It was live and we recorded it. You could see him start the tests. I even blew it up on my 48" 4K display and while it is not clear, it all points to being ~36 seconds. I don't see that being off by a second or more.Did you time the live stream? Could the video have been sped up? Sounds like a long shot to me though. Something is up and its driving me nuts. They are both faster which is what makes it even more interesting. Not the 50+ seconds we are seeing with others.
I am not in the tinfoil hat camp on this, I am just in the confused camp. While there are not a lot 6900K out there, those are there and folks have those, and quite frankly, the test I have done here today should mirror what they showed us. Same cores, same clocks, same application and version, and they SHARED the exact file as they explained. I will reach out to AMD and see what they have to say, if anything. The guy that is running AMD CPU PR is a long time buddy of mine and a good all around guy that should want to help us reach some sort of conclusion.any chance they are lying about this to make their cpus look significantly better? ie. they know many people dont have a 6900k so they can safely lie about the scores without too many people being able to call them on their bs. so when everyone runs their 4-6 core i7's or i5's or amd 8 cores they see a huge improvment over what they have. as you can see in the thread many people are getting above a min and "looking forward to upgrading" from their pretty decent i7's
Well, they did not mention any changes to the default Blender configuration, and given that AMD mentioned that the file was there for download and to compare at home, I would ASSUME AMD had not made any tweaks. But who knows at this point. Should never assume anything, right?I just reran the test on my FX-8320e 3.2ghz (stock settings) with a time of 55 seconds. This is an improvement from 3 minutes and 43 seconds i did originally. On the right hand side of blender there are a bunch of settings you can tweak to change the "difficulty" of the render. I didnt watch the live stream, did they change any settings of the render? Even if they didnt during the stream -- is it possible they had it reconfigured with custom settings?
I hope they fixed all the per core temperature reporting which was FUBAR on the last AMD CPU I looked at. We did bring their attention to that.Getting back to Ryzen, I admit I'm intrigued. But I know better than to swallow AMD's bullshit and get hyped. I am eager to see what happens when [H] puts it through their testing suite. Might build a new PC with one of these instead of waiting for Skylake-E depending on how the reviews pan out. Last AMD processor I had was an Athlon XP 2000+ .
I am hoping AMD will help give us some insight in the morning, especially since it advertised "try it at home." We should at least be able to dupe results with released hardware.The Star Wars demo was so very painful. After the specs listed at 37 minutes (lol single data card): "...and its running the hottest game out there. The brand new...I'm gonna give Renee a minute to catch up with me." While waiting for the match to start, "She is like...booting up the machine." Follow this segment up with a super awkward countdown.
AMD marketing is certainly pushing multi-core/threaded performance, so I expect them to be competitive (and hopefully innovative) in this department. I am curious to see single thread performance. Thanks for trying Kyle, but please keep your sanity and stop trying to make sense of the bench results.
A Blender test that cant be reproduced. The one being around the number is a 4.25Ghz 10 core chip or even more cores?That will be my signature after you eat those words Shintai. Handbrake gives me a good idea you will be very wrong. Looking like AMD actually exceeded their goals, now will just have to wait a bit longer and see what the reviews say.
The problem is also you can make your own Blender version.Sounds like the render settings for the demo is different then the default render settings in the program.
Also if AMD is using a different version, like a newer version it could have different settings or the tenderer itself has changed. So AMD is not really giving to much out on ability to compare. Maybe some of the presets in the panel options can line up the end performance better. Long time since I've looked at Blender myself.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizonPerhaps AMD forgot to tell they used a custom Blender version? Or something even worse.
Just making sure that we are all clear on what was stated by AMD and what we are trying to make sense of for those coming in late. Again, I am not part of the tinfoil hat crowd here, just a bit confused and wanting to get it right.We already established that doesn't match.
So they did something else.