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
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by imashination: That graph shows that they have *TRIPLED* the amount of wattage the chip sucks up over stock voltage. Sorry, I simply don't believe those numbers. No CPU can handle double the wattage, let alone triple. Especially given that the AMD chips dont overclock that far.
Exactly. The newer AMD chips can't dramatically overclock. However, the sheer thread count makes Thread Ripper very attractive. 
 
  08 August 2017
X399 and Threadripper are teh real deal. All that's missing is Thunderbolt 3 and once Intel opens up licensing that won't be missing either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697...nd-1920x-review
 
  08 August 2017
That's  "Watts at the wall"  as stated at the bottom of the chart, not at the TR4 socket !
At 4.2GHz Threadripper at the socket needs some 327W. A GTX 980 at load needs 300w so these numbers look about right.
__________________
Wut?

Last edited by laurent : 08 August 2017 at 12:13 PM.
 
  08 August 2017
Marketing Move! I think the results are made under laboratory circumstances! But at leaste something is happening.
600 Watt is more as a Water heater needs...

The 6950x under laboratory circumstances will run the same Score.

My workstation is air-cooled, just overclocked with precast Motherboard settings...Best Workstation to worke in C4D!
__________________
You still must have chaos inside to give birth to a dancing star! (Friedrich Nietzsche)
 
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by laurent: That's  "Watts at the wall"  as stated at the bottom of the chart, not at the TR4 socket !
At 4.2GHz Threadripper at the socket needs some 327W. A GTX 980 at load needs 300w so these numbers look about right.


The quoted figure is probably the power draw of an entire Threadripper workstation with GPU and other things running, not the Threadripper CPU itself.

Threadripper is rated at 180 Watts power draw (probably under "normal" load).

So 327 Watts sounds about right for a madly overclocked and fully loaded Threadripper 16 core.

I'm sorry, but you just cannot get a 16 Core / 32 Thread workstation CPU to run at < 120 Watts or whatever.

If you want the number crunching power, it will draw a few Watts to do that. =)
 
  08 August 2017
According to a review from the german website "computerbase", Threadripper 1950X scores 3055 points in CB R15, with 257 Watts power consumption for the whole system.
__________________

 
  08 August 2017
Nearing a chip stability threshold, current leakage occurs. Power draw and heat becomes exponential.
__________________
Wut?
 
  08 August 2017
Originally Posted by laurent: That's  "Watts at the wall"  as stated at the bottom of the chart, not at the TR4 socket !
At 4.2GHz Threadripper at the socket needs some 327W. A GTX 980 at load needs 300w so these numbers look about right.
I understand this is the total system draw, but given the only change from one test to the next was overclocking the cpu; to go from 379w to 691w; an extra 312 watts of power to the cpu, on top of the current >180 watts? That graph implies the cpu must be taking in over 500 watts. Now we already know the new AMD chips don't have that much headroom for overclocking, so I see no way that they could get a system to go from 379w consumption to 691w by just overclocking the cpu.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  08 August 2017
You might be right.
In other AMD news, looks like R19's and ProRender best setup will be a Threadripper and an  . . .  RX Vega?

__________________
Wut?

Last edited by laurent : 08 August 2017 at 10:06 PM.
 
  08 August 2017
Isn't that Blender GPU rendering test based on cycles, not prorender?
 
  08 August 2017
Yes. If Cycles renders fast with Vega using OpenCL, Prorender should too.

Not as fast as a TitanXP  in LuxMark.

__________________
Wut?

Last edited by laurent : 08 August 2017 at 05:15 PM.
 
  08 August 2017
http://wccftech.com/amd-vega-10-veg...-graphics-card/

Vega 10 does about 12.5 TFLOPS - roughly the same as Nvidia's most powerful GPU.

Dual Vega 10 (2 cards) is estimated to reach 19 - 24 TFLOPS. That's pretty damn powerful.

Vega 20 (coming in 2018) is a new FinFET 7nm chip with up to 32Gb VRAM, 1TB/s bandwidth and 15+ TFLOPS on a single card, possibly more. That's going to be a good GPU rendering card.

Where it gets really interesting is Radeon "Navi"- you may be looking at an aggressive new Threadripper like GPU that really corners Nvidia.

How fast each renderer runs on these cards depends on how well the renderer in question is multi-threaded. Cycles and ProRender may perform differently in this regard, but ProRender is probably well optimized to take advantage of Vega GPUs. (It would make sense that AMD ProRender runs faster on AMD GPUs than Nvidia GPUs)

Vega GPUs have 4096 cores versus Nvidia's current 3840 max core count. Depending on how efficient each core is, Vega may be faster.
 
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 01:02 PM.


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