i'm upgrading my old i7920 at 4GHz to the 1950X. Its almost together just waiting on a CPU cooler. When that arrives I will run the 2015 content benchmark.

Hope it is worth it
We don't have an optimized demo of Lightwave yet?


AMD Ryzen Threadripper Runs Blender Benchmark At Computex
Read more at http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-runs-blender-benchmark-computex_195121#4vB6ZVPCmylsedPH.99

AMD Threadripper 1950X and 1920X in test: Something Epyc!
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/967-13/rendu-3d-mental-ray-v-ray.html

UNREALONE1
08-25-2017, 08:23 PM
10 core i7-6950X Intel vs 16 core AMD 1950X . Umm
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3214635/components-processors/ryzen-threadripper-review-we-test-amds-monster-cpu.html?page=2

Ryzen Threadripper review: AMD's monster 1950X stomps on other CPUs
We know we just said Blender doesn’t always scale perfectly, but when you look at the score from the 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 1800X compared to the 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper 1950X, Threadripper takes just over half the time to render the image.

POV-Ray performance

Our second test is also free: the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer. This application dates all the way back to the Amiga but is continually updated and supported. It’s no surprise, but ray tracing is a CPU-intensive task, and throwing more CPUs at it makes it go faster.

MichaelT
08-26-2017, 12:54 AM
It is also double the cores & threads. Intel haven't released theirs yet.. I'll take any such claims with grains of salt until then. Either way.. I will most likely stick with Intel. CPU fails with them are so scarce that I can count them using my one hand. With AMD however, I don't have enough limbs.. For me that is just the reality of it. Maybe they're better now.. but I don't care.. I've lost so much money on AMD that I will probably never go back.

rustythe1
08-26-2017, 03:57 AM
yes, do you really think (forgetting the price difference) that 6 extra cores is a technical achievement for the amount of gain over the intels, if the results follow through on the intel range to the 16 core then that one will be over 50% faster than the thraedripper
137768

UNREALONE1
08-30-2017, 09:54 AM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-cpu,5183-9.html

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Review

Rayek
08-30-2017, 10:34 AM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-cpu,5183-9.html

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Review

That review is a bit odd. They show the OpenGL performance of Cinebench only, and omit the CPU rendering one? There are other weird bits in that review as well.

rustythe1
08-31-2017, 05:27 AM
not really, all the old ones were a little fake, the ones that are coming out now paint a better picture (or worse depending on how you look at it) so Threadripper is ok if you do lots of simulations, but not if you do image editing, 3d work, rendering (although blender and cinema 4d are faster, the rest were slower) and in some tasks the £200 7700k beat the threadripper! (I know that's not a good realworld scenario) but there is a little bit towards the end that will concern some people, the motherboard manufactures have added a limit to the power supplied to the chip, meaning the more ram you add, the more voltage is removed from the chip and the slower the clock speed (that supports one of my previous comments that scan could only add 16GB with turbo on) so if you added the 1TB its supposed to handle, will you be running at 2ghz?!
they also don't seem to be selling too well as the prices have already been slashed in the UK, they are In store, and have no customer reviews in online shops here (only about 3 reviews on amazon uk!) I know I sound biased, but just forget the price situation and I really think its poor technology in comparison.

UNREALONE1
09-19-2017, 11:34 PM
AMD Ryzen Users Reap Huge Performance Benefits With ROTR And ZBrush Updates
https://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-users-reap-huge-performance-benefits-with-rotr-and-zbrush-updates

When will Lightwave have an optimized version patched?

rustythe1
09-20-2017, 01:27 AM
you wont, it uses open Gl so it would be down to Khronos to bring out a new version that would then be implemented, not likely as they have a very long development process,
There are lots of I9 7980xe scores now being leaked, looks like intels fighting back, first cinebench is 4204 to 3069 on ryzen, 3d mark is 32201 to 27579, cpz 11323 to 9132

Rayek
09-20-2017, 02:20 AM
you wont, it uses open Gl so it would be down to Khronos to bring out a new version that would then be implemented, not likely as they have a very long development process,
There are lots of I9 7980xe scores now being leaked, looks like intels fighting back, first cinebench is 4204 to 3069 on ryzen, 3d mark is 32201 to 27579, cpz 11323 to 9132

...but look at the ridiculous pricing of the 7980xe: $2000!!! Against the 1950 $1000. The Intel 8 core chip costs $699 compared to AMD’s $599 price. The 12 core chip costs $799 compared to Intel’s $1199 US price. The 16 core chip from AMD will cost $999 compared to Intel’s $1699 US price.

And then there's the potential soldering/heating problem with Intel's new i9 as well, I believe. We'll have to see how well the i9 stacks up in real-world tests. I'd worry about heating issues. And I wouldn't be surprised if AMD comes up with yet another card up its sleeves.

But isn't it great to have some proper competition again! Intel has been lying on its laurels for far too long.

jwiede
09-25-2017, 02:15 AM
It basically means it is worthless for 3d rendering at anything beyond a couple of minutes, unless you invest heavily in a costly high-end water cooled system.

Well, not defending Intel, but let's be clear, the price of CLLC CPU coolers has come _way_ down. Corsair H100v2 are around $110 online, and work excellent (I used one in a work PC "lanbox" system I just built). They aren't _that much_ more than a top-end air cooler anymore.

rustythe1
09-25-2017, 02:35 AM
well it was only a problem with the first batch, all the I9s now are soldered and already heat tested by in several bench marks, and they are on par with the old i7s, worth noting again, the intels will run up to 95deg and the Ryzens only run to 65, also I enquired at Scan and they still wont sell overclocked Threadrippers because of problems with ram and heat, they will also overclock all the i9 range available at the moment in motherboard bundles.
and an interesting note on scans Bundles (basically you get motherboard, ram, cpu and cooler fitted together and tested) is that even though the AMD processors are cheaper, once put in a bundle the intel equivalent works out cheaper because the AMDs have bigger sockets, bigger coolers and more expensive equivalent motherboards and the ram has a premium (at least in the uk)

Lito
09-25-2017, 08:43 AM
Very happy with my Threadripper. :) 8257 on kraybench @ 4Ghz. I ran cinebench also but I don't remember what I got but you can look up that number on various websites anyway. As far as cooling the beast, there is only one AIO I can recommend if you are buying a threadripper at the moment and that is the Enermax TR4 240 or TR4 360 (the one I am using). All the other AIO coolers that fit in the included adapter don't completely cover the IHS of the chip nor do they completely cover the cores on the die under the IHS according to the diagrams I have seen. So IMHO those AIOs are only adequate to use but I wouldn't OC my chip to 4Ghz with them. So I can understand why that company rustythe1 mentions won't sell overclocked threadrippers. The Enermax TR4 AIO were also sold out in less than 10 minutes when places like newegg got them in stock. I still haven't installed LW on my new system, but the system isn't final at the moment. I still have a temp 7200 RPM HDD with windows and linux in there to do testing with before I install the OS over to the NVMe drive so maybe next weekend.

Regardless of Intel or AMD you are so screwed with DDR4 ram at this point in time. It is just too expensive these days. I had sticker shock when I bought mine. Seriously it was $717 for 64GB (4x16GB) which was $430 exactly a year ago from the day I bought it at the same store. That's only $282 short of another 1950x which is nuts really.

Lito
10-01-2017, 01:56 PM
An update: Have my rig running now and here is a render of the BenchmarkMarbles file that comes with the 2015 content directory. It took 32m 50s (1970.1s) to render it at the default settings. My threadripper is overclocked at 4.0 Ghz and is stable, temp wise I never exceeded 73c. The overclocked Threadripper runs cooler than my overclocked i7-3770k. :)

Just to try things out I also ran the BenchmarkMarbles when I was running at 3.8Ghz and that render time was about 1m 23s more, but temp wise it was about 5c cooler for the max.

This is with an ambient temp of around 26c-27c

Also did the Blender Gooseberry benchmark and got a time of 22:10.19.

AMD definitely made a great chip here.

Hail
10-02-2017, 04:48 AM
That's impressive! I think you have the fastest time for this benchmark.
Can you post your results on the benchmark marbles thread to avoid clutter?