AMD™ Ryzen© Blender® Benchmark Scores™©® Thread

Tecchie

n00b
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
2
Screenshot (8).png
So, I'm not sure why I see beefier systems running the 6950X and WAY the hell overclocked seem to be slower than my machine:

ASUS X99-E WS
Intel Core i7-5960X with a miled overclock (screenshot included)
64GB of G.Skill Ram
I did spend a little bit of time tuning the system with this 64GB memory kit.

I see 40+ seconds on higher end machines and as much as over a minute.. Same renderings.

I rendered in 36.57 seconds.. so idk what's different..

Note, I didn't close any back ground apps and system has been up and running for three days with my Plex Media server running and trans coding in the background
 
Last edited:

pgaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,410
Picked up an ES Xeon from ebay to play around with: Intel Xeon E5 2630 V4 ES QK3G 2.2GHz 10Core 25MB 85W LGA2011-3
150 samples = 42.86 seconds
It runs perfect on an ASrock X99 I got open box at Micro Center. That store is killing my bank account.
 

HarlockP4

n00b
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
1
I did 50.77 with standard 5930k 16GB DDR4 2133 Mhz
What do you think about this result? is it good or should be better?
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,208
O wow look the F stepping can go higher! I remember someone in this AMD thread or another one saying AMD couldn't have a new stepping this quickly. I guess the F stepping is hitting 4ghz boost!
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
O wow look the F stepping can go higher! I remember someone in this AMD thread or another one saying AMD couldn't have a new stepping this quickly. I guess the F stepping is hitting 4ghz boost!


That isn't what I stated, I stated the latest they can get another spin is they would have had to start in June.......even that would have been cutting it close.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,208
That isn't what I stated, I stated the latest they can get another spin is they would have had to start in June.......even that would have been cutting it close.

hmmm i don't even think it was you who I was talking about? Can't even remember tbh, I just remember someone saying they couldn't have a new stepping from that french review.

Well it looks like they do have a newer stepping from that french review which was at 3.15GHZ F3, which now looks like 3.7/4.0GHZ F4
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
oh yeah that wasn't me, I remember talking about respins lol, but I know I didn't say that, sorry.
 

psyclist

Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
844
46.75 from the rig below, good enough to do me a couple more years! Will be doing a GPU upgrade this year, Vega/Volta im lookin at you!

Edit: Tried it again, tweaked my memory
 
Last edited:

endalykt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
159
1:47.47 on non-OC 4-core i5-4690K versus 36 seconds on 8-core Ryzen. Give me something with a reasonable price and I'll happily switch!
 

Emission

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
4,420
46.40 with my Xeon E5 1650 @ 4.8 GHz and some piddly Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 RAM.
 

JDanser

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
246
1:07.33 on a 2600k @ 4.6ghz. Not too shabby. I'm gonna bring her up to full benchmarking speed and BRB to edit this post.

Edit : 1:04.77 @ 5ghz

Vw4XBlL.png
 
Last edited:

brentsg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2003
Messages
1,746
I did 3 runs:

2010 Mac Pro w/ 6 core 3.33GHz Xeon 16GB RAM - 00:54:95

2017 Kaby Lake w/4 core 4.8GHz 32GB RAM @ 3600 - 00:54:51

2017 Kaby Lake w/4 core 5.0GHz 32GB RAM @ 3866 - 00:52:11

My old faithful Mac is hanging in there (at least for this test).

I didn't change any settings in Blender (150 sample ver).
 
Last edited:

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,786
Rig in sig (all stock), same version of Blender but downloaded as a zip instead of installed via MSI:

CPU Render 01:06.89
GPU Render 00:14.56 128x128 tiles
GPU Render 00:10.53 256x256 tiles

2010 Mac Pro 2 x 2.93 GHz Hexa-core Xeon w/32 GB RAM 00:30.84
2013 Mac Pro 1 x 2.7 GHz 12-core Xeon w/64 GB RAM 00:29.03

Neither Mac has been restarted in a while and both have corporate images that are far from ideal.
 
Last edited:

OttoD

n00b
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
4
I did 3 runs:

2010 Mac Pro w/ 6 core 3.33GHz Xeon 16GB RAM - 00:54:95

2017 Kaby Lake w/4 core 4.8GHz 32GB RAM @ 3600 - 00:54:51

2017 Kaby Lake w/4 core 5.0GHz 32GB RAM @ 3866 - 00:52:11

My old faithful Mac is hanging in there (at least for this test).

I didn't change any settings in Blender (150 sample ver).


Seems abit off, my i7-4770k at 49x49x49x46 does the blender in 38.96 what Kaby Lake cpu are you testing on?

Best regads Otto
 

Magic Hate Ball

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
366
My laptop i7-4800MQ @ 3.3ghz all core boost finished at 01:21:29

Desktop i7-4770K @ 4.3ghz finished at 01:01:11
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
27
xeon E5 2699 v4 with no clocking changes
dual channel ram instead of quad, if that matters, lots of background programs
00:12.65

in line with expectations I suppose
ryzen logo 2699 v4.PNG


interesting/fun thread!
 
Last edited:

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
Man I want to throw this on one of our SQL box's here at work but no open GL. But would be neat to see what a 36 core 72 thread system can do to this benchmark. ;)
 

OttoD

n00b
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
4
xeon E5 2699 v4 with no clocking changes
dual channel ram instead of quad, if that matters, lots of background programs
00:12.65

interesting/fun thread!

interesting with the scaling here, my 4x E7 8880 v2 did only slightly better with 4 times more cores, scaling seems to hit a wall here :)

Best regards Otto
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
since there was plenty of intel benchmarks i decided for shits and giggles to try this on my phenom II x4 940 @ 3Ghz(was suppose to be at 3.9Ghz no clue why it was reset to stock settings since it was last restarted) just to see how far processors have come along in the last 8 years.. render took 3:08.58

the sad part is that it's only about 20 seconds slower than the FX 8350 time some one else posted..
 
Last edited:

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,673
EDRAM cost peanuts compared to any other solution. Its like 3$ for a 128MB cache in production cost. But cost is still cost and if people wont pay extra for it. Mobile SKUs are getting EDRAM right and left to save on DRAM speed and power. 7 of 13 i7, 5 of 9 i5 and 2 of 5 i3 SKL mobile SKUs got EDRAM. Or 14 out of 27 ix based SKUs got EDRAM.

HBM is a pipe dream. Not to mention its on a fast track for a power crisis of its own.

DDR4 with 50-60GB/sec? You mean 3200-3600Mhz that's only OC? By the time the APUs come out you see 2667Mhz or so as chips that isn't OCed. And we all know OEMs will go even cheaper than that.

Its a shame AMD abandoned its GDDR sideport memory. But again, a faster APU competes with its own discrete GPUs. And an APU got no value as such being faster. Its a much better business trying to sell people a RX460 or so.

It depends, HBM is confirmed in 2018 but mostly mobile SoC where it makes sense. On DT i can see a quad core with Vega and single stack HBM1 as viable it will also push bandwidth to 150GB/s odd,. Still no 460 but close enough
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
It depends, HBM is confirmed in 2018 but mostly mobile SoC where it makes sense. On DT i can see a quad core with Vega and single stack HBM1 as viable it will also push bandwidth to 150GB/s odd,. Still no 460 but close enough

i could definitely see HBM being used at some point, especially if they end up developing a new ryzen/vega based APU for another xbox 1 refresh down the line to replace the current ones.. would it be cost effective on a consumer level? probably not but if you want to market something no one else will have on the market it might be worth the investment.
 
Top