1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CPU Ryzen benchmark

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Vault-Tec, 6 Feb 2017.

  1. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    This table is making me very glad I upgraded from the X5650 lol.

    I'm also very surprised to see the 4790K beat the 6700K at a lower clock speed and with slower ram (DDR3 as well). What's up with that?
     
  2. Xlog

    Xlog Active Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    560
    Likes Received:
    39
    Code:
    Fra:1 Mem:574.60M (0.00M, Peak 830.52M) | Time:00:40.61 | Remaining:00:00.02 | Mem:260.74M, Peak:261.27M | Scene, RenderLayer | Path Tracing Tile 625/625, Sample 150/150
    Fra:1 Mem:574.56M (0.00M, Peak 830.52M) | Time:00:40.71 | Mem:260.71M, Peak:261.27M | Scene, RenderLayer | Path Tracing Tile 625/625
    Fra:1 Mem:574.56M (0.00M, Peak 830.52M) | Time:00:40.71 | Mem:260.71M, Peak:261.27M | Scene, RenderLayer | Finished
    Fra:1 Mem:310.79M (0.00M, Peak 830.52M) | Time:00:40.72 | Sce: Scene Ve:0 Fa:0 La:0
    Saved: './ryzen0001.png'
     Time: 00:41.21 (Saving: 00:00.48)
    
    Intel Xeon E5-2630v3 stock, buffered @1866MHz RAM (if I remember correctly).
    Xen Hypervisor
    Tested in Debian SID x64 headless Vm (16 "CPUs", 10GB RAM).
    8 other VMs basically idling.
     
    Last edited: 10 Feb 2017
  3. MadGinga

    MadGinga oooh whats this do?

    Joined:
    19 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    127
    i5 3570K @ stock (3.4GHz) with 16GB DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz

    Time: 1:29.42 = 89.42s
     
  4. dinoscothern

    dinoscothern Member

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are Linux results comparable? I'm getting ~ 54s on a stock i7-4770K.
     
  5. .//TuNdRa

    .//TuNdRa Resident Bulldozer Guru

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    109
    2:22.35 here, on my burned and battered 8120 @ Stock.

    ... Iiii might be buying Ryzen when it releases.

    Ooh, hang on; It looks like the render settings were different for the AMD test, they had the samples set to 100, whereas it defaults to 150 in Blender on my end, which also seems to add a good chunk to the time.
     
    Last edited: 10 Feb 2017
  6. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,583
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    No they ran it at 150.
     
  7. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    Looks like it - the only other 4770K result I have is 54.52s at stock in Ubuntu.
     
  8. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    Not bad for an i5, but unfortunately not a qualifier for the table!

    Edit: sorry for the double post. That's the spreadsheet updated - I've added a cores/threads column for quick comparison, and some of the CPU freq's I've had to guess because the new turbo boost behaviour can be very misleading (eg not boosting on all cores).
     
    Last edited: 10 Feb 2017
  9. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    Ok, I gave it a crack with my 6600k clocked at 4.8GHz, memory running at 12-13-13-28-1T @ 2666Mhz (2x8Gb) and got the following result -

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 10 Feb 2017
  10. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    I'm going to assume that "6600K" is a typo - LOL :lol:

    Updated. Still baffled by the 6700K vs 4790K result.
     
  11. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    Erm nope -


    [​IMG]
     
  12. GorgTech

    GorgTech Member

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2017
    Posts:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you change the Samples? If I change the Samples, I get 40s or less without any problems.

    With default Settings I get 1min 16s+, no matter how hard I try ;)
     
  13. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    I simply open the file and render, no tweaking or changing of settings -


    [​IMG]
     
  14. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,583
    Likes Received:
    1,042
    From the results I have seen with this benchmark around various forums RAM speed seems to be quite critical in achieving a good result. That is why my 5820k lags behind. A combination of clock speed, RAM and cores is key to getting top results.

    One thing AMD did not disclose was the ram speeds they were running. Or if they did I must have missed that part but yeah, RAM speed will really help. Probably because the RAM is being used like the very mischief in this test. The CPU can only work so fast, it needs feeding.
     
  15. Xlog

    Xlog Active Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    560
    Likes Received:
    39
    Did some more benching.
    same system as before (cpu turbos up to 3.2GHz, so maybe that should be its clock speed?)
    W7 x64 VM:
    CLI (over xenCenter console): 56.39​
    CLI (over RDP): 57.26​
    _________________________________________

    Xeon x5650 @3.5GHz/ 24GB RAM @ 1800MHz
    W10 x64 (also host for virtualbox):
    CLI: 1.15​
    GUI: 1.09​
    CLI (over RDP): 1.26​

    Debian x64 SID VM ("12 cores"):
    CLI: 1.05.31​
    GUI: 1.12.51​

    Win7 x64 ("12 cores"):
    GUI: 1.20.76​
    CLI: 2.05.82 :eyebrow:

    Would be interesting to run this "benchmark" on x5650 Linux host.

    Make your own conclusions.
     
  16. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    LOL Vault-Tec... let's not get ridiculous - a difference of over half a minute has got nowt to do with RAM speed. We already have a 6600K result at 4500MHz and the score is 78.73s. :lol:

    I can elaborate: if I disable HT on my 5820K running 4600MHz I get this:

    [​IMG]

    If I reduce sample size to 100 I get this:

    [​IMG]

    So it's patently obvious that 23RO's 6600K was running 100 samples, whether he knew it or not.
     
  17. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    Erm, no once again -


    [​IMG]


    Pre-render sampling settings as above...

    I simply click and render as previously stated.
     
  18. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    And the end result of another run rendering at 150 -


    [​IMG]


    I'll say no more...
     
  19. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    And for reference rendering at 100 -


    [​IMG]
     
  20. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    319
    You're not understanding me - what I'm saying is that no matter what settings you see in Blender, it's rendering at a lower sample rate. That's the only explanation I can think of for your score; it's categorically impossible for a 6600K at 4.8GHz to be achieving these results legitimately at a sample rate of 150. A cursory glance at the spreadsheet would tell you this.
     

Share This Page