Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 159

Thread: Cheaper (or faster?) CPUs are coming

  1. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    And cinebench STILL doesn't tell me how it performs with LIGHTWAVE.
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    because its not a LIGHTWAVE result, its a simple request, show me LIGHTWAVE results and I might listen, the only "benchmark" site ive seen out there (cant remember the link) showed Lightwave had a much different result than expected between AMD and intel over vray and c4d
    Holy moly!! What is wrong with you!!????
    We talked about RAM speed affecting rendering performance, i gave you evidence, you again wont listen to FACTS!!!!
    Every post is the same, its superficial PC knowledge combined with a mind boggling amount of ignorance.
    I am beginning to think that talking to you is just a waste of my time.
    Lightwave has nothing to do with this. And it is not an exception. RAM speed does not affect Lightwave render performance.
    And why would it? Its doing the same thing as all the other render program.
    Rendering is done by the CPU and NOT the RAM!

  2. #77
    www.Digitawn.co.uk rustythe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    1,279
    HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
    what are you on, my argument has everything to do with it, my first post was

    "if AMD are so good please can some one show the marbles test scene results, on stock turbo i.e. around 4ghz or whatever (so not stupidly overclocked) I still have not even slightly taken back by any results ive seen in technical comparison to intel, and the amount of people I see complaining their threadrippers are not playing ball concerns me, anything I see on PCmark or CB just seems rubbish to me as none of the results seem anything like they should be, and I don't think any of those tests translate into how modern software actually utilises tools that intel provide,
    I think I can guarantee no one with a TR2 on stock will beat my render time even though I have almost half the cores. and in that respect I guess the TR3 might struggle too

    I know this sounds like im being very negative, I just still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with out BS"

    AND STILL NO ONE CAN SHOW A RENDER TIME IN LIGHTWAVE doesn't have to be the old one could be RH updated or anything

    whats wrong with me? I like to wind people up when they just try to avoid the OP and turn it into everything but.
    Intel i9 7980xe, Asus Rampage Vi extreme, 2x NVIDIA GTX1070ti, 64GB DDR4 3200 corsair vengeance,
    http://digitawn.co.uk https://www.shapeways.com/shops/digi...ction=Cars&s=0

  3. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
    what are you on, my argument has everything to do with it, my first post was
    No your arguments are all over the place.
    We talked about RAM speed affecting rendering performance, i gave you proof, you deflect.
    Why? Are you incapable of acknowledging that you might be wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    "if AMD are so good please can some one show the marbles test scene results, on stock turbo i.e. around 4ghz or whatever (so not stupidly overclocked) I still have not even slightly taken back by any results ive seen in technical comparison to intel,
    I am saying it the last time so please let this sink in.
    Marbles benchmark is outdated and its based on settings that no sane person would use.
    I will however agree to run this benchmark once i got my 3000 Series TR CPU.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    and the amount of people I see complaining their threadrippers are not playing ball concerns me
    Proof or its just hearsay.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    anything I see on PCmark or CB just seems rubbish to me as none of the results seem anything like they should be
    Ever thought about that you are the problem here?
    But no apparently the entire world is wrong and rustythe1 is right.
    It might seem rubbish to you because you dont understand it.
    I mean here you were super surprised that your CPU has better bench results than the 9980XE.
    You blamed the benchmarks for that but surprise surprise what do we find out your CPU runs overclocked at 4,2GHz all core compared to the 3,8 GHz all core clock speed of the 9980XE.
    Mind boggling, just mind boggling the sheer amount of ignorance and superficial knowledge.
    You deconstructed yourself several times in this thread without even realizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    and I don't think any of those tests translate into how modern software actually utilises tools that intel provide,
    Hold on. Are you implying that the benchmarks are coded in a way that will hold back Intel CPUs?
    You do realize that the very same benchmarks were already in use (older versions) before Ryzen was on the market and the fact that Intel CPUs were crushing the previous AMD CPUs in the very same benchmarks. But now because AMD CPUs are faster in those Benchmarks they suddenly dont actually "utilize" Intel CPUs?
    Ahhh right sure sure, how quaint. Sound like a tinfoil theory on your part.
    Honestly that so super absurd an nonsensical.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    I think I can guarantee no one with a TR2 on stock will beat my render time even though I have almost half the cores.
    Even if that is the case, so what?
    That would mean either the program is well optimized for Intel and badly for AMD or it makes heavy use of AVX256. The latter wont be a problem for TR3.
    Your opinion is based on a single cherry picked data point which is Lightwave.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    I know this sounds like im being very negative, I just still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with out BS"
    I did provide you with more than enough evidence that shows the true potential of the Zen architecture.
    You dont want to believe it because it would mean admitting you were wrong.
    Again i am asking you, if Zen is "so bad" why do big companies like Microsoft ,Google, Amazon etc use it in their servers now?
    Surely they wouldnt do that if Intel is doing so well as you claim.
    AMD is outselling Intel in retail shops. Why if the CPUs are so bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    AND STILL NO ONE CAN SHOW A RENDER TIME IN LIGHTWAVE doesn't have to be the old one could be RH updated or anything
    whats wrong with me? I like to wind people up when they just try to avoid the OP and turn it into everything but.
    Excuse me, you turned this into everything but.
    The OP didnt ask for marbles benchmarks or lightwave performance, you did.
    Last edited by Lemon Wolf; 09-21-2019 at 01:21 PM.

  4. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    And cinebench STILL doesn't tell me how it performs with LIGHTWAVE.
    Yes it does. If Cinebench R20 is 4x faster on a 16core CPU than a 4core CPU, then LW2019 is 4x faster too, on the same type of scene, a simple interior render.
    For example 7700k/4core scores 2400 and 9960x/16core gets over 9000points, about 4x faster. Really simple.
    Same results with Blender and Corona benchmarks.
    Corona 1.3 runs an exterior scene.
    7700k renders 180sec, 7960x render 45sec. 4x faster again.

    https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/results

    Need more data, google Blender benchmarks, they will show the same. Render benchmarks are stable and scale well with more cores.

    All moderns renderers like LW, Cinema4D, Corona, Blender Cycles run similar code, google Intel Embree to learn more.

    Since there is no common LW2019 scene or benchmark, just an old benchmark scene that is broken in LW2019, there is no stable way to test LW2019. Marbles is for the pre LW2015 renderer, it is ancient history now.
    Last edited by Free4Ever; 09-21-2019 at 12:59 PM.

  5. #80
    www.Digitawn.co.uk rustythe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Free4Ever View Post
    Yes it does. If Cinebench R20 is 4x faster on a 16core CPU than a 4core CPU, then LW2019 is 4x faster too, on the same type of scene, a simple interior render.
    For example 7700k/4core scores 2400 and 9960x/16core gets over 9000points, about 4x faster. Really simple.
    Same results with Blender and Corona benchmarks.
    Corona 1.3 runs an exterior scene.
    7700k renders 180sec, 7960x render 45sec. 4x faster again.

    https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/results

    Need more data, google Blender benchmarks, they will show the same. Render benchmarks are stable and scale well with more cores.

    All moderns renderers like LW, Cinema4D, Corona, Blender Cycles run similar code, google Intel Embree to learn more.

    Since there is no common LW2019 scene or benchmark, just an old benchmark scene that is broken in LW2019, there is no stable way to test LW2019. Marbles is for the pre LW2015 renderer, it is ancient history now.
    Hey, thanks for that link, proves my point again, oh look, the 18 core 7980XE can be as fast and faster than a 32 core 2990 threadripper! and not a single AMD in the top 100, then most of the first ones are "eng samples"
    I put a link above where RH updated the marbles scene for 2019, some users have already been posting it? its a completely different set up so not sure why it doesn't apply to modern engines

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	carona.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	310.6 KB 
ID:	146021
    Intel i9 7980xe, Asus Rampage Vi extreme, 2x NVIDIA GTX1070ti, 64GB DDR4 3200 corsair vengeance,
    http://digitawn.co.uk https://www.shapeways.com/shops/digi...ction=Cars&s=0

  6. #81
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    proves my point again
    No it doesnt.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    oh look, the 18 core 7980XE can be as fast and faster than a 32 core 2990 threadripper!
    Oh look at those frequencies, shhhh, better not talk about it,better omit them.

    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    and not a single AMD in the top 100
    Really?
    You are comparing systems with 32 Cores with multi socket Systems containing more than 100 Cores?
    Boy you are great at this omitting game.
    Its exactly what i am talking about, you take things out of context and present them as the truth.

    Remember this?


    A few pages back you didnt approve of it, called it BS.
    And suddenly Corona proves your point. Hmm how convenient.

    And of course you completely ignored all of my previous arguments and points.
    Honestly you are just like a flat earther.
    Talking to you is 100% just like talking to a flat earther.
    Last edited by Lemon Wolf; 09-21-2019 at 01:49 PM.

  7. #82
    www.Digitawn.co.uk rustythe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    1,279
    but for every one of those there is another that tells a different story, again that one is not comparing current, its a 3900 from now against a 7920 from then,
    how about a 12 core 2920 from now, against a 7920 from then,
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	carona1.png 
Views:	8 
Size:	31.8 KB 
ID:	146022
    or some 8 cores, 9900 against 2700x
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	carona2.png 
Views:	5 
Size:	46.1 KB 
ID:	146023
    or 7960 against 2950 same cores and release year
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Corona3.png 
Views:	6 
Size:	54.1 KB 
ID:	146024
    Intel i9 7980xe, Asus Rampage Vi extreme, 2x NVIDIA GTX1070ti, 64GB DDR4 3200 corsair vengeance,
    http://digitawn.co.uk https://www.shapeways.com/shops/digi...ction=Cars&s=0

  8. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    but for every one of those there is another that tells a different story, again that one is not comparing current, its a 3900 from now against a 7920 from then
    LOL!
    Again this superficial knowledge.
    7920 and 9980XE are still based on the Skylake architecture.
    So its totally fine to compare the 3900X with the 7920.
    Besides you prove one of my points with this, how far the 3000 Series has come.
    Last edited by Lemon Wolf; 09-21-2019 at 02:55 PM.

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    I put a link above where RH updated the marbles scene for 2019, some users have already been posting it? its a completely different set up so not sure why it doesn't apply to modern engines

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	carona.JPG 
Views:	11 
Size:	310.6 KB 
ID:	146021
    There are multiple versions of the balls scene, LW documentation shows how to simplify it, LW itself got multiple updates, all in all, impossible to get trustworthy or stable results. No trust, no benchmark.

    Besides, nobody renders balls in 2019, even the Cinebench R15 balls benchmark got updated to a realistic interior in R20.

  10. #85
    www.Digitawn.co.uk rustythe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    england
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemon Wolf View Post
    LOL!
    Again this superficial knowledge.
    7920 and 9980XE are still based on the Skylake architecture.
    So its totally fine to compare the 3900X with the 7920.
    Besides you prove one of my points with this, how far the 3000 Series has come.
    so why don't the show it next to the 9920, being as they are out about the same time?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	cpz.JPG 
Views:	10 
Size:	208.4 KB 
ID:	146026
    Intel i9 7980xe, Asus Rampage Vi extreme, 2x NVIDIA GTX1070ti, 64GB DDR4 3200 corsair vengeance,
    http://digitawn.co.uk https://www.shapeways.com/shops/digi...ction=Cars&s=0

  11. #86
    Super Member Qexit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    1,078
    Why can't you all just agree to disagree...and move on. We all know that benchmarks are like politicians....you have to take everything they 'say' with a very large pinch of salt
    Kevin F Stubbs

    Remember...one size does NOT fit all

  12. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    so why don't the show it next to the 9920, being as they are out about the same time?
    Context, please more context.
    What exactly is in that chart?
    Oh its CPU-Z, which is not a render benchmark!
    Cheeky i must admit. Why did you omit the best results?
    And why is the 9920X twice in that chart with very different results?
    That is most certainly a heavily overclocked CPU again.



    Strange, when i look up the page this ominous result doesnt show up at all.


    Now will you look at that.
    The 3900X with 24 Threads is almost as fast as the i9-9960X with 32 Threads.
    And the Ryzen 7 3800X with 16 Threads is faster than the i9-9900X with 20 Threads.

  13. #88

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Qexit View Post
    Why can't you all just agree to disagree...
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  15. #90
    Super Member Qexit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    That certainly sums up the present discussion
    Kevin F Stubbs

    Remember...one size does NOT fit all

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •