AMD Presents New Horizon

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
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.
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.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
The 6950X with 8C/16T only, at 3.7GHz, which is it top single core Turbo Speed, it still does not make sense to me.

3700blender.png
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,593
honestly, I think the real question is if you can get the AMD numbers on a production chip.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,553
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
 

Ruoh

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
5,858
Anyone running the handbrake comparison? I pretty sure they said that was available as well.
 

Ruoh

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
5,858
Also, isn't Ryzen more of a SOC and less of a traditional CPU?
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
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
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.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
Anyone running the handbrake comparison? I pretty sure they said that was available as well.
Would need that file and all the settings used. Lots of variables there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruoh
like this
D

Deleted member 88301

Guest
I downloaded Blender, but I'm not sure how to run the test. Help, please.
 

Rvenger

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
2,101
i7 6800k @ 4ghz 57.76s

Those outside edges were taking a long time compared to the AMD demonstration.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,412
Sounds like the render settings for the demo is different then the default render settings in the program.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Render_Settings

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.
 
D

Deleted member 88301

Guest
Kyle, thanks, but it isn't working for me. No worries. I'm sure I'm just missing something. No big deal.
 

cdabc123

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,553
can anyone get a close up of the settings they used? i messed with render samples and got to 18 sec :p
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
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+ :eek:.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
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?
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?

Here is 6950X at 4GHz with 8C/16T. Giving up trying to make sense at this point. Hopefully get some feedback from AMD.

4000blender.png
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
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+ :eek:.
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. :)

All this is exciting however, no matter how it pans out. I hope AMD can find a good performance price niche no matter the clocks. If Zen can get to 4GHz, it will hopefully be able to find a good enthusiast market.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,791
Sigh, you guys make me want to get out of bed and start benchmarking. :brb: Fine you win.

Also did anyone compile blender from source not just grab a binary? Lots of prepackaged apps on Windows that come from Linux projects are compiled at sort of lowest common denominator settings for compatibility. Compare that to say Gentoo where blender is going to fly being custom compiled with every x64 extension known man enabled. Don't have a Windows compiler handy but it might get you much faster results.
 

blkt

Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
666
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. ;)
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
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. ;)
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.
 

Ruoh

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
5,858
You'll notice, when they did the live render, it was obviously pre-cached, since it was already on the guys screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blkt
like this

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,676
5820K @ 4.5Ghz Mem: 2133mhz

53.10 seconds



currently tweaking blkc / mem for faster render times / stability.
 
Last edited:

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
You'll notice, when they did the live render, it was obviously pre-cached, since it was already on the guys screen.
Even still I have not seen enough delta in scores to make their ~36 second render time understandable. Again, not a Blender benchmark guy....
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,676
So are these CPU's going to be unlocked or locked down?

I'll bite for $499 or whatever if it's unlocked and we can get a good 4ghz+ clock on these things ..... safely
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,691
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.
A Blender test that cant be reproduced. The one being around the number is a 4.25Ghz 10 core chip or even more cores?

GPU limited test to show its equal.

Ye, so promising. Really. ;)
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,691
Sounds like the render settings for the demo is different then the default render settings in the program.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Render_Settings

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.
The problem is also you can make your own Blender version.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,432
Set render samples to 100 (under "Sampling" tab on the right side). Anandtech forums are buzzing about it. File comes with the setting at 200.

EDIT: Doing so will practically half your time. Anandtech forum's proof comes from a nasty screengrab from PCper's video, and from SWEclockers still images from the event.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-116#post-38629977 The post and the following one.

EDIT: just for fun, with samples set to 100, my i7 2600k (stock) nets 1:00.89.

Going further, my GTX 780 Ti (stock) with 400x400 tiles and samples set to 100 is under 9 seconds.
 
Last edited:

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,691
Set render samples to 100 (under "Sampling" tab on the right side). Anandtech forums are buzzing about it. File comes with the setting at 200.
I go from 77 seconds to 39 seconds on a stock 6700K (No MCE, 4.0Ghz). But that would be way too close to a 6900K.

 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,432
It was a very small scene with sub-optimal settings (800x800). Nothing like Cinebench, a program that usually tests massively complicated scenes with large outputs. I would expect any recent CPU to get similar numbers. We also can surmise from the TDP test, that AVX is not enabled (since the total system powers are very close in the test, and Intel's 140W TDP is only valid with AVX - supposedly, I am way out of date when it comes to Intel's big platform). EDIT: I am wrong. TDP does not change.
 
Last edited:

Chebsy

Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
523
Only time will tell guys, when we get a real production CPU and can test in un-controlled conditions will we really know how it performs. In any case, I hope Ryzen is a success and brings good competition to Intel's best.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,432
Also, according to the SWEclockers images, AMD is running 2.77, not 2.78a (the version the New Horizon website currently recommends).


EDIT: I don't recall any major changes to the renderer from 2.77 to 2.78a, but this and the sampling deal doesn't paint a clean image. Whoever managed the details definitely was not paying attention.
 

Attachments

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
We already established that doesn't match. :(

So they did something else.
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.

As it stands right now, the demo we were shown is worth jack and shit. And I am not happy with that. I did not want to see AMD lead off its Zen marketing with bullshit, especially after inviting us to compare. It it a great great at credibility (which is SO much appreciated), but as of this moment, it has ended up being bullshit.

Come on Lisa Su! Make me believe! Don't lead off with reasons to make me question the results shown. I am not happy, but I am waiting for clarity. Please. Please. Please. I want to leave this situation knowing that Roy Taylor had nothing to do with the marketing.
 

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
Well I just ran it with samples at 100 and I got 26s with six cores @ 4350MHz which seems more less right to me. I'm clocked 26% higher and I have 25% fewer cores.

Edit:

If Zen at 3,4 is 36s then (26% clock increase = ~20% reduction in execution time ) so we're at ~ 28.8s assuming Zen at 4350mhz. Odd. I get less than that, and that's not even accounting for having 2 less cores yet which would entail a 33% to ~38s.

Yep. Still not adding up.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
50,273
Rerun at 100 sample, 8C/16T at 3.2GHz. Still no match. With correct screen shot.

3200blender-100sample.png
 
Top