• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Post your Ryzen Blender Demo Scores! (AMD clarifies Blender Benchmark Confusion, Run @ 150 Samples)

polyzp

Member
Jan 4, 2012
161
0
71
Post your Ryzen Blender Demo Scores with your setup!

Ryzen SR7 - 3.4 Ghz (No Turbo) : 25 seconds - Samples 100
Ryzen Sr7 - 3.4 Ghz (No Turbo) : 36 Seconds- Samples 150

EDIT: Make sure to set to 100 or 150 samples to compare !




EDIT: To Compare to the presentation score of 36 seconds, set samples to 150!

AMD clarified on Reddit

"AMD_jamesAMD Employee 6 points 11 minutes ago

Set render samples to 150. A new file with the sample level set correctly will be uploaded shortly. Apologies for the confusion.

Blender 2.78a x64 is what we used, binary download from blender.org."


The press benchmark is different than the one they did on stage. Press reports 25s at 100 samples (done independantly), the one on stage is 36 seconds and the settings are a mystery.


How do you compare?

Link is here : http://download.amd.com/demo/RyzenGraphic_27.blend
 
Last edited:

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,340
474
126
My OC'd 5960x @4.4Ghz did it in 41.54 seconds. At stock (3.3) it was 54.04 seconds. These were at 200 sample.

I set the sample to 100 and got the following results on the 5960X. At stock, 27.62 seconds and OC'd to 4.4, 20.16 seconds.

Finally at 150 sample size, which now apparently is what the AMD demo was running at, my 5960x, at stock had a render time of 40.87 seconds and at my 4.4 ghz speed, 29.83 seconds.

I've got to give AMD credit. My 5960x stock is 3.3ghz but turboed. AMD's non-turbo 3.4Ghz RYZEN 8c/16t yields at 150 sample size 36 seconds.
 
Last edited:

Saylick

Senior member
Sep 10, 2012
621
110
106
Some people over on OCN were posting up their Blender render times as well; sounds like if you just hit the "GO" button, you won't achieve anywhere near what AMD was reporting during the event, but if you change the settings to 100 Samples in lieu of 200 Samples (which is apparently the default parameter), you get a much closer result. It's going to be hard to know exactly what settings AMD used during their event, so an apples-to-apples comparison isn't going to be likely until we get the actual product in reviewers' hands.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,915
7
76
Some people over on OCN were posting up their Blender render times as well; sounds like if you just hit the "GO" button, you won't achieve anywhere near what AMD was reporting during the event, but if you change the settings to 100 Samples in lieu of 200 Samples (which is apparently the default parameter), you get a much closer result. It's going to be hard to know exactly what settings AMD used during their event, so an apples-to-apples comparison isn't going to be likely until we get the actual product in reviewers' hands.
Of course if you halve the number of samples it would be faster. Not so obvious, however, is that

1) the Blender version affects render performance
2) Operating system affects performance. In my experience, the speed hierarchy is: Linux > FreeBSD > Windows.
3) Tile size affects render speed slightly (fastest is 16 x 16).
 

moonbogg

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2011
9,767
1,294
126
My OC'd 5960x @4.4Ghz did it in 41.54 seconds. At stock (3.3) it was 54.04 seconds.
Then something is off because no way a stock Zen lays waste like that to your chip @ 4.4 across all cores.

I just did it and got 1:03
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
11,803
2,952
136
My OC'd 5960x @4.4Ghz did it in 41.54 seconds. At stock (3.3) it was 54.04 seconds.
A rerun with samples, render set to 100 perhaps? At stock? At haswell 8c/16t 3.3 your chip is the closest "apples to apples" we have.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,739
451
136
C2D Q9450 @3,52GHz: 3:54.34

I dare anyone here to beat me.



That's OOTB, though, didn't touch a single setting.

100 samples, same CPU: 1:56.66. Pretty much exactly half the time. The image is really grainy, though.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
11,803
2,952
136
If it finishes in ½ the time then gusklines 5960 will lay the smack down @stock vs zen...
 

SpaceBeer

Senior member
Apr 2, 2016
295
95
71
i7-4790 @ Stock (3.6/4 GHz)
During rendering, all cores are @3.6 GHz

Has anyone tride to use GPU to render this image? It's strange, it takes much more time than the CPU, at least in my case (R9 380)
 

Kiska

Senior member
Apr 4, 2012
720
157
116
Celeron 857: 0:58:12 at 200 samples
Celeron 857: 0:47:12 at 100 samples

Results may be skewed, as I am using the laptop
 

lixlax

Member
Nov 6, 2014
137
71
101
Seems that it was indeed 100 samples. My results:
200 samples 2:49 (169 seconds);
100 samples 1:25 (85 seconds).
Cpu is stock FX 8350. The demo Rysen was still more than 2x faster which isn't a bad result.

If we roughly halve gusklines scores from the the second post for 6950X we get ~27s at stock and 21s when overclocked. In that case 35-36s on a stock 6900K make a lot more sense as well.

Edit: Misread the gusklines post, its indeed 5960 not 6950. But that also makes the presentation 6900K noticeable amount slower than 5960X. Any other settings may have been changed?
 
Last edited:

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,340
325
136
Seems OS makes a huge difference...

1:43.67 ~ 104 seconds for an a8-7600 in Linux.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,739
451
136
Celeron 857: 0:58:12 at 200 samples
Celeron 857: 0:47:12 at 100 samples

Results may be skewed, as I am using the laptop
Uhm, did you run the Ryzen workload linked in the OP? There's no way a 17W Celeron 857 can do that.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
what were you clocked at while it ran? big difference between 2.6 and 3.8 ghz......
I don't control the turbo. It's set up in the default configuration. There is no way I know of to manually adjust Macbook Pro BIOS settings for clock rate and such. It's a "Late 2013" Macbook Pro running OS X 10.9.5.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY