First AMD Threadripper Cinebench R15 results published

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2017   #1
First AMD Threadripper Cinebench R15 results published

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Performance-999

 
Old 07 July 2017   #2
And only $999. That's crazy.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #3
The way I read these results:

1) One CPU maker tried hard to push the performance envelope - AMD

2) One CPU maker thought "we already dominate the market - why push the performance envelope?" - Intel

I have read elsewhere that all sorts of benchmarking software out there has seen a big spike in AMD Ryzen's being benchmarked lately.

AMD has delivered some really good new CPUs, and enthusiasts everywhere have taken notice.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #4
That is pretty f-in impressive. I mean it's not core-for-core vs. Intel but I did not think there'd be that much disparity. And supposedly more optimizations on the way for follow-up chips (or maybe these are the optimized chips). Wonder if Apple would put that in their new Mac Pro. lol Would be pretty funny for them to break from Intel.

Last edited by Blinny : 07 July 2017 at 12:29 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #5
Apple actually : CPU > intel * *GPU > AMD. I would like to see the converse !
 
Old 07 July 2017   #6
Originally Posted by lenogre01: Apple actually : CPU > intel * *GPU > AMD. I would like to see the converse !

Well if my assumption came true it would be AMD / AMD (I don't think they're ever going away from AMD as the default GPU).

But if they have any brains at all the new modular Mac Pro will use stock GPUs not these custom PCBA nightmares, in which case it won't matter. We'll choose the GPU one way or the other. I shouldn't say "we"; I'm pretty likely to go to Thread Ripper + dual 1080s or something like that, given what we're seeing here. Will just depend on the available configs at my preferred workstation vendor and cost.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #7
Well, the whole AMD only thing is a development that doesn't go that far back with Apple. As recently as 3 years ago NVIDIA cards were still offered in MacBook Pro's. *I'm not sure what brought forth the split, but it seems to be short-lived as NVIDIA is once again making MacOS drivers. I feel that there were no NVIDIA based options listed with the iMac Pro as they didn't want to promise to deliver on something that may not be ready in time and who's fruition is reliant upon a vendor they have no control over meeting internal deadlines.

I fully expect the forthcoming MacPro design to offer both AMD and NVIDIA bto's as well as standard PCI-based GPU setups. *I would be surprised though to see them offer any AMD CPU's. *They have made some serious gains of late, but they'll need to demonstrate continued and sustained development to shrug off the stigma they have gotten over the years.

I DID recently see that code found in the betas of High Sierra reference a CPU socket belonging to server-class Xenons rather than desktop class.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #8
That last bit I think has to do with the iMac Pro. There aren't any betas or other things out currently where the drivers and such reference the next Mac Pro.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #9
Is there any info about the single core performance which would tell something about the viewport and scene performance.*
 
Old 07 July 2017   #10
The only thing i read was that it is expected to be 10-20% slower at single threading than a 7700K, which would be ok imo.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #11
Originally Posted by Blinny: That last bit I think has to do with the iMac Pro. There aren't any betas or other things out currently where the drivers and such reference the next Mac Pro.
It definitely is, but if they are using server-class Xenons for the iMac Pro, it stands to reason they'd use them in the MacPro as well. My guess is, the MacPro will have the same processor options, but have 2 of them instead of one, giving us 32 core. 64 thread setups at the top end.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #12
Why not compare to Intel's 14 core, 20 core offerings?
 
Old 07 July 2017   #13
There's a Cinebench scores list here that includes 20 cores and up Xeons for comparison.
http://cbscores.com/

Similar scores at much higher prices. And a much lower single thread.

Other news: It's been confirmed that Intel's i9 has SEVERE overheating issues.

Quote: Again, I recommend reading the full story, but the bottom line is this: Even at 160W, Skylake-X can’t 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/computi...-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.
 
Old 07 July 2017   #14
A good closed loop watercooling system isn't realy expensive, especially not if you already factor in an i9 CPU.*
 
Old 07 July 2017   #15
Originally Posted by hvanderwegen: There's a Cinebench scores list here that includes 20 cores and up Xeons for comparison.
http://cbscores.com/

Similar scores at much higher prices. And a much lower single thread.

Other news: It's been confirmed that Intel's i9 has SEVERE overheating issues.


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/computi...-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.


Yeah, this is what I was afraid of, too. And I wasn't even looking at the i9, but the 8 core i7 7820x which competes with the Ryzen 1800x. On paper, the intel chip looked great, better multicore by a bit, better single core by a bit more, a few more PCI lanes.

In reality? The processor is going for $80 more than MSRP, pushing it to $680 on preorder, isn't available anywhere (recently was delisted on newegg.com!), runs super hot under all but he best AIO coolers, throttles at stock clocks under load, the motherboards also have heat issues and*are way more expensive. I'm not interested in another processor turning my room into a sauna.

I should have just bought the 1800x when it was on sale last week from Newegg for $410, tax free. Dang.

p.s. - what is with all these random asterisks showing up in my posts? Weird.

Last edited by BubblegumDimension : 07 July 2017 at 09:17 PM.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.