AMD New Horizon

[Dietrichw]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I hope not, that would be very unfair...

scrubbed through and found this, the round blue shape is what make me think it is a lga 2011 intel cooler.

[TheNaitsyrk]

1 minute ago, Dietrichw said:

scrubbed through and found this, the round blue shape is what make me think it is a lga 2011 intel cooler.

I recognise this glow from Intel AIO Water cooling.

[NumLock21]

I tried to bake some bread and follow the damn instructions, by adding the amount of yeast it tells me. After 10 hours, this clump of dough still has not Ryzen!

Dafuq?!

 

 

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, Dietrichw said:

scrubbed through and found this, the round blue shape is what make me think it is a lga 2011 intel cooler.

could be , but does it matter?  

 

(it somewhat does , but it did not look like it was throtteling in later tests where the task manager was shown 

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Dietrichw said:

scrubbed through and found this, the round blue shape is what make me think it is a lga 2011 intel cooler.

 

Hm, it's not a lot to go on... it does look circular and it's definitely lit up blue (3 LEDs?) and it appears to be laying "flat" on the CPU, as a stock cooler would (as opposed to something like this) but I'm not certain that's what it is yet.  Need to see other possibilities

[Space Reptile]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

Anyways, here's my own comparison, which convinced me that they were blatantly skewing the render test.  

4.8 ghz 5960x vs a 3.4ghz 6900k , are you REALLY suprised the 5960 is about the same speed / lil faster 

 

here are pm scores for stock clocks of both , ofc the +1,8ghz oc will make it run faster 

 

[done12many2]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

4.8 ghz 5960x vs a 3.4ghz 6900k , are you REALLY suprised the 5960 is about the same speed / lil faster 

 

here are pm scores for stock clocks of both , ofc the +1,8ghz oc will make it run faster 

 

 

Wow man.  You missed the whole point.  I wasn't trying to beat it because nobody can.  I was trying to show that they are skewing their results.  Nobody with a stock OR overclocked 6900k, 6950x, 5960x can beat AMD's claimed rending times in the AMD Horizon video.  

[TheNaitsyrk]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Wow man.  You missed the whole point.  I wasn't trying to beat it because nobody can.  I was trying to show that they are skewing their results.  Nobody with a stock OR overclocked 6900k, 6950x, 5960x can beat AMD's claimed rending times in the AMD Horizon video.  

I hope they do and I hope they don't tweak their results. I hope that they do so I don't have to worry about potentially upgrading, and I hope that they didn't so Intel will finally have a competitor, but I think they will anyway as I don't think their prices will be as much as Intel CPU now. However, we still don't know how the AMD chip overclocks. It could not overclock well at all, 'cause temperatures will be garbage etc.

 

So far they didn't meet the expectations with the GPUS. They claimed something and it didn't match.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

4.8 ghz 5960x vs a 3.4ghz 6900k , are you REALLY suprised the 5960 is about the same speed / lil faster 

 

here are pm scores for stock clocks of both , ofc the +1,8ghz oc will make it run faster 

 

 

A 5960x at 4.8 GHz?  That's insane!!   I didn't even think that would be possible for everyday use...

[done12many2]

25 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

A 5960x at 4.8 GHz?  That's insane!!   I didn't even think that would be possible for everyday use...

 

It's not.  Haha.  I was going to extremes to demonstrate how badly they skewed their testing.

 

Daily, I run a per core overclock.  4.9 GHz for 4, 4.8 for 5, 4.7 for 6, and 4.6 for 8.  The CPU adjusts clock speed from 4.9, 4.8, 4.7 to 4.6 depending on how many cores are being utilized at any given time.  Much easier to cool than 4.8 on the chip constantly especially during load.

[vanished]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

It's not.  Haha.  I was going to extremes to demonstrate how badly they skewed their testing.

 

Daily, I run a per core overclock.  4.9 GHz for 4, 4.8 for 5, 4.7 for 6, and 4.6 for 8.  The CPU adjusts clock speed from 4.9, 4.8, 4.7 to 4.6 depending on how many cores are being utilized as any given time.  Much easier to cool than 4.8 on the chip constantly especially during load.

Even that is pretty amazing...

[handymanshandle]

6 hours ago, it_dont_work said:

It's good to see a little sneak peak again, like the last little sneak peak, adds to the hype train which for some reason is hard to ignore compared to the intel and nvidia hype. This increase from predicting instructions might end up to be one of those technologies that doesn't really work in most programs and use cases, though I'm hopeful it turns out to be the boost it appears to do. 

 

Would I been nice to see the 4c/8t chip before ces, or some other benchmarks to really place it in the line up, but then again even in the live stream there wasn't much information at all. Time will tell how powerful the platform ends up being, 1 unified platform for all the consumer and enthusiasts line up is a good selling point though and it would be good to see what the compromises are (such as 4 channel ram).

 

While that wasn't enough to get me onto the amd hype train, it was enough that now I'm interested in seeing some benchmarks; and how it performs against intel.

-- This is what I agreed with

6 hours ago, it_dont_work said:

Still looks like I wont be upgrading any times soon...

This event unfortunately doesn't make me want to postpone the purchase of any parts that would lock me into a specific platform, as it stands one of the next parts I might buy will be the motherboard.

 

It's cool and all to see that AMD is getting pretty close to Intel's high end but no price range and no word on the consumer orientated CPUs leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps an AMD event at CES 2017 might reveal more but I'm doubtful. By CES 2017, I should be incredibly close to completing the bulk of my build. 

[done12many2]

12 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Even that is pretty amazing...

 

I love it.  I wanted very high single-threaded performance while maintaining high multi-threaded performance without the need to switch overclock profiles in BIOS all the time.

 

Here's an example of the CPU cycling through those multipliers during the RealBench benchmark.  I think I had 4.9 to 4.7 set at that time, but I've since dropped the low end to 4.6 for use with much heavier loads.

 

 

 

 

 

[RagnarokDel]

2 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

I wish that were the case, but it's beyond obvious that AMD skewed the Blender render test.  Not even stock 6900k CPUs or stock 6950x CPUs can match the render times that AMD was able to pull off during the AMD Horizon event.  

 

I'm a fairly realistic guy and understand that companies hype things up a bit during promotions and roll outs, but what AMD did this time was different.  They showed the results of the render test and even offered to provide the files to the public so that they could run the same test on their own computers for comparison.  The problem is they used custom settings to run their bench without mentioning it.  This resulted in much higher render times for everyone who's run it on their own systems to include the 6950x, 6900k (overclocked and stock), 5960x (overclock and stock) and many other CPUs.  Guys with 6900ks overclocked and running better system configurations couldn't even match what AMD was able to do with a 3.4 GHz Ryzen chip or their "stock" 6900k.  

 

There's a running thread on overclock.net where everyone is trying to match AMD's magical render times with the exact same file provided by AMD via their website.  They make no mention of modified settings to Blender, but mention that both system configurations are run as they are straight out of the box.

 

Additionally, they stated that you'd be able to run both tests for yourself, but didn't provide the Handbrake file for comparison at all.  We're really no better off as far as a good understanding on how Zen will perform.  Like I said, feel free to check out the overclock.net thread where folks are tying to pull off the amazing feat that AMD has supposedly accomplished with that test.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1617227/amd-new-horizon-zen-preview-on-12-13-at-3-pm-cst/600_100#post_25710833  (Skip towards the end where the results start showing up)

 

Anyways, here's my own comparison, which convinced me that they were blatantly skewing the render test.  

 

 

I dont want to be picky but you dont exactly have ideal conditions for a benchmark.

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

I dont want to be picky but you dont exactly have ideal conditions for a benchmark.

 

I think everyone is missing the point.

 

Nobody with a stock OR overclocked 6900k, 6950x, 5960x or any other mainstream or enthusiast CPU can match or beat what AMD's Ryzen or 6900k did at completely stock speed as it was portrayed in the video.  People are still trying to do it over on overclock.net and as of the last time I checked the thread, only one 6950x (10 core) at 4.4 GHz was able to beat it.  

 

The point isn't how "ideal" my conditions were, but that the results are skewed.  They either used a different render file from what they provided to the public for comparison or they ran the configuration differently than they claimed.

[Space Reptile]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

Wow man.  You missed the whole point.

*derp* don't post at 6 am after you just woke up kids

 

yea I re read it and it makes a lot more sence now , still in handbrake it looked the same so maybe they have the blender render settings tweaked a little , but on both setups? I dunno man , I just hope the Ryzen R7 will be a good chip

[Carclis]

32 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I think everyone is missing the point.

 

Nobody with a stock OR overclocked 6900k, 6950x, 5960x or any other mainstream or enthusiast CPU can match or beat what AMD's Ryzen or 6900k did at completely stock speed as it was portrayed in the video.  People are still trying to do it over on overclock.net and as of the last time I checked the thread, only one 6950x (10 core) at 4.4 GHz was able to beat it.  

 

The point isn't how "ideal" my conditions were, but that the results are skewed.  They either used a different render file from what they provided to the public for comparison or they ran the configuration differently than they claimed.

Maybe if people make enough noise they'll address it on Reddit like they did with AotS benchmarks last time.

[done12many2]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

*derp* don't post at 6 am after you just woke up kids

 

No worries bud.  

 

Just now, Space Reptile said:

 

yea I re read it and it makes a lot more sence now , still in handbrake it looked the same so maybe they have the blender render settings tweaked a little , but on both setups?

 

Well, the funny thing is that they said they were going to provide both the render AND video file for the public to compare for themselves.  The only thing they provided was the render file so we can test the Handbrake stuff.  So the render test is iffy and the Handbrake test is, well unknown.  

 

 

Just now, Space Reptile said:

I dunno man , I just hope the Ryzen R7 will be a good chip

 

I do to.  I'd like to give AMD a spin as it's been many many years since I've been interested enough to use one again.  However, I'm not falling for marketing bullshit.  

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Maybe if people make enough noise they'll address it on Reddit like they did with AotS benchmarks last time.

 

That's a great idea.  All of these guys need to stop this deceptive crap.  We can never get a no kidding apples to apples comparison, but I do understand why.  It's bad for business. If one guy hypes, the other guys needs to do it even more.

[Space Reptile]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

That's a great idea.  All of these guys need to stop this deceptive crap.  We can never get a no kidding apples to apples comparison, but I do understand why.  It's bad for business. If one guy hypes, the other guys needs to do it even more.

to be honest , everyone tweaks there charts , I mean nvidias charts are like "x times more innovative" or "50% faster than x card" (but just a numberless chart)

 

its business , if you ever had to pitch something at a meeting you are ofc gonna show it in the best possible light w/ graphs that make it look better than EVERYTHING else (even if its just "twice as heavy" )

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

6 core or GTFO. That's the optimized count for Star Citizen.

star citizen is the most elaborate hoax since micro-transactions

[Space Reptile]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

star citizen is the most elaborate hoax since micro-transactions

but the demos look nice  

[S w a t s o n]

Love the half baked conspiracy theories here. Yup totally skewed the results by making the 6900k finish at the same speed as the ryzen...lmao

 

Don't ya think, maybe just maybe they would have skewed it in their favor. If no one with a overclocked 6900k can beat ryzen they also can't beat the 6900k they used in the demo. Both cpu's finished faster than expected so yea they were probably using different settings or something but the idea was it was a fair and consistent test across both systems.

 

The total time doesnt matter, they were comparing the two chips to each other, and they finished at damn near the same time, there was effectively no delta. They haven't skewed anything in their favor.

[Carclis]

11 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Love the half baked conspiracy theories here. Yup totally skewed the results by making the 6900k finish at the same speed as the ryzen...lmao

 

Don't ya think, maybe just maybe they would have skewed it in their favor. If no one with a overclocked 6900k can beat ryzen they also can't beat the 6900k they used in the demo.

 

The total time doesnt matter, they were comparing the two chips to each other, and they finished at damn near the same time, there was effectively no delta. They haven't skewed anything in their favor.

Well it appears to be skewed and is reasonable to assume so until AMD's results can be replicated.

[S w a t s o n]

2 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Well it appears to be skewed and is reasonable to assume so until AMD's results can be replicated.

It's not skewed if intel's cpu got the speed boost too, which it did... Both companies cpu's performed the same, which means the 6900k was faster than expected too. DO YOU THINK AMD WANTS TO MAKE THE 6900k LOOK FASTER THAN IT IS?

Sorry for the caps but I think people aren't getting it.

 

Of course 3rd party benchmarks trump all, but it's really stupid to just assume amd skewed something when the results appear to be quite equitable.