No, I'm not really very well versed in Blender TBH. I'll try it later, lunch is about over.
And I don't appear to have that option. I have the "Full Screen", the "Supported", but nothing under that.
I just ran this on IBM's Watson. It only took me .5 seconds.
Ran this on my work PC:
I5-4590 @ 3.3GHZ - 1:46
Just for giggles... on my quad Opteron system i set 16 of the K10 cores to 3.4 GHz (to match Ryzen), set threads in Blender to 16, and set thread affinity for Blender to them and reran (150 samples). Result: 46.99 seconds.
Basically AMD must have been lying their rear ends off as far as throughput (40% my rear). Each Zen core is indeed pushing between 2.5 and 2.7 K10 cores worth on blender... and one Piledriver core at same clock is only worth around .85 of a K10 core (at least on Cinebench).
Ryzen = total and compleat sandbag job on the part of AMD.
I get like 50+ with my 6700kStock 6700K using Blender with 256bit AVX2. 100 samples. 27.17seconds!
I get like 50+ with my 6700k
Stock 6700K using Blender with 256bit AVX2. 100 samples. 27.17seconds!
Did you get the new file? Amd used 150 samples.
They used 150 for the live and 100 for the press. I get 39.30 with 150.
With 200 samples it takes 53 seconds. With the other version it took 77 second.
What other version are you referring to if I may ask? I'm aware of the 100, 150 and 200 sample tests. Was there another that people were testing?
Interesting but we don't have a Ryzen test using that version could be 16sec or less. Who knows?2.78a vs 2.78.4. 128bit vs 256bit.
The IPC load is also low with 1.14, hence why SMT does so well. Easy branch prediction too.
Interesting but we don't have a Ryzen test using that version could be 16sec or less. Who knows?
Ryzen doesn't support single cycle 256bit execution. Its the same for SB/IB/FX/Jaguar etc.