# THREAD CLOSED!!! Post Your AMD RyZen Blender Benchmarks at 200 Samples!



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

I will try my best to keep everyone's score up to date!


Download link for the demo:

http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend


BLENDER Download:

https://www.blender.org/download



Settings Requirement:

Sample at 200 and *200* only
Use Blender version 2.78A only
3 CPU-Z tabs: 
         one main tab, one memory tab, one stress tab running to show your CPU's running frequency.

Any results other than 200 sample will be discarded.

*




Results:


Spoiler: clicky



zedn, Xeon2687WV4---3GHz,           44.52
Feklar, 6900k---3.2GHz,                   51.11
ReJZor, 5820k---4.5GHz                  51.14
cdawall, 5820k---4.54GHz,             51.39
xkm1948, 5820k---4.25GHz,           54.20
Nephilim666, 3930K---4.4GHz       1:05.05
PMP_Ghost, 6700k---4.4GHz          1:09.58
Kursah, 4790k---4.8GHz                  1:12.17
Breaz, Xeon5650---4.2GHz             1:12.40
m0nt3, FX8320---4.5GHz,               1:14.79_____Linux
avenger001, 4790k---4.7GHz          1:15.16
Psychoholic, 4790k---4.6GHz         1:15.28
Dia01, 4790k---4.4GHz                    1:21.58
Luke51087, 4770k---4GHz,             1:28.18
biowiet,4790k---4.4GHz,                1:30.03
hiepgia, XeonE3 1231v3---3.4GHz  1:37.92
acperience7, 4670k--4GHz,            2:06.30
natr0n, PhenomIIx6---4GHz,          2:16.76
Nuckles56, 6500---3.4GHz,             2:25.94
Nuckles56, 4700MQ---2.23GHz,     2:39
Melvis, PentiumG3258---4GHz,      2:42:47_____Linux
silentbogo, 6100---3.7GHz               2:46.80
TheLaughingMan, FX8350---4GHz  2:55.81
Kursah, 4200U---2.29GHz                 5:22.28
ShurikN, 380M---2.53GHz,             7:37.84




*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

I will go first.

*54.20s*


----------



## acperience7 (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:06.30*


----------



## qubit (Dec 14, 2016)

Sorry, I'm confused here: ryzen isn't out yet, so how are you guys benchmarking it?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

qubit said:


> Sorry, I'm confused here: ryzen isn't out yet, so how are you guys benchmarking it?


It's a benchmark by amd


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

I believe RyZen finishes around 35 seconds with 3.4GHz


----------



## biowiet (Dec 14, 2016)

*win7 x64
blender version v1.78a; default settings: 1:30:03*






*100 samples results as AMD test run. *
*blender version v1.78a (suggested download link by AMD) : 0:45:11*
*blender version v1.77 (version used at Ryzen show): 0:38.82*










I've started having this voice in my head telling me stop dreaming, it won't be much different this time than before. Two years ago I needed much more computing power than my Phenom 965BE@3800 has delivered. Reviews taught me there is no AMD CPU to satisfy my needs, so after a long and happy relationship with AMD we broke up and I gave in to Intel. My dream to return to AMD now seems to be slowly fading away, yet I'm still looking forward to see independent benchmark results and more details like mem speed/timing, temps, cache speed, etc. Honestly this cheap, fishy, sort of unorganized showcase blew my optimism away, this was just bad, the woman should not be hosting such an event, and it should be a bit more impulsive if once they are doing it this way... just an opinion tho, nothing mayor.  Peace.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Dec 14, 2016)

Laptop (i7 4700MQ @2.23GHz): *2:39*
Desktop (i5 6500 @3.3GHz) :* 2:25
  *


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 14, 2016)

*1:14.79  *This was done in Arch linux btw. Blender is great for being Open Source.

FX 8320 4.5Ghz


Edit: Since CPU-Z doesnt work quite right in wine, I re-uploaded it with a shot of screenfetch :\


----------



## Luke51087 (Dec 14, 2016)

*1:28:18  

4770k at 4.0

 *


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:42:47*

I cant put up a CPU-Z since im on linux but it is OC to 4GHz not the 3.2GHz. Best I can do unless someone can tell me a program that works to show this on Linux?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

Here is a dirty run on my 5820K. Multiple back ground apps running, 4.5ghz low clock.

5820k 4545mhz, 52.53


----------



## Psychoholic (Dec 14, 2016)

Here's my run with my daily settings:

i7 4790k @ 4.6ghz : *1:15:28*






*



*


----------



## avenger001 (Dec 14, 2016)

*Greetings everyone:*

*1:15.16*


----------



## Breaz (Dec 14, 2016)

Hello TPU How are you today I just wanted to compare X5650 at 4.2 GHZ.
*
1:12.40




*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

All updated so far. Top score shows in red.


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 14, 2016)

Ok just for the lulz
i3 380m @ 2.53

*7:37:84*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

Haven't seen any 8 core or 10 core Intel processor yet.

Linux system scores marked in green. I have no idea whether testing in Linux would make it faster or slower than Windows based system.


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 14, 2016)

Can you put Zen reference value above everything but in diff colour?


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 14, 2016)

qubit said:


> Sorry, I'm confused here: ryzen isn't out yet, so how are you guys benchmarking it?


Don't be sorry, confusion is normal for some, me included but common qubit, really

Thanks for the sub.. can't wait to give this one a go when I get back home.

I'll need something to look back on for when I go back to the red team..


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> Can you put Zen reference value above everything but in diff colour?



Done.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 14, 2016)

For Reference
FX-8350 @ stock speed 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo)

2:55.81


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

C


TheLaughingMan said:


> For Reference
> FX-8350 @ stock
> 
> 2:55.81
> ...


CPU-Z?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> C
> 
> CPU-Z?


Updated. AIDA64 CPUID ok?


----------



## natr0n (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:16.76 
stock speed is 3300 MHz*


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

Clean run on mine same clock speed as before.

5820K 4545mhz 51:39


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 14, 2016)

*5820K @ 4.5 GHz*
*51.14*


----------



## PMP_Ghost (Dec 14, 2016)

6700K @ 4.4 Ghz - *1:09:58*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

@TheLaughingMan AIDA64 CPU-ID is OK. But you need to post your stock speed. I don't know what stock frequency is for your specific CPU.

@RejZoR you are missing CPU-Z


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> @TheLaughingMan AIDA64 CPU-ID is OK. But you need to post your stock speed. I don't know what stock frequency is for your specific CPU.
> 
> Fixed in original post. 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz turbo)


----------



## Kursah (Dec 14, 2016)

Been a while since I played one of these...and this one is simple enough. 

Blender really brings out those AVX voltages, 1.31v... makes my Noctua's fans spool up mighty quick. I didn't record temps...but most of the time the system runs at 1.26v for this OC and it stays well within safe temp limits there. 

*TIME: 1:12.17
*





I might run this on my Dell 3540 with an i5 4200u...just to see how pitiful it is in comparison. LOL!


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

Kursah said:


> Been a while since I played one of these...and this one is simple enough.
> 
> Blender really brings out those AVX voltages, 1.31v... makes my Noctua's fans spool up mighty quick. I didn't record temps...but most of the time the system runs at 1.26v for this OC and it stays well within safe temp limits there.
> 
> ...



I can't get my 4.7ghz settings stable enough to complete this so you are telling me


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

Time 1:36.92 on E3-1231v3


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

@hiepgia What was the frequency your E3 was running? I recorded as 3.8GHz


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

Where are the 5960X/6900K/6950X owners hiding? We need to beat AMD's RYZEN!


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> @hiepgia What was the frequency your E3 was running? I recorded as 3.8GHz



Mostly 3.4Ghz on Blender.


----------



## Kursah (Dec 14, 2016)

Here's my laptop, Dell 3540 w/ i5 4200U, 8GB DDR3 1600. Nothing special but worth sharing since I took the time to run it! 

*TIME: 5:22.28
*
I should add that bench clocks for the CPU was 2295MHz, and NB Frequency 2250MHz.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

There seems to be a pretty big performance increase from Haswell to Skylake in terms of regular 4 core 8 threads.


----------



## zedn (Dec 14, 2016)

*TIME: 44.52*







Engineering sample 2687W v4. For some reason the usage never exceeded 89%.

But since it's 12C24T, not that much a fair competition Kappa


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

zedn said:


> TIME: 44.52
> 
> Engineering sample 2687W v4. For some reason the usage never exceeded 89%.
> 
> But since it's 12C24T, not that much a fair competition though Kappa



It have TDP limit in AVX workload so it is limited 90% CPU time for AVX code.


----------



## Nephilim666 (Dec 14, 2016)

Core i7 3930k @4.4GHz
16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-10-28
ASUS X79 Sabertooth

*1:05.05*


----------



## Feklar (Dec 14, 2016)

6900K. Stock clocks.


----------



## chaosmassive (Dec 14, 2016)

my shitty dekstop in office

*08:44.71*

*  *


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> @TheLaughingMan AIDA64 CPU-ID is OK. But you need to post your stock speed. I don't know what stock frequency is for your specific CPU.
> 
> @RejZoR you are missing CPU-Z



For what? It's 5820K at 4.5GHz using multiplier of 45. When doing screenshot, it'll be at idle clocks which are totally pointless to post imo. I mean, it wasn't the idle clock that generated the image at given posted time... RAM is 2400 MHz stock as per my specs.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> For what? It's 5820K at 4.5GHz using multiplier of 45. When doing screenshot, it'll be at idle clocks which are totally pointless to post imo. I mean, it wasn't the idle clock that generated the image at given posted time... RAM is 2400 MHz stock as per my specs.



Keep a separate tab of cpu-z to stress it when taking the screenshot. This is for fair comparison.

Oh well, I have seen your 5820k OC enough times to believe you.


----------



## Dia01 (Dec 14, 2016)

*01:21:58*


----------



## silentbogo (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:46* on i3-6100@ stock 3.7GHz


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

Feklar said:


> 6900K. Stock clocks.
> View attachment 81951



I think score of i7-6900K must better than this. Please re-run with fresh OS or without any program in background.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 14, 2016)

Overclock.net are discussing the possibility AMD has released the wrong blender file. People with overclocked 6900's are getting nowhere near the AMD presentation score for the Intel part.
Can anyone add anything? Can't equate Zen's presentation score to these blender tests if the Blender settings are changed. OCN suggested the batch in the AMD promo is different, or something.

And this isn't a dig seeing as I skipped Broadwell-E to see Zen.  But if (and I do mean if) AMD are fiddling already...


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Overclock.net are discussing the possibility AMD has released the wrong blender file. People with overclocked 6900's are getting nowhere near the AMD presentation score for the Intel part.
> Can anyone add anything? Can't equate Zen's presentation score to these blender tests if the Blender settings are changed. OCN suggested the batch in the AMD promo is different, or something.
> 
> And this isn't a dig seeing as I skipped Broadwell-E to see Zen.  But if (and I do mean if) AMD are fiddling already...




The point of this thread is so we can get some data points of certain tiers of processors and compare it to AMD's claim.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2016)

All I know is Im getting horrible scores with my 8350 compared to others in this thread and im only putting it down to different OS? as Im on 7 and the best score is on Linux.


----------



## basco (Dec 14, 2016)

49.74s 
win8.1-64, 5960x-3500mhz-16gb-2133c12


----------



## silentbogo (Dec 14, 2016)

Melvis said:


> All I know is Im getting horrible scores with my 8350 compared to others in this thread and im only putting it down to different OS? as Im on 7 and the best score is on Linux.


That's strange too, because most of my HWBot scores showed a different trend in cinebench - most of Win10 scores are below Win7 @ same clocks (at least for my old X5650, which I no longer have )


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

Update my score with AMD Settings in this (http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f1/f1e01303_48054.jpeg) with Render Sample 100.

Intel E3-1231v3@ 3.6Ghz, DDR3-2133Mhz: 0:48.94


----------



## basco (Dec 14, 2016)

if i do the same as hiepgia i get 24,65


----------



## Feklar (Dec 14, 2016)

Re-run with no other programs running. 6900K stock clocks.


----------



## silentbogo (Dec 14, 2016)

Yep, with Render samples reduced to 100 I get a time of 1:19.
So, the mystery of abnormal scores is solved


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

I am too lazy to update every score. Lets just keep it going at 200 settings then.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> The point of this thread is so we can get some data points of certain tiers of processors and compare it to AMD's claim.



The point of my post was to point out the 6900 scores from forum users aren't close to the scores of the 6900 AMD used, therefore querying the very validity about the Blender test itself.  People are suggesting the Blender download from AMD is not the same version used in the demo.  If you want to compare current CPU's against Zen, you need a verifiable test and that would be a clean OS install using a stock 6900 getting the same as AMD.  Nobody has managed that.


----------



## hiepgia (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> I am too lazy to update every score. Lets just keep it going at 200 settings then.



Please keep both score 200 and 100


----------



## Pickoff (Dec 14, 2016)

5960X @4.5 1.244V

*HT OFF, Samples 100
28.57*






*HT-ON, Samples 100*
*20.18*




*
HT-ON, Samples 200
38.46*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

Time for someone else to take over the mantle. Ain'tgot enough time!


----------



## ZoneDymo (Dec 14, 2016)

*1.40.06*

Intel 2600k @ 4.5 Ghz

(how do I post the screenshot here?)

http://i.imgur.com/SfOGZSy.png


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 14, 2016)

@Feklar - can you rerun at 100 samples with stock clocks?  Be a good reference point.


----------



## Feklar (Dec 14, 2016)

3rd run. Samples 100 instead of 200. 6900k stock clocks.   *00.24.62*


----------



## ZoneDymo (Dec 14, 2016)

hiepgia said:


> Update my score with AMD Settings in this (http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f1/f1e01303_48054.jpeg) with Render Sample 100.
> 
> Intel E3-1231v3@ 3.6Ghz, DDR3-2133Mhz: 0:48.94



Oh wow, OP take note of this.
This is some good spotting, setting it to 100 like in the AMD test makes a huge difference.
I went down from 1.40.06 to 00.48.57....


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> That's strange too, because most of my HWBot scores showed a different trend in cinebench - most of Win10 scores are below Win7 @ same clocks (at least for my old X5650, which I no longer have )



Indeed, and here is my scores of my 8350 at stock clocks on Windows 7, seems alot slower then others on different OS's?

*3:25:60*


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

silentbogo said:


> Yep, with Render samples reduced to 100 I get a time of 1:19.
> So, the mystery of abnormal scores is solved


Same for me, down to 36.68 compared to my old score of 1.12.38

*00:36.68*
Samples 100:




*1:12.38*
Samples 200:


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Dec 14, 2016)

*2.33.60*
stock settings.
200 Samples



 


1.17.42 @100 Samples


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> *2.33.60*
> stock settings.
> Cant seem to find where to change sample size.
> 
> View attachment 81968



Click the + symbol top right then go down three quarters and its there. Took me awhile to lol

Correction! Once you apply the file it should be on the right hand side a third of the way down the page, you might have to reopen the program again, start over to see it.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Dec 14, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Click the + symbol top right then go down three quarters and its there. Took me awhile to lol
> 
> Correction! Once you apply the file it should be on the right hand side a third of the way down the page, you might have to reopen the program again, start over to see it.


thanks, edited my post to include image with 100 samples


----------



## dyonoctis (Dec 14, 2016)

Wait, i'm confused. Ryzen is apparently doing the blender test in 36 sec. Wich is matched by an haswell quad core i7 at 100 samples, which is apparently the setting used in amd's demo. And the 6900k is 14 second faster than zen. That's not what happened in the demo at all...


----------



## Countryside (Dec 14, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> I believe RyZen finishes around 35 seconds with 3.4GHz



Correct me if im wrong but i think it was 54sec for RyZen and 59sec with i7


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 14, 2016)

Countryside said:


> Correct me if im wrong but i think it was 54sec for RyZen and 59sec with i7


That was handbrake.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Dec 14, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> Wait, i'm confused. Ryzen is apparently doing the blender test in 36 sec. Wich is matched by an haswell quad core i7 at 100 samples, which is apparently the setting used in amd's demo. And the 6900k is 14 second faster than zen. That's not what happened in the demo at all...


$300 chip vs $1100 chip.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> Wich is matched by an haswell quad core i7 at 100 samples


I come close to matching or beating the 3.4 GHz Ryzen sample with a 533 MHz overclock over a stock i7-4790K @ 4.2 GHz.


----------



## dyonoctis (Dec 14, 2016)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> $300 chip vs $1100 chip.


The point is, if this is true, then the demo was rigged. They showed a 8 cores 16 threads ryzen cpu being as fast as a 8 cores 16 threads cpu from intel, when the reality seem to be closer to an Intel 4 cores 8 threads. That would be the same story as bulldozer. "We can match an intel cpu in multithread application with twice the core count.... yay !" (that's even worse actually)
And what about the awfully close handbrake score ? There is something fishy here...


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> I come close to matching or beating the 3.4 GHz Ryzen sample with a 533 MHz overclock over a stock i7-4790K @ 4.2 GHz.


Using the same blender version 









I believe it's 2.77 in the presentation DEMO


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

*00:41.11*
i7-4790K @ Stock clocks (4.2 GHz under full load,) and 100 Samples:




Edit:


R0H1T said:


> Using the same blender version


Yes, I'm using the same Blender version 2.78a 64bit


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 14, 2016)

*01.32.06*
200 samples
i ran the test at 3.4 ghz on my 6c/12 th Xeon X5670


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> The point is, if this is true, then the demo was rigged. They showed a 8 cores 16 threads ryzen cpu being as fast as a 8 cores 16 threads cpu from intel, when the reality seem to be closer to an Intel 4 cores 8 threads. That would be the same story as bulldozer. "We can match an intel cpu in multithread application with twice the core count.... yay !" (that's even worse actually)
> And what about the awfully close handbrake score ? There is something fishy here...


Check your blender version, & the one in the original demo, seems like 2.77 to me.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:19.61


 
*


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> *2:19.61
> View attachment 81973 *


How is your NB Frequency higher than your Core Speed? Seems backwards.


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

*1:04.67*


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> *00:41.11*
> Yes, I'm using the same Blender version 2.78a 64bit


Shouldn't it be 2.77, that or the tests were done on 2.78a but I can't see the blender version (except the 2.77) anywhere during the presentation?


----------



## dyonoctis (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> *00:41.11*
> i7-4790K @ Stock clocks (4.2 GHz under full load,) and 100 Samples:
> View attachment 81970
> 
> ...


That's not really the same, blender 2.77 and blender 2.78 are not from the same release : https://www.blender.org/features/past-releases/2-77/.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Dec 14, 2016)

Just letting you guys know I'm gonna run these on my i3 530 in a minute.

Should be able to post results tomorrow.......when it's finished


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> That's not really the same, blender 2.77 and blender 2.78 are not from the same release : https://www.blender.org/features/past-releases/2-77/.


Well AMD is telling everyone to download 2.78a 64-bit.


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> Well AMD is telling everyone to download 2.78a 64-bit.


Yes but in the presentation itself all I saw was 2.77, so either the demo was run with a different blender version (than the one shown) or that AMD just wants the users to run the latest version of blender to test their demo.

Checked the other images from sweclockers & you can easily see the blender run with version *2.77*, though not the final scores!


----------



## heky (Dec 14, 2016)

*50.81
*


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 14, 2016)

It would be great if some of the 86 guests currently viewing this thread registered with TPU and submitted a score.

Fill in your specs here
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/account/specs


----------



## patriotaki (Dec 14, 2016)

*00:49.17 sec   i7 5930k @ 4.6Ghz*


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> How is your NB Frequency higher than your Core Speed? Seems backwards.



The BCLK is a bit OC'd because of my XMP 3000MHz memory profile and the CPU speed clocks down when idle, thats all I can tell you.


----------



## Pickoff (Dec 14, 2016)

I think they kept their protocol.

They compared them at the same frequency !


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 14, 2016)

*05:38:00*


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

Isn't it called BLENDER? Not blend? Let's get that right out of the gate... LOL! It would also be useful to note memory speeds, cache, etc without looking/trying to find the result...similar to a format like this: USER NAME/ CPU @ MHZ/Memory @ MHZ/SCORE. 

Anyway, my results with a 4.2GHz 6950X

*33.16s*


----------



## Smanci (Dec 14, 2016)

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-114


----------



## R-T-B (Dec 14, 2016)

Smanci said:


> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-114



You're referring to The_Stilt's post I'm guessing?

Interesting, but irrelevant.  AMD and Intel support roughly the same SIMD extensions now.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

Smanci said:


> https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/first-summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-114


random link??? what's the point here? 

Sorry..getting caffeine now, lol


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 14, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> Ok just for the lulz
> i3 380m @ 2.53
> 
> *7:37:84*


@ShurikN Uhm...it seems 2 minutes is what separates our CPUs...for a same-gen comparison, it is interesting


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 14, 2016)

00:37.99 with 100 samples


----------



## MrTosky (Dec 14, 2016)

i7 2600k @4.6
oldie but goodie

*1.33.31
*


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Click the + symbol top right then go down three quarters and its there. Took me awhile to lol
> 
> Correction! Once you apply the file it should be on the right hand side a third of the way down the page, you might have to reopen the program again, start over to see it.


Clearly i'm an idiot, can someone explain exactly where and what i have to look for to change the settings? "Apply the file" what does that even mean?
Edit: Apparently I should change settings prior to rendering, as the setting shows once the AMD test downloads.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 14, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Clearly i'm an idiot, can someone explain exactly where and what i have to look for to change the settings? "Apply the file" what does that even mean?




your not alone...i couldnt find it either.


----------



## HimymCZe (Dec 14, 2016)

3:34:37
Core2Quad Q9550 2,8Ghz with 27,3% OC 424x8,5 = 3,6 Ghz with ADATA Extreme DDRII
https://i.imgur.com/fqFtB6v.jpg


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 14, 2016)

there is a + sign in the upper right corner that opens a panel, you may need to be on the 3D portion to see the option.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

Screenshot maybe would be best...... so where did you hear they changed the samples? All I see is a different version which doesn't lead to different times........

Also, what is  the difference? This thread is ridiculous... can't people put together an entire coherent thought in ONE post? LOL!!!





EDIT: A quick run @ 100 samples cut the time in half for me.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

So what settings should we use then @xkm1948 ?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

I would think the point is to compare it to what AMD did, but, if we don't know for sure what they ran the samples at, its going to be useless to compare to what AMD ran.

I think the OP just got excitable like a little puppy and created a thread without really knowing or understanding. That is a problem here with a lot of these 'benchmark this' threads. Blind leading the blind.


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 14, 2016)

Starting to seem that this isn't very standardized, but the photos show version 2.77 with 100 samples...so let's go with that?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

There isn't a difference in render times between the two versions. If the screeny says 100 and the OP wants to match what AMD did, then make the rules to set to 100 (and start another thread... perhaps with more information for the scores too....................................)


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

*1:52:59*

Xeon E5640 Westmere-EP 4200mhz 1.32v

Memory 8GB dual channel 1600mhz CL10




 



*

 

 *


----------



## medi01 (Dec 14, 2016)

biowiet said:


> My dream to return to AMD now seems to be slowly fading away



This is in harsh contrast with what's going on.
AMD rolled out ReLive which has much smaller (half) negative impact on FPS than nvidias shadow play.
AMDs drivers have been better than nVidia's in 2016, and that despite quick gains (480 beats 1060 at the moment)
AMDs answer to deep learning (16 bin flops) is faster than nVidia's best.
AMD just demoed their CPU beating Intel's (greatest?) while consuming (although a tad) less power.
AMD just rolled out "fuck CUDA":
https://github.com/GPUOpen-ProfessionalCompute-Tools/HIP

Sure people can pick wrong targets and whine about this and that, but the bottom line is, AMD is showing vast improvements on main fronts.


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

Thought FX would beat Westmere here.. multithread is quite strong?



TheLaughingMan said:


> For Reference
> FX-8350 @ stock speed 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz Turbo)
> 
> 2:55.81
> ...


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 14, 2016)

*1:36.08*


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

nevermind... It won't even run anymore for some dumb reason, tried a reinstall but didn't help either.


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 14, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> So what settings should we use then @xkm1948 ?


+1

100 samples and v 2.77?

Will do a quick test too later, curious if my new lower cpuv holds its pants on lol

Lowered 4.7ghz  from 1.288v to 1.266v (cpuz reads as 1.268v)


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

Does blend use AVX instructions? is there a reason why some people are getting wildly different results?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 14, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Does blend use AVX instructions? is there a reason why some people are getting wildly different results?



I does use pretty much anything it can use in CPU. Especially AVX.


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I does use pretty much anything it can use in CPU. Especially AVX.



Well a 3570k stock is 6 seconds slower than a 4790k at 4.4ghz  and 8 slower than a 4770k at 4ghz

4790k at 4.4 lost to the 4770k at 4..

Work that one out.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 14, 2016)

Hoping to summarize here...

If the goal of the OP is to compare to what we saw with Zen, then we need to run 2.77 and 100 samples (which would render this thread useless for that idea). That said, I have now tested on TWO systems (6950x and 6700K) 2.77 and 2.78 and there is not a time difference (within a margin of error, less than .5% difference in my times - not consistently slower/faster either).

This thread is good for running 2.78 at its default settings. If you want the most apples to apples you can get, it would be how I mentioned it in the previous paragraph.




Recon-UK said:


> Well a 3570k stock is 6 seconds slower than a 4790k at 4.4ghz  and 8 slower than a 4770k at 4ghz
> 
> 4790k at 4.4 lost to the 4770k at 4..
> 
> Work that one out.


You need to compare side by side those platforms, there could be many reasons that is happening.



Either way, the OP  needs to get in here and clear this mess up, LOL!


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 14, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Hoping to summarize here..



When I will be home will try to run my old 3960X uber Sandy...


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 14, 2016)

Recon-UK said:


> Thought FX would beat Westmere here.. multithread is quite strong?



Did you check out my score? I will gladly run them at 4.0 and I doubt there will be that much of a difference. Not sure why he is running so much slower. I am running with 4770Ks and 4790ks at similiar clock speed.


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

m0nt3 said:


> Did you check out my score? I will gladly run them at 4.0 and I doubt there will be that much of a difference. Not sure why he is running so much slower.



It's why i questioned it, this whole benchmark seems like a whole load of butt fuckery and is not reliable at all.


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 14, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Isn't it called BLENDER? Not blend? Let's get that right out of the gate... LOL! It would also be useful to note memory speeds, cache, etc without looking/trying to find the result...similar to a format like this: USER NAME/ CPU @ MHZ/Memory @ MHZ/SCORE.
> 
> Anyway, my results with a 4.2GHz 6950X
> 
> *33.16s*


What I actually find interesting is that you got a lower score than the guy who supposedly ran 28sec on a stock 6900
EDIT
Never mind, saw that it was on 200 sample



_JP_ said:


> @ShurikN Uhm...it seems 2 minutes is what separates our CPUs...for a same-gen comparison, it is interesting



Got around 3:30 on a 100 sample run


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 14, 2016)

Welcome to Blend, unreliable crap benchmark, 3570k stock is faster than a stock Haswell i7 LMFAO.


----------



## dyonoctis (Dec 14, 2016)

I'm guessing i'll just wait for the launch of Ryzen, and see how it bench then. According to what the blender benchmark is showing in this thread, Ryzen went from pretty good to " un coup d'épée dans l'eau" (meh).


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

Ok, got it working again, the error was caused by my firewall, fixed.

*1:08.83*


----------



## Elezorn (Dec 14, 2016)

v2.78
*2:10 *200
*1:06* 100
v2.77
*2:12* 200
*1:06* 100

i7-3630QM@3.2GHz


----------



## Atnevon (Dec 14, 2016)

*2:53:76*  OsX Yosemite!?!?!?!?!?

Well I'm testing all my machines. So...well, lets mix it up some. Getting a new Mac for work soon so thought to test my old one first


----------



## ShurikN (Dec 14, 2016)

Man this thread got f** up really hard. Different versions, different settings. 2 hours from now someone will notice something different form the zen render as well. There's really no point anymore. Lets wait for January or whatever.


----------



## Ionut B (Dec 14, 2016)

I7 5820K @ 4.5 GHZ, memory is in dual channel. will do a quad channel next year.
Edit: I got the blender that amd linked on their website, I dunno anything about rendering stuff so I left the default settings. Win10x64 if it matters.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)




----------



## X828 (Dec 14, 2016)

4770k@ 4.3Ghz


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 14, 2016)

/thread


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 14, 2016)

unsubbed


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 14, 2016)

So, because this started to lose all kinds of coherency, I went ahead and did some more tests, just 2.78 since there's negligible difference between versions....can't really see the reasoning behind these values and what AMD tried to prove besides the usual PR move "Let's use this tool that not many know about and allows to run a specific function that clearly benefit our single point of view and/or product without actually explaining why it is better for that reached score".
I mean, I'm eager for Zen...but...well, salt it is then...until the engi versions start to leak with more popular tests.

To recap:
*02:51:87* - 100 samples
*05:38:00* - 200 samples
*11:21:46* - 400 samples



Spoiler


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 14, 2016)

*3:43:78*


----------



## biowiet (Dec 14, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Sure people can pick wrong targets and whine about this and that, but the bottom line is, AMD is showing vast improvements on main fronts.



Let me clarify what I mean to say... I have built this 4th gen rig cca. 2 years ago when 5th gen was on the shelves already. Since then we have 6th gen running for a while and AMD is now closing up to that generation IF we believe that they were playing the benchmark show on a fair and honest way.
Now my mind goes like: what we've got as a tool to check their claims is a download link to a file they've created themselves and a download link to a software to use with the downloaded file. What - whatnot, quickly turns out they are running a different version of that software and the settings file they gave us is also different than the settings they run the test on their show. Actually makes people believe their rig is damn slow compare to Ryzen. My conclusion from my own experience that I've posted on pg1, the older version of the software gave me better results and matching the settings (at least in that 1 already known value 200 vs 100 samples) cut the rendering time in half. With that my config's performance went from 1m30s to 0m39s and that is just around their numbers. And don't get me wrong, I don't believe my 4790K on stock speed could match a 6900K so I can't help to think they have rigged the game so that means they have to make up things look better and that means their product can't do the thing they claim and it means what it means. Intel's new generation is coming, and if AMD has to play tricky to match up with previous gen, than that's it... I think the performance won't exceed 6700K, but you know what... I honestly hope AMD will contradict me and I can get back to them.

Long story short, I'm really sorry if I sounded like whining to your ears I did not mean to... I'm just sharing my results and my conclusion. Peace.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Dec 14, 2016)

Here's mine
Render sample 200




Render sample 100


----------



## Senbonzakura (Dec 14, 2016)

Core i73930K  32.56  Render sample 100


----------



## natr0n (Dec 14, 2016)

Strangers always crawl out the depths to post bench scores never to be heard from again !!!


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 14, 2016)

natr0n said:


> Strangers always crawl out the depths to post bench scores never to be heard from again !!!



I call them zerglings usually... really fitting name.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 14, 2016)

Forgot to take a screenshot.

11:31:54 with current specs.
Also teste a (stock) Celeron Haswell, 4:25:31.

lol


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 14, 2016)

where do i change sample rate to 100?


This is what I got at default 200?
 

Ok found 100;


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Dec 14, 2016)

TheHunter said:


> where do i change sample rate to 100?
> 
> 
> This is what I got at default 200?
> View attachment 82006



After opening the file before running the render, on the lower right under the submenu Sampling change the Render value


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

Sorry kids the OP has given up. Too much hassle due to keeping  up with all the different versions.


----------



## Scrizz (Dec 14, 2016)

YOLO


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

> *Never in the history of AMD have so many enthusiast Intel cores been used to render an AMD CPU logo!*


Just repeating someone else's kind words


----------



## darksf (Dec 14, 2016)

Guys i believe i finally understood where the confusion with the blender bench is coming from.
First obviously on the Live stream they did the CPUs took around 36 seconds but on unknown version of Blender and unknown samples count!

The 100 samples count comes from the closed doors presentation that has been done a week earlier i believe and the videos from there.

























 actually on this video i swear i think it is 24.82 but can't be sure someone with bigger display to confirm.

According to the Videos they were runing Blender 2.77 at 100 samples and task was completed in around 25/26 seconds according to WCCFTECH below are the numbers but not sure from where since they were around 36 on the live one.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-zen-cpu-benchmarks-official/

AMD RYZEN ES (3.4 GHz) 25.57s
Intel Core i7-6900K (3.7 GHz) 26.01s

I believe on the live stream the bench was done with 150 samples atleast looks like this given the results if it can be set to 150 cause i don't have blender and i don't know.


----------



## natr0n (Dec 14, 2016)

darksf said:


> Guys i believe i finally understood where the confusion with the blender bench is coming from.
> First obviously on the Live stream they did the CPUs took around 36 seconds but on unknown version of Blender and unknown samples count!
> 
> The 100 samples count comes from the closed doors presentation that has been done a week earlier i believe and the videos from there.
> ...


----------



## Tomgang (Dec 14, 2016)

Here is how a 8 year old I7 920 @ 4.1 GHz handles it. So slow....

Render 100 56.16






Render 200 1.50.40


----------



## xorbe (Dec 14, 2016)

AT forum is suggesting not 100, but 128 which is the supposedly the default Blender value before loading the file.  100 was from another video (not from the live stream) which rendered in 25 not 36 seconds apparently.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 14, 2016)

*30.73*s from me using 100 samples.
*39.19*s using 128 samples.
*1:01.24* using 200 samples.


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 14, 2016)

xorbe said:


> AT forum is suggesting not 100, but 128 which is the supposedly the default Blender value before loading the file.  100 was from another video (not from the live stream) which rendered in 25 not 36 seconds apparently.


At this point in time someone will just have to work their way backwards to get 6900K scores, with blender version 2.77 or 2.78, then try to match the AMD demo scores ranging from 20~40s & post their OC, NB & memory clocks so on & so forth 

Basically a mini blender review


----------



## Kathode (Dec 14, 2016)

6800k @4.5GHz(4.5GHz AVX), 3.6GHz Cache, DualChannel 3200, 
Just ran the demo with 3 different sampling settings,
firstly, 100 samples, *17.16s*


 
150 samples, *25.53s*


 
200 samples, *34.51s*


----------



## DLGenesis (Dec 14, 2016)

1:02.84


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 14, 2016)

Wow 7 pages in......


----------



## Nordic (Dec 14, 2016)

4790k at stock with *1:09.7*


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Wow 7 pages in......



Like many have said. I have never seen so many intel processors happily rendering the nude picture of an AMD processor.


----------



## VulkanBros (Dec 14, 2016)

FX-9590 - *2:13.51*


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 14, 2016)

Seems, I may need to try this benchmark on a Windows installation on my PC. See if I get similar results as the other FX people.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

5960x@4600 40:13


----------



## Gasaraki (Dec 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> 5960x@4600 40:13




I don't know why people are testing @4.whatever. The demo was a i7 8-core @3.4 not 4.6GHz. We want to see 200 and 100 rendering time @ that speed. That way we can compare to the demo.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 14, 2016)

Gasaraki said:


> I don't know why people are testing @4.whatever. The demo was a i7 8-core @3.4 not 4.6GHz. We want to see 200 and 100 rendering time @ that speed. That way we can compare to the demo.



maybe you should change the OP to reflect that... oh wait!


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

Gasaraki said:


> I don't know why people are testing @4.whatever. The demo was a i7 8-core @3.4 not 4.6GHz. We want to see 200 and 100 rendering time @ that speed. That way we can compare to the demo.



Benchmark thread is benchmark thread. I don't run stock speeds.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 14, 2016)

Cleaned up the rules a little bit.

1. Removed the RYZEN reference. Who knows what sample size they were running!
2. Set 200 as standards across the board. Only 200 sample results will be recorded.

Have to grad my students' finals. I will be back after a while.


----------



## Senbonzakura (Dec 14, 2016)

AMD you the simply pitiful piece of lying dung!!! of AMD was used special version of blender . Here photo and video proof !!!!  







  Сore 3930K 4.5 ггц 24.04 !!!!!!!


----------



## aaalllsss (Dec 14, 2016)




----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 14, 2016)

Senbonzakura said:


> AMD you the simply pitiful piece of lying dung!!! of AMD was used special version of blender . Here photo and video proof !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank's Mr registered today with 2 posts today, we shall forever appreciate your enlightenment oh wise one. please do stay and continue to enrich our lives with your oh so meaningful input......


----------



## alucasa (Dec 14, 2016)

Here are mine. This is why I am not going to back pitiful 4c/8t.

*20 seconds for 100 samples.*

*41 seconds for 200 samples.*

*Bonus: 22 seconds @ 100 samples with 1060 6GB (CUDA)*


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Here are mine. This is why I am not going to back pitiful 4c/8t.
> 
> *20 seconds for 100 samples.*
> 
> ...


Good job @alucasa, of course you have said this was why you went more cores.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 14, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> Good job @alucasa, of course you have said this was why you went more cores.



Yeppers, I built my rig specifically for Blender.  

I spend far mroe hours for Blender than I do for games.

*Edit: 200 sample is not a realistic sample rate. Nobody renders with just 200. 900 sample is the bare minimum I'd use for any semi-final render with 2025 samples as final.*


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Here are mine. This is why I am not going to back pitiful 4c/8t.
> 
> *20 seconds for 100 samples.*
> 
> ...



My cores beat your cores


----------



## alucasa (Dec 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> My cores beat your cores



Yeah, yeah. I concede, are you happy, sire? 

In my defense, it uses less power and cost me less probably.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 14, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Bonus: 22 seconds @ 100 samples with 1060 6GB (CUDA)


00:24.91 using my GPU (R9 280) through OpenCL with Samples at 100.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

That's pretty close. I've heard that Pascal CUDA code isn't optimized yet though.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Yeah, yeah. I concede, are you happy, sire?
> 
> In my defense, it uses less power and cost me less probably.


Mine was free...This is my work rig. I am actually pretty impressed by the score yours kicked off.


----------



## quadpixels (Dec 15, 2016)

*3:59:70*
Core i5-6200U on an Acer Aspire Switch Alpha 12 tablet.
I had the impression that the U processors are weaker than my old Core 2 Duo T9600 (2.8GHz, 6M Cache) under certain circumstances. Maybe in those circumstances the advanced features of CPUs (such as AVX instructions) are not utilized and the raw frequencies play a more important role.

The performance of i5-6200U, as far as this benchmark is concerned, did not improve too wildly from earlier generations of i5's (such as i5-540M's in the previous posts. If you compare the leap in gigaflops in GPUs is much greater) but energy efficiency went up.


----------



## Arctucas (Dec 15, 2016)

6700K


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

I get a feeling that Zen isn't very good at single-thread performance. That's probably why they are pushing so hard with Blender which loves # of cores over frequency of cores.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 15, 2016)




----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 15, 2016)

My Windows Score, is now up there with other AMD FX CPU's, not sure if it is with linux or with settings in the linux version of blender, will be checking settings between both to see what differences or not there might be. This was a 200 sample size.


Took a screenshot of the side panel in blender and the settings seem to be the same in both windows and linux. Linux also has the same version 2.78a. Not sure what the difference is about. But linux is certainly faster, at a quick glance anyway. Difference in compiler?


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Most of you don't know this but you have an option of how many threads you can let Blender use.

So, for an example, let's say you have 8 threads. You can let Blender use 6 threads to render and let 2 threads idle.

And then open a new Blender instance and select GPU compute. GPU compute uses GPU for all Blender functions but GPU compute needs few threads to function smoothly. So, with a decent GPU, you can continue working on Blender while you let render on CPU.

Vice versa doesn't work too well because GPU rendering makes everything sluggish.

So, in my case, I use 24 threads when rendering, leaving 4 threads idle. And then I use GPU compute or browse the stupud Internetz.


----------



## Afeganist (Dec 15, 2016)

*100 Samples;
00:36.19*






*200 Samples;
01:11.66*


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

with 150 sample.

17.37 sec with 1060 6GB. This is interesting because, at 100 samples, it was scoring the same with CPU. At 150 samples, GPU is twice faster? Weird.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 15, 2016)

Interesting to me is how much better Linux does on this program than Windows I was seeing 30-40% better performance with machines at work


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

It's widely known that Blender performs a lot better on *nix.

So, that's one way to rig the demo. Have Zen on Ubuntu and xeon on Windows. Do the same render @ same samples and Zen will excel. heh.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 15, 2016)

New thread posted just a few mins ago with AMD saying that it should be set to 150 Samples and using the current Version of Blender. I would personally ditch this thread and start over again since we now have the proper settings that AMD used in the horizon event.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> It's widely known that Blender performs a lot better on *nix.
> 
> So, that's one way to rig the demo. Have Zen on Ubuntu and xeon on Windows. Do the same render @ same samples and Zen will excel. heh.



Or they could have just made the whole thing up? Why even bother with nix?


----------



## medi01 (Dec 15, 2016)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5ie7f0/summoning_uamd_robert_how_can_we_do_the_blender/


AMD_jamesAMD Employee 2 points 17 minutes ago 

Both were run using 2.78a 64 bit.


----------



## Nordic (Dec 15, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Interesting to me is how much better Linux does on this program than Windows I was seeing 30-40% better performance with machines at work


Long known that linux can get a more out of a CPU. This is why I like using linux for crunching.


----------



## HammerON (Dec 15, 2016)

Sample @ 200
i7 6900K @ 4.4 GHz
39.22




Sample @ 200
E5-2683 v3 @ 2.5 GHz
40.98


----------



## ppn (Dec 15, 2016)

2:29.44 2500K 4000Mhz 2133Mhz


----------



## Frick (Dec 15, 2016)

quadpixels said:


> *3:59:70*
> Core i5-6200U on an Acer Aspire Switch Alpha 12 tablet.
> I had the impression that the U processors are weaker than my old Core 2 Duo T9600 (2.8GHz, 6M Cache) under certain circumstances. Maybe in those circumstances the advanced features of CPUs (such as AVX instructions) are not utilized and the raw frequencies play a more important role.
> 
> The performance of i5-6200U, as far as this benchmark is concerned, did not improve too wildly from earlier generations of i5's (such as i5-540M's in the previous posts. If you compare the leap in gigaflops in GPUs is much greater) but energy efficiency went up.



IPC had increased over the generations. Since Sandy Bridge it's not a huge leap, but from previous generations it's massive. The T9600 has nothing on the i5 6200u, and neither does the i5 540m.


----------



## yotano211 (Dec 15, 2016)

Here is my laptop score, i7 6700 with windows 10 pro  1:22:26


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 15, 2016)

yotano211 said:


> Here is my laptop score, i7 6700 with windows 10 pro  1:22:26
> 
> View attachment 82039



At what CPU temps?.....


----------



## yotano211 (Dec 15, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> At what CPU temps?.....


Its about 63C with .160v undervolt with auto fans on, with full fans, it does about 61 but much more noise.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 15, 2016)

yotano211 said:


> Its about 63C with .160v undervolt with auto fans on, with full fans, it does about 61 but much more noise.
> 
> View attachment 82040



Not too bad then for a desktop CPU in a laptop.


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 15, 2016)

thesmokingman said:


> Or they could have just made the whole thing up? Why even bother with nix?


Because there are some of us who dont want to mess with Windows.


----------



## Aron El (Dec 15, 2016)

My result (200 samples)- Xeon E5450 at 3,0GHz - 4:06 



and 100 samples is 2:07


----------



## Recon-UK (Dec 15, 2016)

Socket 771 representing! beast.


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 15, 2016)

apparently AMD used 150 samples.


----------



## Gasaraki (Dec 15, 2016)

Intel X5675 @4.2GHz

200 Samples, 1:09:10









Will post 150 samples later or on another thread.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 15, 2016)

TheHunter said:


> apparently AMD used 150 samples.


And we are NOT testing 150 samples. Because everyone has been doing 200 samples


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

The angry Cat has spoken.


----------



## T-Bob (Dec 15, 2016)

Intel E5-1650 @4.8GHz
200 samples 1:00:61


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 15, 2016)

m0nt3 said:


> Because there are some of us who dont want to mess with Windows.



You missed the point. He said they could have used a nix machine vs a windoze machine to cheat. Why even bother doing that? They can just rig the whole damn thing.


----------



## mirage_pt (Dec 15, 2016)

FX-8320 4.02GHz
Both tests ran 3 times, the best was selected
200 Samples: 2:53:71




150 Samples: 2:10:54


----------



## infrared (Dec 15, 2016)

*1:02:73 200 samples
*
6700k @ 4.8ghz, 4.5ghz cache. RAM @ 3333mhz 14-17-17-32 1T



I really hope Zen is as good as we're being lead to believe. Could be game changing


----------



## Martian (Dec 15, 2016)

200 Samples - Dual Xeon E5405 at 2,0GHz - 3:15


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 15, 2016)

Never used blender before, I downloaded the files, Im not sure how to run it???


----------



## infrared (Dec 15, 2016)

You get it installed, then download the first link in the first post, it's a 7mb file that opens with blender, then just click render > render image, or press F12. I'm pretty sure it's set at 200 frames by default.


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 15, 2016)

thesmokingman said:


> You missed the point. He said they could have used a nix machine vs a windoze machine to cheat. Why even bother doing that? They can just rig the whole damn thing.



But they didn't use Linux machines in the demonstration, that hasn't even been contested, someone mentiond they COULD have. The point was people using linux in the the benchmark thread, unless the poster says otherwise, who are you to say? Why was it so important for you to have to comment on my post anyway? You could have just ignored it.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 15, 2016)

m0nt3 said:


> But they didn't use Linux machines in the demonstration, that hasn't even been contested, someone mentiond they COULD have. The point was people using linux in the the benchmark thread, unless the poster says otherwise, who are you to say? Why was it so important for you to have to comment on my post anyway? You could have just ignored it.



WTF? Why you quote me in the first place? The guy insinuated that they could have cheated by using nix. Which is is why I replied. Your quoting me actually has no point.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 15, 2016)

I'm still as confused as @qubit.  Is this in order to compare what we have with the AMD results of Ryzen?


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

No, this is epeen contest, dude.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> No, this is epeen contest, dude.


and.....epeen is important?


----------



## Ksanto (Dec 15, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> I'm guessing i'll just wait for the launch of Ryzen, and see how it bench then. According to what the blender benchmark is showing in this thread, Ryzen went from pretty good to " un coup d'épée dans l'eau" (meh).



OFFTOPIC: I have created an account just to ask you for this:
                  Your avatar is beautiful. Could you please name me the anime/manga you have it from.
                  I would like to have this picture not to use it as an avatar.
                  Or is it your own drawing? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> and.....epeen is important?



On forums like this, epeen is everything. I thought you knew that. 

Extreme OCing and showing off, taking pictures of clean builds, water cooling, it's all part of epeen.

It's important. It's self esteem. It's the man's way, or geek's way.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> On forums like this, epeen is everything. I thought you knew that.
> 
> Extreme OCing and showing off, taking pictures of clean builds, water cooling, it's all part of epeen.
> 
> It's important. It's self esteem. It's the man's way, or geek's way.



No. Epeen is buying the most expensive thing and bragging. Sharing your overclocking perils and exploits, build mods and catastrophes is sheer geekery.  
Epeen is the same as a fud in a Ferrari with a gold medallion.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 15, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I'm still as confused as @qubit.  Is this in order to compare what we have with the AMD results of Ryzen?




thats why i ran it @ 3.4ghz....seems pretty pointless if you arent comparing it to Ryzen like for like.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...n-blend-benchmarks.228686/page-4#post-3569838


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Not saying epeen is bad though. A man's gotta brag. It's the manhood stuff.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Dec 15, 2016)

200 - 2:02.31






150 - 1:32.45






Should I feel bad now?


----------



## Tomgang (Dec 15, 2016)

After some testing i got some funny results with cuta aktive aswell. All test are with 200 and a old I7 920 at 4.1 GHz and two GTX 970 in sli.

First CPU alone 1:50.40






Cuda active one card 2:14.75






Cuda active 2 cards active 1:09.25






This is the settings used






So cuda aktive with one card is slower than CPU alone. Not what i exspected with this old CPU. CPU is still better than one card.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 15, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> So cuda aktive with one card is slower than CPU alone. Not what i exspected with this old CPU. CPU is still better than one card.


You might want to re-check that for a single 970. I had some trouble getting Blender to use my GPU at first.


----------



## Tomgang (Dec 15, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> You might want to re-check that for a single 970. I had some trouble getting Blender to use my GPU at first.



There shut not be a problem about single GPU run. I have a Logitech G19s keyboard with a display in it and with MSI afterburner i can in real time hold an eye on CPU aswell as GPU load. Under single run test only one of the GPU where in use.
And in the dual GPU test both GPU where in use and a friend of mine confirmed that a single GPU is slower. He has a I7 6900K and a single EVGA GTX 1080 classified and that where also way slower with one GPU vs. only CPU run. CPU only took 32 seconds while with cuda and his single GTX 1080 over 1 minut.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 15, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> thats why i ran it @ 3.4ghz....seems pretty pointless if you arent comparing it to Ryzen like for like.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...n-blend-benchmarks.228686/page-4#post-3569838



Now use 150 samples, oh wait.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 15, 2016)

If you download the Ryzen blender file now it defaults to 150 Samples instead the older default of 200 Samples.

So AMD changed the sample setting for their blender file I see.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

CUDA for Geforce 1000 series is not optimized. It's not just for Blender. Nvidia Iray render engine has issues with Geforce 1000 series.

In general, it takes a full year for CUDA code optimization to catch up. It's not new.


----------



## Ksanto (Dec 15, 2016)

In the Render PERFORMANCE tab:

For GPU enter: 256 by 256 and start with 256 as well   or   try even 564 by 564 and start with 564. Depends on your GPU. 1080 I beleave 564 is better

For CPU enter: 16 by 16 and start with 16   or   32 by 32 and start with 32.

If CPU (I mean i5 or i7) and GPU are same Gen, then GPU in Blender should be faster than CPU at the current build. I am rendering some video material for the company I am working for sometimes.

I don´t know how it is with 6/8/etc. core processors or server processors or AMD hardware.

I am using 2 Blender instances side by side to use CPU and GPU simultaneously.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Or use Blender built-in addon called autotile. It detects CPU or GPU and changes tile size automatically.

For GPU though, the best tile size is the same size as render resolution if possible to set it that way.


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 15, 2016)

infrared said:


> *1:02:73 200 samples
> *
> 6700k @ 4.8ghz, 4.5ghz cache. RAM @ 3333mhz 14-17-17-32 1T
> 
> ...


Could you be so kind and test 4.7ghz and cache 4.2ghz, wanna compare clock vs clock with mine  thanks

I got 1:12sec @ 200 samples.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 15, 2016)

TheHunter said:


> Could you be so kind and test 4.7ghz and cache 4.2ghz, wanna compare clock vs clock with mine  thanks
> 
> I got 1:12sec @ 200 samples.


His Skylake even at the same clockspeed is going to be faster than your Haswell. I was matching or just under a Skylake 6700K @ 4.6 GHz while my 4790K was @ 4.7 GHz. Although depending on the benchmark it will/does flip-flop too.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> CUDA for Geforce 1000 series is not optimized. It's not just for Blender. Nvidia Iray render engine has issues with Geforce 1000 series.
> 
> In general, it takes a full year for CUDA code optimization to catch up. It's not new.



Funny thing that in my system 750Ti is faster thant 980Ti in this bench... ~1:29 vs 1:41 in 150 samples(albeit monitor hooked to 980Ti it might screw the party)

I really don't know to be happy or cry therefor lol


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Funny thing that in my system 750Ti is faster thant 980Ti in this bench... ~1:29 vs 1:41 in 150 samples(albeit monitor hooked to 980Ti it might screw the party)
> 
> I really don't know to be happy or cry therefor lol



Hm, 1:29 and 1:41? You can't be serious? That's waaaaaay too slow for those GPUs.

Anyway,

The 150 sample is showing weird result for me also on CUDA. I've done my renders, which takes hours, on both CPU and GPU. From the results, I've understood that my CPU and 1060 are pretty much neck on neck.

However, in this 150 sample render, CUDA scores 17 seconds whereas my CPU scores 31 seconds. In 100 / 200 sample render, 1060 was identical to my CPU render time, 20 seconds / 40 seconds.

There may be a reason why AMD chose this specific 150 sample.
*
Edited to correct spelling.*


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Hm, 1:29 and 1:41? You can't be serious? That's waaaaaay too slow for those GPUs.
> 
> Anyway,
> 
> ...



I get 47s while using both GPU's... haven't changed anything else. Tomgang also didn't have stellar results with GPU.  I got 45.77s on CPU using 150 samples.

The key should lie in the used filters and scene complexity, this is really a simple one so some heavy x86 optimizations doesn't shine and thus simple raw power from GPU breaks it's way. There is some mojo hidden for sure.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I get 47s while using both GPU's... haven't changed anything else. Tomgang also didn't have stellar results with GPU.  I got 45.77s on CPU using 150 samples.
> 
> The key should lie in the used filters and scene complexity, this is really a simple one so some heavy x86 optimizations doesn't shine and thus simple raw power from GPU breaks it's way. There is some mojo hidden for sure.



Try this. Under file -> Preference -> in search box, type auto -> Click to activate Auto tile size

The thing with GPU render is that GPU cores as whole can only act as one giant core. Therefore, smaller tile sizes actually hinder their speed due to overhead. The auto tile size should speed things up for GPU. It doesn't matter much for CPU though.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 15, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Try this. Under file -> Preference -> in search box, type auto -> Click to activate Auto tile size
> 
> The thing with GPU render is that GPU cores as whole can only act as one giant core. Therefore, smaller tile sizes actually hinder their speed due to overhead. The auto tile size should speed things up for GPU. It doesn't matter much for CPU though.



Always nice to learn something new. 


Got 11.32 on both GPU's. 40.44s on 750Ti and 13.45s on 980Ti.

Edit.

Forgot to change them samples 

on 150

both 9.54s, 750Ti 30.25 and 980Ti 10.19


----------



## alucasa (Dec 15, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> on 150
> 
> both 9.54s, 750Ti 30.25 and 980Ti 10.19



Now, that looks normal to me.


----------



## DR4G00N (Dec 15, 2016)

FX-8150 @ 5GHz
200 Samples @ 3:26.58
Bulldozer sucks pretty hard.  Time to go back to X58 + Xeon 6-core soon.


----------



## quadpixels (Dec 15, 2016)

*2:44*
i5-6200U

Update: *6:59* on *Core 2 Duo T9600* on the good old Precision M4400 

The model renders about *30% faster* under *Linux* (I use Xubuntu 16.04) than under Windows 10.

Made a figure for a more intuitive comparison. The gap is big enough such that it cannot be ignored!




A screenshot from Linux. `cat /proc/cpuinfo` returned a frequency at which the cpu is running after rendering ended.




(Update) T9600:


----------



## quadpixels (Dec 15, 2016)

Frick said:


> IPC had increased over the generations. Since Sandy Bridge it's not a huge leap, but from previous generations it's massive. The T9600 has nothing on the i5 6200u, and neither does the i5 540m.


Ah, yes, correct! For almost all applications later generations perform better. (the only rare occasions i5-6200U lag behind older generations may be very special cases and/or when it's thermal-throttling)

Plus the integrated GPUs kept improving after Sandy Bridge XD
One very noticeable improvement is that the old Dell Precision M4400 lags even when scrolling in Firefox (because the GPU operates at Performance Level 0 and forcing the GPU at maximum speed with CoolBits can fix this).


----------



## xorbe (Dec 16, 2016)

4790K @ 4.7 DDR3-2400 10-10-12-1T, latest *.blend file, blender 2.78a x64 Win 8.1

150 samples: 54.9 seconds
100 samples: 36.2 seconds
200 samples: 73.8 seconds

(My laptop took like 11 minutes for 200 samples lol.)

9.53 seconds with the 1080FE at 150 samples


----------



## IvantheDugtrio (Dec 16, 2016)

Interestingly the Xeon Phi ran at around 10% load for most of the benchmark and memory wasn't noticeably taxed either. The Xeon Phi still needs a lot of optimization.


----------



## popsujith (Dec 16, 2016)

intel 6700k @ Stock 54.90


----------



## KrisCo (Dec 16, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It would be great if some of the 86 guests currently viewing this thread registered with TPU and submitted a score.
> 
> Fill in your specs here
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/account/specs



Did just that lol.

200 samples





100 samples





Although my scores seem to be terrible with my 295x2. I activated auto tile, but didnt seem to help much. My gpus sat pretty much idle during this. Guessing this is probably an xfire issue?

Edit 2: Would help if I set it to gpu compute...
1 gpu - 34.5s
2 gpu - 18.01s

@ 150 samples. Damn I think I finally need to go get a new GPU. 1080FE is apparently 4x faster than my current heat spewing card. 

Pretty neat to see scaling like that for once lol.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 16, 2016)

Thread title still says blend on top of it all.. lol..

Surprised this cluster is still going. Plans for a new thread, properly titled, and using the same file???


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 16, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Thread title still says blend on top of it all.. lol..
> 
> Surprised this cluster is still going. Plans for a new thread, properly titled, and using the same file???




Fixed the title. And Still holy mother of god this thread is still going on STRONG!

over 14k views. Somehow I feel like TPU should thank me for making this thread in the first place.     We got tons of new members registered just to post their scores!


----------



## infrared (Dec 16, 2016)

TheHunter said:


> Could you be so kind and test 4.7ghz and cache 4.2ghz, wanna compare clock vs clock with mine  thanks
> 
> I got 1:12sec @ 200 samples.


Hi @TheHunter , sorry for slow reply.

I got 1:04:71 at those settings 
I'm a bit surprised by that, I expected a bigger drop. That's only 2 seconds longer than my best run, with -100mhz cpu, -300mhz cache, -333mhz on the ram.



*Edit: For the benefit of new overclockers, don't copy my voltage! This chip was a poor overclocker to start with and high voltage benchmarking and 24/7 crunching has degraded the cpu quite substantially. Stay below 1.35V (on skylake) if you want your cpu to last.*


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

Intel 4790K @ my normal 4.6Ghz 24/7 use..

Time 00:56.64


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 16, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> Intel 4790K @ my normal 4.6Ghz 24/7 use..
> 
> Time 00:56.64


Lucky you, got one of the low voltage but overclocks to 4.6 Ghz 4790K.


----------



## Ksanto (Dec 16, 2016)

Is this "Ubuntu is faster for rendering with Blender" for real !?
OMG!!!
Well ... always wanted to test out Xubuntu. So... =D


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> Lucky you, got one of the low voltage but overclocks to 4.6 Ghz 4790K.


actually does 4.8 with 1.2875... 4.9 @ 1.32 and will do 5.1ghz but voltage scales like a SOB


----------



## alucasa (Dec 16, 2016)

Ksanto said:


> Is this "Ubuntu is faster for rendering with Blender" for real !?
> OMG!!!
> Well ... always wanted to test out Xubuntu. So... =D



Not for Ubuntu specifically. Blender runs better on *nix in general.

I'd benefit the most from it but, since I use more than just Blender, Windows is still the choice.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 16, 2016)

Ksanto said:


> Is this "Ubuntu is faster for rendering with Blender" for real !?
> OMG!!!
> Well ... always wanted to test out Xubuntu. So... =D



Do it. There will be many dragons ahead. But additional knowledge never hurts.


----------



## Ksanto (Dec 16, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Not for Ubuntu specifically. Blender runs better on *nix in general.
> 
> I'd benefit the most from it but, since I use more than just Blender, Windows is still the choice.



I am using Blender for it´s good and fast material specifying capabilities to make small product videos for our clients.
Cycles is not the cleanest nor fastest thing on the world, but decent to get the job done.
Right now I need hours and hours to generate some seconds at 30 fps and some small blur, like 0.25-0.3 by using CPU and GPU simultaneously.
I don´t like 24-25 fps.
I even belief I will spend 250€ for Nvidia Iray and some new GPU to make things go faster.

By the way Thx for the "Auto-Tile-Setting"


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

4790K 4.8ghz run...

Time to render RYZEN= 00:54.24sec


----------



## Ksanto (Dec 16, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Do it. There will be many dragons ahead. But additional knowledge never hurts.


My 5 year old Sony Vaio runs on Ubuntu. I know the dragons^^
Specifically package update fail system dragons


----------



## alucasa (Dec 16, 2016)

Investing for better CPU like E5 2683 v3 is better overall. I consider GPU rendering secondary.

E5 2683 v3 can be had for 350 USD on Ebay. It's one hell of CPU. It's more than twice faster than i7-6700 and is on par with 1060.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 16, 2016)

Ksanto said:


> My 5 year old Sony Vaio runs on Ubuntu. I know the dragons^^
> Specifically package update fail system dragons



For an old hardware actually linux is more favorable.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 16, 2016)

Heres Mine at 200, W7 Pro
02:22:19





http://img.techpowerup.org/161216/capture001-20161216.jpg


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Dec 16, 2016)

1.11.18 sec
4800Mhz


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

eidairaman1 said:


> Heres Mine at 200, W7 Pro
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fail Dozer eh.... Thanks, now you know why I got so pissed off the day NCIX sent out my 8350 and went and found a 2700K locally for cheap the day after.

I do appreciate the score though, but I just wanted to say that's why I dumped AMD after selling the 6 core AMD chip for the dozer.. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally onboard no mater what this time around with AMD.

I can't freaking WAIT!!!!

I already have this rig sold and just waiting for the new platform to hit the market


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 16, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> Fail Dozer eh.... Thanks, now you know why I got so pissed off the day NCIX sent out my 8350 and went and found a 2700K locally for cheap the day after.
> 
> I do appreciate the score though, but I just wanted to say that's why I dumped AMD after selling the 6 core AMD chip for the dozer.. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally onboard no mater what this time around with AMD.
> 
> ...



This is Vishera, not Orochi lolz


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Dec 16, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> 4790K 4.8ghz run...
> 
> Time to render RYZEN= 00:54.24sec


Nearly 20secs faster than mine at roughly the same clocks!!! Damn i gotta find a way to shave some time off!


----------



## FilipM (Dec 16, 2016)

Look at my post, no way to tell if people doing 150 or 200 samples. 


Not saying that he is cheating tho, you might have a prob


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Dec 16, 2016)

FilipM said:


> Look at my post, no way to tell if people doing 150 or 200 samples.
> 
> 
> Not saying that he is cheating tho, you might have a prob




If i run mine at 150 i get roughly the same score as you.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

FilipM said:


> Look at my post, no way to tell if people doing 150 or 200 samples.
> 
> 
> Not saying that he is cheating tho, you might have a prob


nope no cheating, memory timings and over all tweaking this system for almost 2 yrs to get where I'm at right now.

Lets put it this way, I've got the right combo, cam, timing and compression along with the perfect jetting make this all come together really nicely.


----------



## FilipM (Dec 16, 2016)

There you have the answer...now get in that bios


----------



## Arctucas (Dec 16, 2016)

6700K 150


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 16, 2016)

FilipM said:


> There you have the answer...now get in that bios


LOL the local guy that's going to buy my board, memory and cpu askes how much is it going to cost him!

I said the hardware is going to be cheap,..... It's the USB stick with my settings that's going to be the most costly item lol


----------



## FilipM (Dec 16, 2016)




----------



## chuck216 (Dec 17, 2016)

My FX-8320 @ the stock 3.5Ghz (reached 3.7 on boost):

3:14.06


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 17, 2016)

This really needs to be converted to a table.  Here's the ones in the OP changed:


User|Processor|Clockspeed|Time|Notes
zedn|Xeon E5-2687Wv4|3000|0:44.52
Feklar|6900K|3200|0:51.11
ReJZor|5820K|4500|0:51.14
cdawall|5820K|4540|0:51.39
xkm1948|5820K|4250|0:54.20
Nephilim666|3930K|4400|1:05.05
PMP_Ghost|6700k|4400|1:09.58
Kursah|4790k|4800|1:12.17
Breaz|Xeon 5650|4200|1:12.40
m0nt3|FX-8320|4500|1:14.79|Linux
avenger001|4790k|4700|1:15.16
Psychoholic|4790k|4600|1:15.28
Dia01|4790k|4400|1:21.58
Luke51087|4770K|4000|1:28.18
biowiet|4790K|4400|1:30.03
hiepgia|Xeon E3-1231v3|3400|1:37.92
acperience7|4670K|4000|2:06.30
natr0n|Phenom II X6|4000|2:16.76
Nuckles56|6500|3400|2:25.94
Nuckles56|4700MQ|2230|2:39
Melvis|Pentium G3258|4000|2:42:47|Linux
silentbogo|6100|3700|2:46.80
TheLaughingMan|FX8350|4000|2:55.81
Kursah|4200U|2290|5:22.28
ShurikN|380M|2530|7:37.84Pretty easy to do, just someone has to maintain it...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 17, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Interesting to me is how much better Linux does on this program than Windows I was seeing 30-40% better performance with machines at work



That's normal, really. Bulldozer does well in linux for a lot of stuff.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 17, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> That's normal, really. Bulldozer does well in linux for a lot of stuff.



Lighter Weight OS, just like how some will take stock roms for Galaxy Phones and Debloat them and optimize them for speed.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This really needs to be converted to a table.  Here's the ones in the OP changed:
> 
> 
> User|Processor|Clockspeed|Time|Notes
> ...





can someone please write something that would make this whole process easier and more efficient.

TBH this thread is a shambles. People are keen to contribute but if the data isnt tabulated regularly and simple things like rules established then it just ends up a mess .........like it is now. It has hapenned in a similar fashion in other threads and it makes it pointless trying to contribute in any useful manner.

The thread may be getting loads of views but how many of those people are taking a look at it for decent data and leaving disappointed? 


If a poll can be added to a thread how can it be difficullt to input data in a field and link it to a table.? 


TPU should be able to do MUCH better than this.


----------



## jaggerwild (Dec 17, 2016)

I had a good laugh reading this thread, seeing people getting frustrated(cause first time poster wont do as told) pricless!!!!


----------



## JAYDIP (Dec 17, 2016)

Here IS MINE 

51.33 Sec


----------



## FilipM (Dec 17, 2016)

My post is somehow missing...

W3520 @ 4510MHz - 1:39.38, 200 Samples


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 17, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> can someone please write something that would make this whole process easier and more efficient.
> 
> TBH this thread is a shambles. People are keen to contribute but if the data isnt tabulated regularly and simple things like rules established then it just ends up a mess .........like it is now. It has hapenned in a similar fashion in other threads and it makes it pointless trying to contribute in any useful manner.
> 
> ...


The formatting is just:
USERNAME|PROCESSOR|MHZ|TIME (leading zero if under 1 minute for sort reasons)|NOTES

Who wants to adopt the thread for score keeping?  @xkm1948 gave it up


----------



## Nordic (Dec 17, 2016)

Close thread, move on.


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Dec 18, 2016)

Here is my score:
02.25 for the old grandpa I5-750 OCed at 3.3GHZ.


----------



## rvborgh (Dec 18, 2016)

24.52 seconds... 48 core Opteron 61xx (K10 cores) running at 3.0 GHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 18, 2016)

dropboxed a picture... attach to the forums man... 




Anyway, i think mine was missed earlier? Beat that time any, ran as 200 with 2.78a

Earthdog / 6950x @ 4.2GHz / 32.02



I didn't include the 3rd CPUz because my first screenshot is the load speed.




> Who wants to adopt the thread for score keeping? @xkm1948 gave it up


Not I... sorry.


----------



## rvborgh (Dec 18, 2016)

fixed


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 18, 2016)

eidairaman1 said:


> Lighter Weight OS, just like how some will take stock roms for Galaxy Phones and Debloat them and optimize them for speed.


Oh get off your 7 and get on 10 bro!

You wont regret it


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 18, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> dropboxed a picture... attach to the forums man...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's FAST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nice


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> That's FAST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Nice



Yea he beat my 40 second 5960x run... By alot. I'll have to crank the optys up.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Dec 18, 2016)

6500 @ 5.1Ghz


----------



## sil3ntearth (Dec 18, 2016)

2:31.43


----------



## Block10 (Dec 18, 2016)




----------



## dyonoctis (Dec 18, 2016)

Ksanto said:


> OFFTOPIC: I have created an account just to ask you for this:
> Your avatar is beautiful. Could you please name me the anime/manga you have it from.
> I would like to have this picture not to use it as an avatar.
> Or is it your own drawing?
> ...


It's from : https://www.artstation.com/artist/kuvshinov_ilya


----------



## Block10 (Dec 18, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> I will try my best to keep everyone's score up to date!
> 
> 
> Download link for the demo:
> ...


*Block10rd, 6700k---4.0GHz          57.54*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> Oh get off your 7 and get on 10 bro!
> 
> You wont regret it



I might move after zen, 7 works perfect on my rig bro. Im putting 7 home 64 on a 754 rig with 3GB ram and a 6450 lol.


----------



## Andrew Bodega (Dec 19, 2016)

Noob member - saw this AMD challenge and couldn't resist .... sorry about the res; seems Blender doesn't do 4k

4960x @ 4.6GHz ....  45.20


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 19, 2016)

Rerun using the instructions provided on AMD's site to match what Zen ran at. I apparently had something wrong the first time

CPU: AMD FX-8350 STOCK (4.0 GHz, 4.2 GHz turbo)
Time: 2 minutes 15 seconds


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 19, 2016)

Just an FYI, I reported the thread to get this closed since the OP(@xkm1948) appears to have bailed on it.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 19, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Just an FYI, I reported the thread to get this closed since the OP(@xkm1948) appears to have bailed on it.



personally Id like a new thread and not this mess


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 19, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> His Skylake even at the same clockspeed is going to be faster than your Haswell. I was matching or just under a Skylake 6700K @ 4.6 GHz while my 4790K was @ 4.7 GHz. Although depending on the benchmark it will/does flip-flop too.


I know how it stacks just curious.


Btw in Cinebench15 Single threaded I got 194 @ 4.7GHz, while 6700K at same clock 205 or so..


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 19, 2016)




----------



## rippie (Dec 19, 2016)

1:06.16

skylake 6700k @ 4.6ghz, synced multies, cache speed 4500, air cooled


----------



## chuck216 (Dec 20, 2016)

Another run of my 8320 @ 4.5Ghz:

* 2:32.55*


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 20, 2016)

I already ran it 200 samples a while ago, it seems scores are not being added/updated.

GL!


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 20, 2016)

I reported it nearly 24 hours ago... staff is on vacation early, or missed the post where he said he was done is my guess why it's not closed.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Dec 21, 2016)

i7 5820k@ 4.3ghz, 150 samples as is default for the blender file I downloaded.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 8, 2017)

5.0 GHz Run Look at my Max Temps

1st Run tRC 42 1866
http://img.techpowerup.org/170108/capture001-20170108.jpg





2nd Run tRC 42 1866
http://img.techpowerup.org/170108/capture002-20170108.jpg





Final Run tRC 31 1866
http://img.techpowerup.org/170108/capture003-20170108.jpg





tRC 30 1866
http://img.techpowerup.org/170109/capture005-20170108.jpg


----------



## neandrei (Mar 12, 2017)

AMD Ryzen 7 1700@3.70GHz
32.7 seconds for 200 samples.
---------------------------
CPU-Z gets stuck at detecting storage for both 32bit and 64bit executables. Aida64 5.80 Beta works fine.

PS: Max CPU load at that frequency was 100.5W


----------



## m0nt3 (Mar 12, 2017)

32.25 seconds at all stock. (200 samples) Of course, this is on arch linux and not windows which is why CPU-Z is incomplete, because its running in wine. lol


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 12, 2017)

Another abandoned benchmark thread? Why there ought to be a law! 

Whatever...here's my score anyway. Which I'm mighty impressed with myself. 

i5-3570K---4.9GHz 1:22.57


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 12, 2017)

This was never a benchmark thread... in that, it's just a pile of results thread. Zero organziation...somewhere through here, the settings changed, so yeah. It's just a pile of results at God knows what settings.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 12, 2017)

Here's how an actual Ryzen 1700x does. @200 samples


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> This was never a benchmark thread... in that, it's just a pile of results thread. Zero organziation...somewhere through here, the settings changed, so yeah. It's just a pile of results at God knows what settings.



I used it for 5.0 Testing, stable as can be lol.


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 12, 2017)

What settings changed? Was it the default number of samples? I had to manually enter 200(default is 150) with v2.78c. I thought that was all I needed to change. Or should I have also used the earlier v2.78a too? I didn't think that would matter. No, I have not read the entire thread yet. I'd rather not have to.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 12, 2017)

It just needs closed. I requested this months ago from the staff (see post 306  - reported it), but it never happened. But yes.. versions were in question... number of samples... it's a mess. It's a pile of results from the forum's collective gut.


----------



## xkm1948 (Mar 12, 2017)

I did what I can just now.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> it's a mess. It's a pile of results from the forum's collective gut.


Internet vomiting


----------

