AMD Presents New Horizon

On my server at the house 2X 2660 Xeons at stock. My sig rig took 1:15 to complete it.
serverrender.JPG
 
This blender renderer seems to be part benchmark, part random number generator.

A lot of these results both AMD's and the ones here in this thread just don't make sense when compared to each other.
 
pendragon1 said:
yeah that was 64bit and kinda made me said then I decided to try the 32bit:

32bit run 1
View attachment 12533

32bit run 2
View attachment 12534

32bit run 3
View attachment 12535


then I reloaded 64 bit and got this:

64bit run 1
View attachment 12536

WTFMFFF?!!?!
So my cpu barely beat yours in 32bit which I kinda expect being a FX and all but what the hells wrong with my 64bit?!
Click to expand...

i got slightly faster with 32 bit, 1:04-05 on 64 bit and 1:02.23 just now on 32 bit. (6700k @ 4.7)
 
Brackle said:
Could be unstable overclock. Was that with HT turned off?
Click to expand...

Nah, it was an old alpha version of Blender I had installed. Just updated to the new stable, and running at ~1:15 without issue, HT enabled (I never disable it)
 
pendragon1 said:
WTFMFFF?!!?!
So my cpu barely beat yours in 32bit which I kinda expect being a FX and all but what the hells wrong with my 64bit?!
Click to expand...

Now that is the strangest thing I've seen today. 64-bit is supposed to significantly improve performance in CG rendering tasks. Blender is really weird, I personally use 3dsMax myself so I don't have a lot of experience with this. If they really have better optimization for 32-bit then that's kind of indefensible considering the vast majority of render machines are 64-bit these days.

I suppose it could make sense this is not a memory intensive render and the slower memory performance of 64-bit (better for large integers, and vice versa) is showing itself here. I would still think they should optimize this better.
 
Last edited:
Well, looks like I will have to buy 2 boards, 2 cpus and 32GB of ram each for my home and work computer right upon release. :) Do not want to have to deal with the fair weather fans or ebay resellers. GO AMD!
 
I wonder if this was a custom compiled versions with intel MKL or some other SSE optimizations. Kind of like how AMD compared 3DNow optimized benchmarks to intel back in K6-2/3 days.
 
1:13.25 on a stock-clock i7 6700k, 32GB DDR4 2400, Z170, 1TB NVMe PCIe x4 SSD. Just another data point.
 
My 4790K @ 4.5 did it in 1:16.14.

I really hope this release is a success for AMD. I won't be building another computer for awhile, but I'd like an affordable option with eight cores when I finally do. Built way too many quads in the last few years.
 
My stock clocked / cooled fx8320 did 3 minutes 41 seconds. I did have active mumble and mining in the background. average 15% cpu utilization before i started the test. Despite the minor things running in the background i did expect my 8320 to beat my work i5-2500.. guess not.
 
Even the most absolute green and blue super fan is hoping this doesn't suck. Our machines are going nowhere fast.

The market needs a shot of enthusiasm.

The ugly parts of my brain just assume AMD will continue to screw the pooch and keep the puppies.
 
buttons said:
My stock clocked / cooled fx8320 did 3 minutes 41 seconds.
Click to expand...

This makes me feel a little better. My stock Intel i7 4770k did it in just under 1:30. I was going to throw my optimism out of the window if I saw a 8320 beat it or even come close to the same time since that would mean the benchmark was just favoring many-core systems over ipc. This will be very interesting if there was no smoke and mirror stuff going on at the event.
 
i5-6600k skylake at 4.4ghz, 16gb ram (2133? default timings I think) 1:48.87
 
Well that was fun - 2:17.92 (default settings)
I'm a bit sad now though.
 
Last edited:
my rig in sig 1:16.92

did i do something wrong?

i downloaded the .blend file from amd and hit f12.
 
blender.PNG


Stock 6700K, 16GB DDR4-3000, Asus Ranger Maximus VIII. I turned off my overclock couple weeks ago. Might give it another go to see how it does in this.
 
Posted in the other thread, but 1:23:28 here on stock clocks.

Seeing others results somewhat justifies why I've stuck with X58 for so long lol

blender.png
 
billabong132 said:
Presentation was cringeworthy/awkward but the performance looks promising.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you have an engineer presenting. She's no Jerry Sanders. But at least she wore high heels. :)

Future looks a lot brighter for AMD and my stocks.
 
5930 K @ 3.7 all cores./ Mem 2600 at 14, 14, 14, 34, 1T.
 

Attachments

  • ZEN.jpg
    ZEN.jpg
    70.6 KB · Views: 41
did you guys run blender 32 or 64bit? I'm getting much faster times with the 32bit for some reason?!
 
1m37s on 2600k @ 4.6ghz.

Zen looks like a good upgrade for the $.

YtRUu5.png
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
Hello FX launch all over :(
Click to expand...

what does this have to do anything? Posting old pictures and repeating the FX drum? Seriously we all are optimistic about AMD bringing some real competition. Why can't you be a part of instead of same old negative bullshit. This thread goes great until I read your post. lol

Its like everyone is having fun with it. And here you come with same old pictures. lol
 
GMcDougal said:
I learned with the Fury launch that AMD is crafty at using the smoke and mirrors approach. Ill wait for HardOCP to review it thoroughly before i order.
Click to expand...

Fury was fine card. LOL only thing that was fucking wrong with it was price and the overclocking claims and amd's decision to go with HBM that raised costs. Performance wise it was right up there to be honest. AMD ruined it with HBM and price!
 
Quix said:
I wonder when samples will ship to reviewers, if AMD actually has a good product on their hands they'll want to get them out as soon as they're stable.

The fact that they're not proactively backpedaling like they did with Polaris is a good sign (RX480 was meant to compete with GTX 1080 and missed that mark by a mile).
Click to expand...

nope RX 480 was meant to perform like a fury. At no point I was expecting gtx 1080 performance from a GCN chip with 2300 shaders.
 
KazeoHin said:
This is reminding me all too much of the bulldozer launch. They spent all their marketing effort trying to show how the 8150 'kept up' with the 980X in gaming, and how AMD was offering a '$999 chip for less than $400' forgetting to mention that the 8150 could hardly keep pace with a (then) current generation i3 2100 in gaming.

Deja bullshit.
Click to expand...

did you forget to see that they also showed a handbrake bench? Hate much? shit! lol. Okay it could still fail, but from this point on it will be a major fuckin disaster. I highly highly highly doubt that there is anything staged about this. May be they have to work on optimizing the boards with the chips other than that I see no evidence that Zen would be anything but a decent chip. You cant fuckin fail so hard twice, Design wise even Anandtech said, it looks really good on paper. Looks like its delivering in real life too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top