AMD Ryzen 7 series and Corona?

[kothu]

Hi! I am planing to build new pc with amd ryzen 1700X or 1800X but i just wondering will these new CPUs be fully function with corona? i just read that the corona is faster with Embree on intel CPUs.

[tomislavn]

I'm really interested in that as well.

At the moment, I am using a Dual Xeon machine with around 2100 CB score and if a single Ryzen can push 1700 on stock clocks as they say, then I would definitely take one budget machine based on it for rendering.

Wondering what will actually come out of that marketing in the end.

It would be my first AMD processor after 15 years :))) (Hi AMD "Hellraiser" Thunderbird lol)

[lacilaci]

Well the AMD cpus should have the instruction sets embree could use... no?

So curious to see some corona/vray benchmarks on those cpus... will buy instantly if it works flawlessly lol

edit:
But I also read this on cgtalk:

"Ryzen's support for AVX instructions is 128-bit in nature, meaning two cycles are required to achieve what an Intel core does in one..."

original article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-how-amds-ryzen-will-disrupt-the-cpu-market

[Ondra]

Hi! I am planing to build new pc with amd ryzen 1700X or 1800X but i just wondering will these new CPUs be fully function with corona?

Yes.

This is not GPU rendering ;)

[agentdark45]

I've got my eye on those mega 32 core Zen Opterons! AFAIK they are overclockable too...*heavy breathing*

[FrostKiwi]

New Homepage set and on auto-refresh.
Exciting times we live in.

Born too late to explore the earth, born too early to explore the stars, born just in time to see AMD rise back to rule the world.

[arqrenderz]

What about embree?? How much performance is espected yo loose? A lot of us are thinking in buying some 1800x PCS:)

[Ondra]

What about embree?? How much performance is espected yo loose? A lot of us are thinking in buying some 1800x PCS:)

There are already public benchmarks of ryzens that include Corona benchmark (which uses embree), and performance is consistently good. We do not expect embree to slow down, so far it plays well even with bulldozer architecture.

[cecofuli]

I think that we should wait June, for Naples =)  with dual Sockets MB.
Buy a new WS now isn't a good idea, in my opinion...  only if it's really necessary... Better to wait 4-5 months, if it's possible.

"The 32-core CPU, codename Naples, will feature simultaneous multithreading similar to the desktop platform we wrote about earlier, allowing for 64 threads per processor. Thus, in a dual socket system, up to 128 threads will be available. These development systems are currently in the hands of select AMD partners for qualification and development.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581/early-amd-zen-server-cpu-and-motherboard-details-codename-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

[arqrenderz]

What about embree?? How much performance is espected yo loose? A lot of us are thinking in buying some 1800x PCS:)

There are already public benchmarks of ryzens that include Corona benchmark (which uses embree), and performance is consistently good. We do not expect embree to slow down, so far it plays well even with bulldozer architecture.

Cant find the numbers, there is no ryzen procesor on corona benchmark website, any source??

[Christa Noel]

Cant find the numbers, there is no ryzen procesor on corona benchmark website, any source??

Yes me too

What about embree?? How much performance is espected yo loose? A lot of us are thinking in buying some 1800x PCS:)

There are already public benchmarks of ryzens that include Corona benchmark (which uses embree), and performance is consistently good. We do not expect embree to slow down, so far it plays well even with bulldozer architecture.

where is the public benchmarks? I cant google it... does anybody know it?

[FrostKiwi]

Ondra refers to this image, originally published in a french magazine.
The scores shown are unfourtently aggrigated scores and there is no way to know how much the ryzen one actually scored vs other processors in Corona.
It still gives a rough estimate though. And to the user worrying about embree, as long as you support the instruction sets, it runs just great. Which is why the FX lineup actually rocks on the low spectrum of $/perf.

[karklinskarlis1993]

I think that we should wait June, for Naples =)  with dual Sockets MB.
Buy a new WS now isn't a good idea, in my opinion...  only if it's really necessary... Better to wait 4-5 months, if it's possible.

"The 32-core CPU, codename Naples, will feature simultaneous multithreading similar to the desktop platform we wrote about earlier, allowing for 64 threads per processor. Thus, in a dual socket system, up to 128 threads will be available. These development systems are currently in the hands of select AMD partners for qualification and development.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581/early-amd-zen-server-cpu-and-motherboard-details-codename-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017

as dual xeon user i am really interested in this one. how much would it cost? any performance gain predictable over 2670 x2?

[Ondra]

the official intel stance is that while they do not intentionally cripple performance on non-intel CPUs, they themselves optimize on Intel hardware, and program advanced instruction sets detection only for intel. Embree is open source and our review did not find anything that was aimed at harming AMD cpu performance. Worst case is that AVX would not be used - which itself does only ~ 10% difference on Intel CPUs. We are here talking about CPUs that cost 1/3 of Intel top hitters, so 10% slowdown is something you can take and still profit.

[Christa Noel]

the official intel stance is that while they do not intentionally cripple performance on non-intel CPUs, they themselves optimize on Intel hardware, and program advanced instruction sets detection only for intel. Embree is open source and our review did not find anything that was aimed at harming AMD cpu performance. Worst case is that AVX would not be used - which itself does only ~ 10% difference on Intel CPUs. We are here talking about CPUs that cost 1/3 of Intel top hitters, so 10% slowdown is something you can take and still profit.

that makes me wondering.. what makes them not doing prevention for non-intel cpu to use embree while the embree it self is developed by intel?

[cecofuli]

No, we haven't any news about dual AMD CPU system.

[Ondra]

that makes me wondering.. what makes them not doing prevention for non-intel cpu to use embree while the embree it self is developed by intel?

I would say part not being total dicks, part possible negative response from anti-monopoly regulators and general public ;)

[Christa Noel]

Finally AMD Ryzen is released.
-Ryzen 7 1800X, 8core/16thread, 3.6Ghz-4Ghz turbo, 95W, 499USD , cinebench:1617
-Ryzen 7 1700X, 8Core/16Tthread, 3.4GHz-3.8 GHz turbo, 95W, 399USD ,cinebench: 1532
-Ryzen 7 1700, 8Core/16Thread, 3.0 GHz- 3.7GHz turbo, 65W, 329USD ,cinebench: 1403

sources:
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r15_multi_core-8
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11143/amd-launch-ryzen-52-more-ipc-eight-cores-for-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd

the cinebench score is crazy. they hit the 1600 score with 500USD cpu.
cant wait for how coronabench score it.... :D
their server series Naples seems doesn't come in this pre-release.

[Nejc Kilar]

I think we can think about something around the 2minute mark for the 1800x :) Judging how it is faster than 6900k I think that would be a relatively safe assumption.

[cecofuli]

http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/

=)

[Nejc Kilar]

http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-price-war-ryzen-processors/

=)

Man I can't wait to see how Ryzen performs once the reviews get published. At this moment, even if the supposed price cuts you posted are true, Ryzen is still insanely valuable. I mean 6900k which is supposedly slower is still like 400$ more expensive than Ryzen.

Yeah, it has 40 PCI-E lanes but so far the gains of 4 GPUs on x4 APPEAR (not tested by myself) to faaaaar outweigh 2 GPUs on x8. I mean it isn't even a competition by any means.

I can see the appeal if you are really future-proofing yourself and plan on having 3+ PCI-E drives and 4 GPUs but other than that... It just seems like a hefty premium you pay. In that case I would even advocate a Xeon / Naples build with 80 lanes.

Granted though, currently the market for 4 PCI-E gpu motherboards on Ryzen is non-existent. I doubt however that that will be the case in the coming months though.

If you are CPU rendering and thinking about an i7 type of CPU... I really don't see much option but going the Ryzen way... If the published numbers are true that is. Great to see the CPU market be vibrant again!

[disoranno94]

It will function fine with corona in my opinion.

[hybaj]

It's here and it's amazing (for the price)

at 9:51 Corona render times!!!

I7-6900K - 128 seconds
Ryzen 1800X - 138 seconds

[Nejc Kilar]

Review roundup: https://videocardz.com/66826/amd-ryzen-7-review-roundup

Have fun people!

[LukaK]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-processor-review,11.html

Looks Ryzen is great in Corona :)

[cecofuli]

It's great to see how a 65W AMD CPU have only a 500.000 Rays/s less than 145 Watt! It's simple amazing!
Also, with a 1/3 of the price.
I think that I will wait for the new AMD 32 CPU core for our next renderfarm upgrade. Bye bye Xeon!

[Sintel]

I see Ryzen 7 better in many test. Seems there is something about optimization with RAM bus

[Christa Noel]

based on this https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,5624.msg95727.html#msg95727

When first implemented, embree made waaay bigger difference in Corona than 30% - it is líke some crazy unicorn pony magic!
I also tested embree on an AMD rig, and it was not significantly slower. I suspect Corona is slower there because I only develop and optimize on Intel. Maybe sometimes in the future I will try to optimize also on AMD.

With Ryzen at the door a lot of people will switch to AMD, maybe it is time to consider fine tuning Corona to be AMD friendlier.

that is the plan!

hi Ondra, I'm very interesting about "your optimization plan" you said before. I have few questions :)
when will you start to do it? :)
does it able to disturb most of corona features & bugfix development schedule? :/
and, approximately, how far will corona codes optimization increase the AMD Ryzen performance with corona? :D :D
thanx for polishing every potential side of technologies

[Fritzlachatte]

These days, there might be a lot of people, thinking of swithing to the great Ryzen CPUs. It sounds like real candy, if there would be some optimization potentials. But I think there is enough preasure on you guys to fulfill the deadline for 1.6 ;-) But mayyybeee .....?!

Have the AMD server CPUs in past been much more expensive, I always asked myself (and google) of buying the ryzen now or waiting for dual cpu naples systems, but not for >1000€ per CPU.
 
 

[Ondra]

we will get the chips, profile the performance, and see if there is some quick win we could do. But I cannot promise you anything. It is already performing well, so it is unlikely we would be able to get say another 20% boost.

[tomislavn]

Hmm that 1800X is like 30% slower then my dual 8c/16t Xeons :O Interesting!

[cecofuli]

And, I cannot image the next Naples CPU (32 cores and 64 threads)

[Nejc Kilar]

And, I cannot image the next Naples CPU (32 cores and 64 threads)

https://videocardz.com/67086/amd-previews-naples-server-processor-coming-q2-2017

Its a great time to be a hardware nerd / geek!

[cecofuli]

Naples is really amazing. I hope in the price =)

[lacilaci]

Naples is really amazing. I hope in the price =)

I hope too... So glad there is some competition going on... Always good for "prosumer".

[chopmeister]

My Ryzen 1800x build is done, so I'll post some benchmarks and comparisons when I have them. ;)

[tomislavn]

My Ryzen 1800x build is done, so I'll post some benchmarks and comparisons when I have them. ;)

Isn't that like the worst buy out of the 3 CPU-s currently available? From the benchmarks that I have seen both 1700 and 1700X reach 1800X scores with mild overclock and same temperature as their big brother - for like half the price.

Since 1800X doesn't really have much space for OC, it would seem to me that 1700 could easily be the best buy if you wanna go through some slight "hassle" with overclocking.

Or am I wrong?

[Juraj]

1800X might have better binning in silicon lottery, although only later statistics might prove that.

[tomislavn]

1800X might have better binning in silicon lottery, although only later statistics might prove that.

If it is to trust AMD, they are not binned on speed but rather voltage. At least through reviews they have all managed similar speeds (not even 100mhz difference tops). Voltage on the other hand was a limiting factor. Most 1700's would crash after crossing 1.4V where 1700X and 1800X would work good up to 1.5v vCore.

[chopmeister]

Isn't that like the worst buy out of the 3 CPU-s currently available? From the benchmarks that I have seen both 1700 and 1700X reach 1800X scores with mild overclock and same temperature as their big brother - for like half the price.

Since 1800X doesn't really have much space for OC, it would seem to me that 1700 could easily be the best buy if you wanna go through some slight "hassle" with overclocking.

Or am I wrong?

You're not wrong. :) But, given the total price of the build, the $100ish difference between 1700x and 1800x wasn't too big of a deal for me, and I'm not really into bothering with overclocking. I just wanted the one that is the fastest of the bunch out of the box. Otherwise I would have went with one of the other two.

[tomislavn]

You're not wrong. :) But, given the total price of the build, the $100ish difference between 1700x and 1800x wasn't too big of a deal for me, and I'm not really into bothering with overclocking. I just wanted the one that is the fastest of the bunch out of the box. Otherwise I would have went with one of the other two.

Sounds fair enough :) I am really looking forward to your results! Good luck with the machine :)

[lupaz]

Does anyone know which one of these is the fastest single threaded wise?
That would be a good balance for a workstation, no?

[FrostKiwi]

Does anyone know which one of these is the fastest single threaded wise?
That would be a good balance for a workstation, no?

The 7700k beat out even the 6950x in terms of single threaded performance, due to higher clock (and higher overclockabiltiy) and is current king of single thread performance.
However, if you aim for Rendering primarily, there is no reason to compromise on Multi-threaded performance, to gain single Threaded performance.

As such, in the mid tear price range Ryzen currently hold the lead for workstations in all 3D related fields.

[lupaz]

Does anyone know which one of these is the fastest single threaded wise?
That would be a good balance for a workstation, no?

However, if you aim for Rendering primarily, there is no reason to compromise on Multi-threaded performance, to gain single Threaded performance.

At least 3Ds Max is mostly single threaded when it comes to any regular commands.
Sometimes I'm waiting for a boolean operation to finish with only 10% of processing capacity working.
That's what I want to improve.

[burnin]

maybe it's finally time for AD to make those operations multithreaded

[mvshabeer]

maybe it's finally time for AD to make those operations multithreaded

Never gonna happen. They had a plan years ago called XBR - to rewrite max from scratch; It's dead. They could have done it :(

[lacilaci]

That sounds sad.

[cecofuli]

I've read about a new Ryzen CPU Desktop with 16 core ( 2,8 GHz  TDP 150 Watt) , quad channel about 1.000 euro (June 2017).
I don't know if it's good or not for us, especially because low GHz in single thread.

LINK

[Juraj]

I've read about a new Ryzen CPU Desktop with 16 core ( 2,8 GHz  TDP 150 Watt) , quad channel about 1.000 euro (June 2017).
I don't know if it's good or not for us, especially because low GHz in single thread.

LINK

Obligatory reminder: Take this with enough salt to kill a donkey

:- )

[tomislavn]

I've read about a new Ryzen CPU Desktop with 16 core ( 2,8 GHz  TDP 150 Watt) , quad channel about 1.000 euro (June 2017).
I don't know if it's good or not for us, especially because low GHz in single thread.

LINK

Obligatory reminder: Take this with enough salt to kill a donkey

:- )

I like salt :D - Anyway, that would be absolutely barbaric! 3k+ CB from a single cpu for 1k euros :D *wet eyes*

[Peksio]

Hello. I do not even know if this is stupid question but I have to know :P

In my country Intel i7 7700K is in the same price as Ryzen 1700. And You propably know what I try to find out ^^

I am working mostly in software like Maya, 3ds Max, UE4, Zbrush, Substanse Painter and of course Corona. I noticed that a lot of software is still running on one core. For example, unwrapping in 3ds max some functions in Maya and Zbrush too.

My whole body is screaming "Go for Intel" because of ~200% stronger one core power but ... I have to check If maybe raw power of Ryzen in application using mutlithreading is worth it ? What do You think ?

Thanks and Cheers !

[raulmontiel]

Hello. I do not even know if this is stupid question but I have to know :P

In my country Intel i7 7700K is in the same price as Ryzen 1700. And You propably know what I try to find out ^^

I am working mostly in software like Maya, 3ds Max, UE4, Zbrush, Substanse Painter and of course Corona. I noticed that a lot of software is still running on one core. For example, unwrapping in 3ds max some functions in Maya and Zbrush too.

My whole body is screaming "Go for Intel" because of ~200% stronger one core power but ... I have to check If maybe raw power of Ryzen in application using mutlithreading is worth it ? What do You think ?

Thanks and Cheers !

Just as you say, single core is better on the 7700k and probably your workstation will feel snappier overall, in the other hand an overcloked r7 1700 will perform at least 30% faster in rendering and it wont do a bad job in single core tasks, in my opinion i would go with the amd setup which i think is a more balanced sistem.

[Kallikroete]

Hello. I do not even know if this is stupid question but I have to know :P

In my country Intel i7 7700K is in the same price as Ryzen 1700. And You propably know what I try to find out ^^

I am working mostly in software like Maya, 3ds Max, UE4, Zbrush, Substanse Painter and of course Corona. I noticed that a lot of software is still running on one core. For example, unwrapping in 3ds max some functions in Maya and Zbrush too.

My whole body is screaming "Go for Intel" because of ~200% stronger one core power but ... I have to check If maybe raw power of Ryzen in application using mutlithreading is worth it ? What do You think ?

Thanks and Cheers !

I Think It's quite safe to say, that you can overclock the ryzen 1700 to 3.8ghz. As far as I know the 7700k can do around 5.0ghz. So the ryzen should be doing about 75% of the single core performance. But I have never tested single core performance in any of the programs.
Regarding multi threaded the overclocked ryzen scores in cinebench around 1600 and the oc'd 7700k score circa 1000. This gives the Intel chip around 62% of the ryzen multi thread performance.

Now you could compare these numbers to the time your cpu is busy doing single vs. Multi threaded work and you should get a rational answer which cpu saves you more time overall.

Personally I'm biased towards the ryzen 1700 since I just got one (upgrading from Xeon e3 1231 v3) and everytime I hit render I can't help but smile :)

[Peksio]

Thank You for Your asnwers. I was thinking about it and after all I decided that I spent much more time on modeling, texturing etc than on "raw" rendering. And I primarly want overall performance on all fields not only on rendering. So I am going for Intel. Thanks for help :-)

[Nejc Kilar]

Thank You for Your asnwers. I was thinking about it and after all I decided that I spent much more time on modeling, texturing etc than on "raw" rendering. And I primarly want overall performance on all fields not only on rendering. So I am going for Intel. Thanks for help :-)

I don't want to overcomplicate things for you but a 15% drop in single threaded performance might cause that blur effect in Photoshop to be completed 5 seconds sooner but the 50%+ decrease in render times might be much more noticeable :P Just saying, it ain't easy :)

[Ondra]

when in doubt, remember people pay 5-10 thousands € for dual xeon workstations with singlethreaded performance of a mainstream laptop ;)

[Juraj]

Single-threaded performance is overrated. You can't feel Windows/3dsMax/Photoshop/etc, being "snappier/livelier" after 3+ Ghz and those few actions that will be faster (certain modifier unfreezing after 5 seconds instead of 8) matters way less than rendering time finishing 2 hours faster.

You shouldn't even consider 4-core to be workstation in 2017.

Edit: Damn, nkilar wrote the same argument literally :- D

OK, so secondary argument is just having tons of stuff open at same time. You say you do more modelling and texturing then rendering ? That's still more Z-Brush projects open at same time alongside 50 chrome tabs and Photoshop swapping resources more effectively.

[xxxsalvo]

Anyone just use Ryzen? Which configuration do you use??

[Serj-3DVision]

I just ordered my ryzen based workstation, cant wait to test it
My config:
Ryzen 1700 cpu
Gigabyte AB350M motherboard
64 gb ram hyperx fury
512 gb samsung 850 pro ssd
PSU silverstone 700w

I decided to keep my old western digital 1tb storage and geforce gt740 graphic card, maybe will change later for something modern, but for meantime its more then enought because i dont need at all gpu rendering.

In feew days will update with corona benchmark)

[lupaz]

@Serj-3DVision:

Hi Serj,

Any comments on you Ryzen build so far?

[Serj-3DVision]

In one word - perfect.
Corona benchmark in 2:38 without OC on box cooler, which is for me just excellent do his job.

[lupaz]

Awesome.
Thanks.

Do you feel at all in single threaded operations that you're a bit sluggish or not really?

[twoheads]

In one word - perfect.
Corona benchmark in 2:38 without OC on box cooler, which is for me just excellent do his job.

Do you intend to OC your ryzen in the future?

[Serj-3DVision]

In one word - perfect.
Corona benchmark in 2:38 without OC on box cooler, which is for me just excellent do his job.

Do you intend to OC your ryzen in the future?

Not sure, maybe. For now it's just more just enough for me.


lupaz - for me no any noticeable difference between my new ryzen and old i7 4790K in software that i use.

[Christa Noel]

Not sure, maybe. For now it's just more just enough for me.


lupaz - for me no any noticeable difference between my new ryzen and old i7 4790K in software that i use.

ryzen 1700 = i7 4790K ??
did you mean the renderspeed doesn't has noticeable difference too?
I saw the corona benchmark, there is some difference there if I'm not wrong..

[Serj-3DVision]

Not sure, maybe. For now it's just more just enough for me.


lupaz - for me no any noticeable difference between my new ryzen and old i7 4790K in software that i use.

ryzen 1700 = i7 4790K ??
did you mean the renderspeed doesn't has noticeable difference too?
I saw the corona benchmark, there is some difference there if I'm not wrong..

I answered to lupaz question about single thread tasks speed feeling.

In multi-thread tasks like render for sure my 1700 about 2 times faster then i7 4790k.

[Nejc Kilar]

If I may chime in with my own opinion here... :)

A good indicator for a CPU speed in terms of rendering performance is also Cinebench - that includes single threaded performance.

The numbers you get there clearly indicate that the 4790k is faster than even the 1800x. Heck, the 4790k is faster than the 6950x ... In single threaded apps that is.

Now, I think the question to be asked here is whether you really care about that? So, say you get 20fps in your viewport heavy scene (specially true for c4d) and now your new CPU is 15% slower in single threaded speed.

Effectively, you are probably leaving what, 2-5 fps on the table?

Same goes for Photoshop. That dual Xeon build on 3.2ghz max is making your lens blur be slower for X seconds... Say you need to wait 6 seconds more on a 40 second effect.

So... Are those seconds really that important compared to you rendering 2 hours instead of 4 hours? Think about IR and those quick region renders that you need asap...

In that case I'd argue that multi-core speed will probably save you more time in the end.

Of course, there is no perfect tool (=hardware) for everyone. For me, personally, I'd rather balance the scale because the work I do includes the need for fast single threaded speed too. I mean overall, its good to have a well balanced rig and again, personally, I think the Ryzen series will give you that.

To be honest, comparing something like a 1800x will pull you into heavy Xeon territory with regards to prices. Then again, if you pick up a 2699 with 3.6-3.8 ghz of single threaded speed then of course, its going to be pulling close / ahead of Ryzen in both multi-core and single thread speeds... Just for a lot more money, of course.

That is why workstations usually balance the two, to an extent (you generally don't put 2.8ghz XX-core Xeons ni your workstation - although it might work dandy for a lot of people I guess). You either take a little bit of that multi-core power to enhance the single threaded stuff... or vice versa, depending on what you prefer really.

I don't want to make this a marketing post for Ryzen so I'll conclude by saying that if you were rolling on a 4790k (or 6700k or 7700k) then good luck finding that same single threaded speed in a 20 core Xeon. Will you notice it in your workflow? That is another question... Perhaps a nvme would speed things up more depending on what you do :)

Oh and PS: If you are doing a lot of sim work, marvelous designer type of stuff... Yeah, you NEED single threaded performance! Ryzen does have very good single threaded performance - The IPC is in the Broadwell-E range afaik.

And for some numbers:
(https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-2017-Intel-Core-i7-7700K-i5-7600K-Performance-879/)

Just my five cents :) Hope it helps and don't forget, everything is debatable :)

[lupaz]

Now, I think the question to be asked here is whether you really care about that? So, say you get 20fps in your viewport heavy scene (specially true for c4d) and now your new CPU is 15% slower in single threaded speed.

Effectively, you are probably leaving what, 2-5 fps on the table?

Thanks.
I'm not sure why you talk about fps though. I thought that was purely the video card.

In any case, I find that most operations in all software are single threaded, except for rendering. And those are the only times I need to wait. With corona IR, I can still see something without waiting much.
Once I want to render a full image, I just use a separate computer. 4hs or 6hs, I almost don't care.

I will go for a Ryzen too nevertheless. Everyone is talking wonders about it.
I was thinking on getting the 1700 as it comes with the cooler and when OCd gets close to the 1800x. Is this still the case or the 1800x was inproved? Do you know?

Thanks!

[Nejc Kilar]

Now, I think the question to be asked here is whether you really care about that? So, say you get 20fps in your viewport heavy scene (specially true for c4d) and now your new CPU is 15% slower in single threaded speed.

Effectively, you are probably leaving what, 2-5 fps on the table?

Thanks.
I'm not sure why you talk about fps though. I thought that was purely the video card.

Yup, valid point but that was just one example. If you are using 3ds max then yes, the CPU performance in that regard is less important compared to the GPU but in Cinema 4D for example (my main package) the CPU is suprisingly pulling a lot of weight for a lot of the operations that affect viewport fps.

Good catch though, if you are on 3ds max then you probably should focus on the Photoshop part of my post :P

edit:

Afaik the 1700 and 1800x are essentially the same chips. One was just able to get to a certain freq with less voltage / heat probably (they split these with binning at the factory). As always with OCing... You might get there but you also might not.

For the most part I think everyone gets to the 1800 levels though - do check the review sites.

[cecofuli]

New Ryzen 7 16 Core (32 thread) 3.6 Ghz . In short, it's Ryzen7 8 core x 2 , with quad channel.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-16-12-core-x399-whitehaven-cpus-leaked/

[lupaz]

Thanks! I was just about to buy ryzen 1800x
I guess the wait will be worthwhile

[cecofuli]

In general I use this rule: don't buy and Day1 any product. Wait the second genearation/revision or, if we speak about software, some Service Pack.

But, if you have money in your wallet ^__^ , it's better to wait the two CPU AMD Ryzen, called Naples.
It's a SINGLE CPU 32 Core (4x Ryzen 7), in a dual socket motherboard.  But, we are speacking about +4000 euro WS, I think
I think that CPU will be really big "as a size".

[Fritzlachatte]

it's better to wait the two CPU AMD Ryzen, called Naples

You are right, but there is a (very little) hope, those 16core CPUs could be in a less expensive region around <1000€, but the more I read ("Monstrous 4094 Pin Socket") I am afraid,
they just want to win the throne on the tower of power with a more INTELesque- Price. But the more on Ram and quadchannel etc. would be nice aswell. Hope I am just a croaker and the price is suitable.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-16-core-threadripper-whitehaven-4094-socket/

[lupaz]

On that link there's a nice comparison table with ryzen. Whitehaven (threadripper) is 3.1 vs 3.6 in ryzen.
For a workstation looks like a big difference, no?

I'm trying to think if it's worth waiting or not.
 It's says there it's coming mid 2017,but we know how long it takes to make a product stable.

What do you think?

[kothu]

In one word - perfect.
Corona benchmark in 2:38 without OC on box cooler, which is for me just excellent do his job.

Glad to hear that! :). I am also trying to build with 1800x or 1700x at the end of this month. Have you test about heavy PS work? 4k with a lot of layers etc. I also have dual xeon e5 2683v3 (got from ebay). Multithread performance is great! but single thread is slow (only  over 110 on cinebench r15 :( ). feel laggy in PS with 4k and a lot of layers. And also in 3ds max viewport performance:(

[cecofuli]

Ryzen 9 SPEC! WOW!!!

I hope  for the Ryzen 9 1998X <=1.000 euro.
I also want to see the price for the MB...

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-ryzen-9-high-end-cpu-specs-rumored/1100-6450064/

[agentdark45]

Ryzen 9 SPEC! WOW!!!

I hope  for the Ryzen 9 1998X <=1.000 euro.
I also want to see the price for the MB...

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-ryzen-9-high-end-cpu-specs-rumored/1100-6450064/

Yes this is great news! The 1998X might be the only chip that would make me upgrade from my current 12 core 3.1ghz Xeon. Also, as it's a consumer chip it will be overclockable and have great single core performance - great dual use chip, one of the usual downsides of WS chips.

OC'd the 1800x is getting ~ 1700pts in Cinebench, by comparison my 12 Core Xeon is getting ~ 1800pts. If the scaling on the 1998x is linear or even greater due to the IPC improvements in Zen+ we are in for a treat.

[lolec]

Preliminary benchmark for an internal version of the 1998




Will probably improve in the final version/ OC

[cecofuli]

Very good!!! Finally, after 5 years of +10 , + 20%  Intel CPU/Year improvements, we are able to see a good variant for a reasonable price.

[lacilaci]

Very good!!! Finally, after 5 years of +10 , + 20%  Intel CPU/Year improvements, we are able to see a good variant for a reasonable price.

Well for ~double the performance of 1800x the 1998x could actually be around ~1000 eur... I hope :D

[Juraj]

After all those pathetic quad-to-hexa cores that's finally a nice release :- )

I think the 1998 'X' version might break the 1k mark though.

Now to pair this with Vega/Volta gpu with 16gb memory and we have finally worthy workstation !

[cecofuli]

If AMD is "smart", the price should be 899 euro. But, we will see

[cecofuli]

i9 18/32 = $2.000

[burnin]

be aware, that's just on paper still...

[tomislavn]

By the way, for those not informed.. various guys have tested the new i9-7900X model with 10/20 cores and even massively overclocked (it is 3.3Ghz stock only) with all cores running at 4.5Ghz it is hitting like 2400-2450 tops in CinebenchR15 where then new Ryzen Threadripper 16/32 cores that is 100-150$ cheaper then Intel's 10/20 is getting 3200 points :)

Intel is kinda lost at the moment and they will have to play with prices to remain competitive :) Future is bright for us customers!

[steyin]

[Juraj]

By the way, for those not informed.. various guys have tested the new i9-7900X model with 10/20 cores and even massively overclocked (it is 3.3Ghz stock only) with all cores running at 4.5Ghz it is hitting like 2400-2450 tops in CinebenchR15 where then new Ryzen Threadripper 16/32 cores that is 100-150$ cheaper then Intel's 10/20 is getting 3200 points :)

Intel is kinda lost at the moment and they will have to play with prices to remain competitive :) Future is bright for us customers!

Pricewise...totally.

But now I am kind of interested how good can the 18-core i9 clock.

[cecofuli]

Well


(*) Cinebench R15 with Ryzen 7 8/16    = 1600 points   ($550)

(*) Cinebench R15 with Ryzen 9 16/32  = 3200 points   ($850)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cinebench R15 with i7 6950X 10/20 = 1850 points  ($1700)

Cinebench R15 with i9 7900X 10/20 = +-2400points?  ($1700)

Cinebench R15 with i9 7980XE 18/32 = +-4320 points?  ($2000)


PS: (the i9 score isn't 100% correct. We have to wait)


Of course, with this info, the i9 7980XE will be the winner,
But with 1x PC i9 7980XE ( MB are expensive), I think that you are able to build 2 or 2.5 x PC Ryzen 9 16/32.

[Juraj]

But with 1x PC i9 7980XE ( MB are expensive), I think that you are able to build 2 or 2.5 x PC Ryzen 9 16/32.

You write this every year :- ) And you could buy 10x i7 quad-core in 2014, which was very fashionable back than.

Anyway, the motherboards will be on same price level between these platforms this time, which is very much confirmed.
You will not buy 2-2.5x PCs.   1.5x is more accurate number.

I love the AMD's new chips but let's not stretch it into fantasy land. Full PCs are expensive in HEDT.


Case in point for PURE Nodes (cheap 50 euro GPU added):

Ryzen 9 16/32 = 900 euros (cheapest version with VAT in Europe)
64GB DDR4 = 700 euros (why 700 and not 500 ? Because of infinity fabric, let's not sacrifice performance)
MB = 250 euros
PSU+Cooler+Case+basic SSD+basic GPU = 500 euros
------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2350 euros

i9 7960X = 1800 euros (let's compare 16 to 16cores)
64GB DDR4 = 700 euros (except we don't need high clock here and could go for 500)
MB = 250 euros
PSU+Cooler+Case+basic SSD+basic GPU = 500 euros
------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3250 euros

1.4X coefficient. And that's for nodes. For high-end Workstations, it will be even less because the price of GPU will offset this into higher numbers.

Let's add GPU and it's 3000 vs 4000 euros.  1.3X coefficient.

So while 1K euro savings are HUGE, it's not 2-2.5X

[cecofuli]

ehehe...  every year! You made me laugh XD
You are right,  1.4x is the correct multiplier ))

[Rhodesy]

Good summary Juraj. Im just so excited about this years offerings compared to the last 3-4 years. Finally we are getting substantial speed jumps that will make a real difference to our working lives. The single CPU coefficient is fair and valid but maybe dual CPU in naples will widen the gap again if the AMD prices remain proportionally low as you dont need to double up on the RAM and case etc.

[cecofuli]

Yes I think that in September will be a very cool month, this year =)
I'm waiting for Napleas too.

[burnin]

EPYC leaks? ... from $400 up to over $4k
"AMD EPYC 7000 Series Server CPU Specifications, Performance and Pricing Detailed – Up To 32 Cores, 2 TB Memory Support, 128 PCIe Lanes and 3.2 GHz Turbo Clocks"

[hrvojezg00]

Or simply wait for some more xeon e5 v4 ES with higher turbo boost price drop and build a 6k+ cinebench r15 system for around 3k

[Juraj]

Good summary Juraj. Im just so excited about this years offerings compared to the last 3-4 years. Finally we are getting substantial speed jumps that will make a real difference to our working lives. The single CPU coefficient is fair and valid but maybe dual CPU in naples will widen the gap again if the AMD prices remain proportionally low as you dont need to double up on the RAM and case etc.

Based on the yesterday published pricing tables, looks like it's the same :- ) It's still 3k + if per cpu if you want the powerful units, but that's still better 30perc. cheaper than Intel (or rather, up to 50perc. more performance for same price).

I think some people expected the high-end line (22-32cores) to be less than, let's say 1.5-2k euro, and not the usual 3k+, but AMD doesn't need to disrupt the server pricing to such a point, they don't need HEDT and pro-sumer users to adopt these if those are fully satisfied with amazing Ryzen 9 chips and prices.

Or simply wait for some more xeon e5 v4 ES with higher turbo boost price drop and build a 6k+ cinebench r15 system for around 3k

Not happening..and that one chip is not ES :- ). Even the QS/OEM offerings are priced based on performance, not how old they are. Or maybe you mean waiting 2 years.
(machine you're thinking is about 4.8k with no GPU and 64gb ram right now, it's fantastic price for ridiculous machine, but it's not 3k anywhere in near time vicinity)

[hrvojezg00]

I`ve recently build one for around 3k, cpu`s were around 2k, the rest 1.5k or so. Its a node so didn`t invest in gpu, does 4800 cb15

[Juraj]

I`ve recently build one for around 3k, cpu`s were around 2k, the rest 1.5k or so. Its a node so didn`t invest in gpu, does 4800 cb15

And I've built with 4500 score for 2k. But it scales rapidly up and you mentioned '6000' score C15. And that's way pricier on ebay right now and will stay like that for next 2 years.

[hrvojezg00]

Sure, just wanted to note that I don`t see a reason to jump to new socket Intel/Amd since 2011 is still rocking.

[Juraj]

Sure, just wanted to note that I don`t see a reason to jump to new socket Intel/Amd since 2011 is still rocking.

Yes but it's kind of unfair to compare with grey-market (I love it as much as the next-person but for some people and business that is no-go) products and prices.

Back to Ryzen: Looks amazing.

[cecofuli]

Is this the Ryzen 9? O shit... I remember my first 386 SX...  ahahaha...
I cannot image Naples CPU size!

Anyway, a good option is to build a Naples CPU in september, with, for example, a good

EPYC 7281 16/32  2.7Ghz ($600)

then, in 2 years, when the price will go down, to do a strong upgrade with a

EPYC 7501 32/64 3.0 Ghz ($2700)


The

EPYC 7601 32/64 3.2 Ghz ($4000)

is too expensive for only +6.4 Ghz (200Mhz * 32)

[cecofuli]

--- OFFICIAL NEWS ---

August:

(*) Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (16 core 4.0 GHz) = $999

(*) Ryzen Threadripper 1920X (12 cor 4.0 GHz) = $799


--- LINK ---

[tomislavn]

EPYC 7501 32/64 3.0 Ghz ($2700)

That is just mental (corewise) and will definitely be my future upgrade :D Currently using Ryzen 1700X (3.8Ghz) machine (replaced my dual Xeons) which is working great!

[cecofuli]

Core i9-7920X (12 cores) = $1199

Core i9-7940X (14 cores) = $1399

Core i9-7960X (16 cores) = $1699

Core i9-7980X (18 cores) = $1999

=)

[danielmn]

Hey guys,
I got my Ryzen 7 1700x up and running.

the board and cpu combo cost $430.... achiieved over clock of 4.9 ghz but I left at 4.8 ghz...its more stable and runs cooler.


Been running inside max for about 2 days and about  6 hr and no problems so far. 

[Tanakov]

Hey, any of you have any real idea when does EPYC come out? Im kinda in the midle of looking for new PC build.

[cecofuli]

 EPYC isn't very good CPU for "us". Look at Corona Benchmark.  =)

[maru]

Ryzen APUs for notebooks have just been announced. I am looking forward to benchmark results. :)

[Ryuu]

EPYC isn't very good CPU for "us". Look at Corona Benchmark.  =)

The result in benchmark is not impressive, but I wouldn't make any judgements from just a single sample. There may be something wrong with that guy's HW configuration, etc.

We're planning to investigate Corona on Epyc. Maybe there will be some interesting optimization opportunities.

[Tanakov]

EPYC isn't very good CPU for "us". Look at Corona Benchmark.  =)

Still better performance than i9 in in the lower price range than intel.

30 sec? That sounds good to me.

EPYC isn't very good CPU for "us". Look at Corona Benchmark.  =)

The result in benchmark is not impressive, but I wouldn't make any judgements from just a single sample. There may be something wrong with that guy's HW configuration, etc.

We're planning to investigate Corona on Epyc. Maybe there will be some interesting optimization opportunities.

Well, Im not sure what to say, Thread Ripper 1950~ is 1:30~ so I dont get it... what is wrong with Epyc?

[Ryuu]

Well, so far:

ThreadRipper 1950X scores at 1 minute at the benchmark, while dual Epyc 7551 is at 30 seconds.

That's not that great considering that the dual Epyc has 4x as much cores as the ThreadRipper.

It's even worse when you consider that the ThreadRipper costs around 1k USD while the Epycs cost 2x 3.2k USD (+ increased cost of motherboard, power supply, etc.). 6.5x price is too much premium for twice as much performance for most people.

Granted, I'm comparing Epyc to the best ThreadRipper result which was probably overclocked. But the median TR result is around 1:12 which is not that much different.

But again, that's just from a single Epyc sample and I don't like to draw any general conclusions without having enough data.

[Tanakov]

Well, so far:

ThreadRipper 1950X scores at 1 minute at the benchmark, while dual Epyc 7551 is at 30 seconds.

That's not that great considering that the dual Epyc has 4x as much cores as the ThreadRipper.

It's even worse when you consider that the ThreadRipper costs around 1k USD while the Epycs cost 2x 3.2k USD (+ increased cost of motherboard, power supply, etc.). 6.5x price is too much premium for twice as much performance for most people.

Granted, I'm comparing Epyc to the best ThreadRipper result which was probably overclocked. But the median TR result is around 1:12 which is not that much different.

But again, that's just from a single Epyc sample and I don't like to draw any general conclusions without having enough data.

Thank you for taking time to explain all that.

[3dboomerang]

hey guys;

putting together a renderstation; i have a few questions...

for those amoung you who have free time on your hands, please have a look and tell me where there is room for improvement. Goal is to have CPU power and RAM; I can't be bothered with GPU power since Corona is still CPU-only: see attachment

There is room for GPU expantion in the future perhaps, but not needed at this point.

I'm troubled with the RAM cause I don't really know if it's a necessity to have DDR4 Ram for example, instead of DDR3 which is cheaper. Can someone enlighten me as to where RAM DDR3 or DDR4 comes into play when rendering + the Mhz of it - will I feel a difference when using 2166Mhz instead of 3600Mhz?...

grts