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. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    I understand you totally, however I'm using the same settings as everyone else and unless you can suggest a way to prove your conspiracy theory then I would simply say it is but a synthetic benchmark that is flawed.

    Below are my full system specs -

    OS - Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Intel i5 6600k day to day at a sedate 4.8GHz @ 1.325V
    AsRock Z170M OCF Motherboard
    Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb kit (2x8Gb) running at 12 13 13 28 1T @ 2666MHz
    Zotac 1070 Amp
    Samsung NVMe 960 M.2 Evo SSD

    (You may wish to change your tin foil hat about now also)
     
  2. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,835
    Likes Received:
    319
    I think this is getting a bit out of hand when you start talking about conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats - I'm just evaluating the results that are posted in the thread, and your results deviate significantly from every other submission. It's obvious that something's up with your install/configuration of Blender.
     
  3. Guest-56605

    Guest-56605 Guest

    In a word, whatever.

    Unless you know of the PC software equivalent of a cavity search or drugs test you might have me perform...??

    You have to consider variables such as OS, overclocks, latency, bandwidth etc etc etc in all of this also...

    In the interim it is what it is.
     
  4. David

    David Take my advice — I’m not using it.

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    I think Paul's score shows that perhaps the Blender test isn't an entirely reliable metric - I've spent the last couple of hours running various configurations.

    Each time I make a change, I run the benchmark three times:

    Bumping the clock speed from 4.6 to 4.7GHz with the RAM at 2400MHz gains me another second ~ 46.6 secs. I'm running in a SFF case so I'm not willing to push the CPU further without putting it in my spare case with an AIO.

    I then ran the benchmark at that speed with the ram at 2666MHz with both tight and loose timings , and the gains were negligible - I did see 46.4 secs on one run but the average was still 46.5-46.6 secs.

    Running the same tests with HT disabled adds approx 20 secs to the time.

    If such a discrepancy exists between 6600K and 6700K on Z170 boards, it casts doubt on the performance claims about Ryzen too.
     
  5. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,588
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    David - same thing happened to me when I went from 4.5 - 4.6ghz. I actually scored an extra second.
     
  6. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,588
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    OK a little more info. Apparently this is what is believed to be a 1700x running the Integer test in CPUMark.

    [​IMG]

    So I decided to run this on my Xeon (8c 16t 3.4). I got this.

    [​IMG]

    You can get it here.

    https://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

    And only have to run the one test. Takes a couple of seconds.
     
  7. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    373
    Yep, just goes to show that a single benchmark (and unknown hardware configuration) doesn't make for a reliable indication of Ryzen's capabilities. Let's wait and see how Ryzen fares in replicable, directly comparable real-world testing.
     
  8. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,588
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    It's not an unknown configuration dude. The file provided by AMD is exactly as they ran it. There may be other variables coming into play here, like cache for example. Don't you overclock it on the new processors? well that could be why they fare so well compared to higher C/T CPUs.

    Any way, we now have some more info and another bench to try. Let's see if we get the same sort of hierarchy using this test.
     
  9. M2r1o

    M2r1o Member

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    i5 6600K at default speed ( topped at 3.89 Ghz turbo during test) + 16 GB RAM at 2400 Mhz (2x8).

    Ran it 5 times and the best result was 52:80.
     
  10. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    373
    I was referring to the hardware configuration, not Blender.
     
  11. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,835
    Likes Received:
    319
    Pretty much what I get with my 5820K at stock (51.18), exact same RAM speed too.

    Very strange results from these shifty 6600K users. :D
     
  12. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    9,588
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    I don't know dude. I do know that Skylake was up to 15% faster than DC i some things. I just put it down to DDR4 vs the DDR3 but now I am not so sure. As I say, doesn't the cache clock a lot higher on Sky/Kaby?

    CPU mark seems to make sense. The 6800k stock scored ever so slightly less than my 8c 16t Ivy at the same clocks. Which would make sense, given I have 10 core cache on an 8 core CPU a couple of gens behind.

    Oh I see. Ah well, we've got another one to try now :D
     
  13. Comrade Woody

    Comrade Woody Obsolete

    Joined:
    14 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    79
    [​IMG]

    i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz
    74.33 seconds

    Addendum: This was with 2.78b x64
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2017
  14. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,835
    Likes Received:
    319
    Problem solved - the ridiculously fast 6600K renders are not comparable because they use the most recent version of Blender which was released 8th Feb (ver 2.78b). This version appears to be around 40% faster than the previous one, LOL.

    It would probably have been a good starting point to stipulate we all use the same version of the software. Oh, hindsight how I love thee.

    Here's my score (HT off) with the new version of Blender:

    [​IMG]

    So can people please use version 2.78a if they want their results in the table? Or is there any point any more? :lol:
     
  15. CrapBag

    CrapBag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    7,424
    Likes Received:
    325
    I7 2600 @ stock (obviously)

    66.6 seconds.
     
  16. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,835
    Likes Received:
    319
    In light of the above information, I think the comparisons are OK for this sort of thing - a lot like we did with Geekbench all dem years ago. :rock:
     
  17. M2r1o

    M2r1o Member

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    2.78a installed, best time is now 92:86 (out of 3 runs). No other changes.
     
  18. David

    David Take my advice — I’m not using it.

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    2,339
    Yeah, just ran 2.78b and scored 33.85 secs. :jawdrop:

    That's quite a difference.
     
  19. Comrade Woody

    Comrade Woody Obsolete

    Joined:
    14 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    79
    I approve of this time :rock:
     
  20. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,835
    Likes Received:
    319
    Interestingly enough, just a tad slower than six physical cores without HT.

    Going by what other people have been saying, background programs also have quite an impact on results as well. I used to run Geekbench in diagnostic mode... I wonder if Blender would benefit from the same.
     

Share This Page