*A:M User* Roger Posted December 14, 2016 *A:M User* Share Posted December 14, 2016 Booyah: http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/new-horizon Finally some competition for Intel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 14, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 14, 2016 I didn't watch the hour presentation... What does it do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted December 14, 2016 Author *A:M User* Share Posted December 14, 2016 Basically it is just a new cpu, but it is the cpu that is going to return AMD to profitability after years of being on the ropes. Rumored pricing of $500 for an 8 core, 16 thread cpu and 16 and 32 core server cpus (no word on pricing for those but I expect them to be in the same range as the mid-range Xeons, so $1000-$2000). They also demoed their new Vega graphics card, that looks quite promising, was fluidly running some Star Wars flight-sim demo at 4k resolution at 60fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Yeah, this is the first Zen-based CPU-series from AMD.It is called Ryzen and seems to be quite a beast... It does not destroy Intel, but it seems like being on a par or slightly faster at very equal power consumption. We are talking about Gaming-Performance and even on IPCs, which wasn't the case in the last years. And we are talking about top of the line "i7-6900K" for about 1.200 Euros (only the processor) here.... AMD's is likely a little less expensive (but we do not know anything about that yet – it is only a guess). Very promising stuff... lets see what benchmarks will tell (currently we do only have those from AMD) but seems like a new PC is going to be bought in 2017 in my household . See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 14, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 14, 2016 They had a link to download a demo that you'd test with Blender. How does that demo anything if I'm still on my old CPU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted December 14, 2016 Author *A:M User* Share Posted December 14, 2016 Yes, me too I think---I need to wait a bit, but I think my next PC will be AMD based. They had a link to download a demo that you'd test with Blender. How does that demo anything if I'm still on my old CPU? Yeah I was a little confused about that, too. Not sure? Maybe so you can benchmark against theirs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemyax Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Their render took 35 seconds. You can try the scene on your rig for comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 Am I supposed to "Render Image" or "Render Animation" ? One frame took 5 minutes 29 seconds on my machine and it seemed to be using all four cores. But at the top of the screen it says "Cycles Render". Isn't that the mode that uses the GPU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 Doing some math... I presume that if I could limit Blender to one core it would take 4 x 5min 29sec or 21min 56sec on my machine If their machine was limited to one core instead of 8 (it did have eight, right?), I presume it would take 8 x 35sec or 4min 40sec So one of their cores is about 4.7 times faster than one of my cores. Does that sound right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted December 15, 2016 Author *A:M User* Share Posted December 15, 2016 That sounds about right, you're using a Q6600 right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 It seems that these new chips and Intel's next year chips will only have Windows 10 support. No one knows yet if older Wins will run on them. That sounds about right, you're using a Q6600 right? Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted December 15, 2016 Author *A:M User* Share Posted December 15, 2016 There's always emulation. But yeah I think everything is moving on to Win 10. As much as I wanted to stay on Win 7, technology marches on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemyax Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 There's always emulation. And there's always Linux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 ...not in an A:M forum . If you want to use that software, Linux isn't an option like with many other software out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 The Geekbench charts suggest a i7-6900, about the same as a Ryzen, is about 3x faster than a Q6600 on single threaded tasks. That's still quite a bit faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelplucker Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Limiting themselves to Windows 10 is a bad move. Nearly all workstations still ship with Win7 for compatibility with cad/cam software. Number crunching wise my AMD 4ghz 8 core is similar to my really old dual chip 2.66 4 core ea machine. Rendering times were actually faster on the xeon vrs the AMD. The AMD is better for games though. Hope they get better at the number crunching, be nice to have an affordable workstation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 I keep thinking "Raisin" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 this comparison gives a 6900k only a modest edge over my Q6600. but this Cinebench test (Cinema4D rendering) gives it about 3X 3X improvement would be worth an upgrade. 10% not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Limiting themselves to Windows 10 is a bad move. Nearly all workstations still ship with Win7 for compatibility with cad/cam software. Number crunching wise my AMD 4ghz 8 core is similar to my really old dual chip 2.66 4 core ea machine. Rendering times were actually faster on the xeon vrs the AMD. The AMD is better for games though. Hope they get better at the number crunching, be nice to have an affordable workstation. Yeah, but it seems to be like that since Win7 does not have the necessary drivers and stuff on it and MS does of cause have not much interest in porting them back to W7. I am not sure if AMD's CPUs have the same requirements. For me it does not matter, simply because I switched over to W10 already with all my work and home computers. See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 Doing some math... I presume that if I could limit Blender to one core it would take 4 x 5min 29sec or 21min 56sec on my machine I found the button in Blender that limits it to one core. The render time then is 20min 54 sec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptBobo Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Am I supposed to "Render Image" or "Render Animation" ? One frame took 5 minutes 29 seconds on my machine and it seemed to be using all four cores. But at the top of the screen it says "Cycles Render". Isn't that the mode that uses the GPU? In Blender, the Cycles render engine will, by default, use the CPU for rendering. You have to go into the settings and enable GPU computation. Specifically, you have to pick if you want to use CUDA (NVIDIA only and the preferred API) or OpenCL (allows using AMD GPUs, but not as performant as CUDA). In the render panel, you also have to pick 'GPU' instead of CPU. Honestly, unless you have a dedicated GPU in your system just for rendering (i.e. - not using it to render your desktop), you probably won't see a huge increase in speed over the CPU mode. Also, the Blender scene has to fit entirely within GPU memory, so it's only effective on small-ish scenes. They're working on allowing GPU rendering for scenes larger than available GPU memory, but it's not available in the main Blender repo yet. That's probably more than you wanted to know, but there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted December 15, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted December 15, 2016 That's probably more than you wanted to know, but there it is. No, that does clear a few things up! I really haven't followed Blender much at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.