• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Martini1991 said:
Because I wanted to see how it compared to the FX line up as it stands.

The FX line up appears to be absolutely terrible with Blender by the results here, the 8C 8T PD chips perform at basically half a 4C/8T Haswell, which is absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...

I think that Zen must just be that much faster (assuming there isn't something different with their benchmark config). If you observe this benchmark:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,review-32699-14.html

Then a stock 8350 is about 25% slower than a 4770k.

Having said that, the same scene renders in 20 seconds on my GTX 970 :D.
 
Martini1991 said:
Because I wanted to see how it compared to the FX line up as it stands.

The FX line up appears to be absolutely terrible with Blender by the results here, the 8C 8T PD chips perform at basically half a 4C/8T Haswell, which is absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...



it doesnt compete with bulldozer mate so bulldozer results are irrelevant.
 
humbug said:
Same thing :)

Blender and Cinebench (Maxon Cinema 4D) are both 2D/3D design and render applications using the CPU in the same way, what performance you get in Cinebench is the same as Blender as they both push FP render to the limits.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather see cinebench as that's commonly used, I've never seen blender used.
And I really don't think it's "the same" in terms of how it performs on the CPU's.

Either way people like to compare with commonly used benchmarks.

Zen's like 4 times faster than PD in Blender going by results here. So my stock in Blenders validity is flaky, it's impossible to argue against that type of disparity.
Like I say, Zen obviously has potential. But we know very little more than we did earlier.
 
Last edited:
I5 3570k 1600ddr3, all cores 3.6ghz blender 2min41secs.
I7 2600k 2133 all cores 4.5 ghz blender 1min 43secs.

Edit 3570k had utorrent in.background.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
I'd much rather see cinebench as that's commonly used, I've never seen blender used.
And I really don't think it's "the same" in terms of how it performs on the CPU's.

Either way people like to compare with commonly used benchmarks.
Click to expand...

I agree completely on using commonly known benchmarks, the problem is Indy devs and the design community use Blender, those are the people AMD are shooting for, THAT is why they use it, Blender is the crowed AMD want to attract, us using a benchmarking branch of what is a little used design / creation tool is small fry when considering what these chips will be used for.

Anyway, use Blender a lot for exactly those reasons, trust me, they are the same.
 
humbug said:
I agree completely on using commonly known benchmarks, the problem is Indy devs and the design community use Blender, those are the people AMD are shooting for, us using a benchmarking branch of what is a little used design / creation tool is small fry when considering what these chips will be used for.

Anyway, use Blender a lot for exactly those reasons, trust me, they the same.
Click to expand...

No benchmark shows a 4770K doubling an FX83's performance except AMD's blender example.
With my absolutely basic 4.4GHZ clock and absolute bog standard 1600MHZ CL9 RAM, using AMD's file, and the blender they link to, I'm doubling an FX83's performance at similar clocks.
Zen was quadrupling performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom