3 ms·
The 2990wx blew everything out of the water in rendering. It's like 37% faster than the 7980xe in the Blender benchmark.
by nv-vn 8y ago
The 2990wx blew everything out of the water in rendering. It's like 37% faster than the 7980xe in the Blender benchmark.
- ekianjo 8y agoFaster with 2x more cores and twice more power consumption. Hardly a win in my book - it means each core is way weaker and power hungry. Intel will easily match that sometimes soon without sweating.
- snovv_crash 8y agoHow much power would an Intel based system need to get that 40% performance boost?
- CarVac 8y agoIf you check Phoronix, they found it doesn't actually take much more power than the 7980XE.
- mrb 8y agoCheck your numbers. In that Blender benchmark, AMD is actually 58% faster (152/96), has 78% more cores (32/18), and its TDP is 52% higher (250/165).¹ https://www.anandtech.com/show/13124/the-amd-threadripper-2990wx-and-2950x-review/8 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13124/the-amd-threadripper-29... This means AMD manages to execute more work per watt (more energy efficient), and each AMD core uses less power than Intel. ¹ Anantech wrongly lists the TDP as 140W. It's in fact 165W: https://ark.intel.com/products/126699/Intel-Core-i9-7980XE-Extreme-Edition-Processor-24_75M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz https://ark.intel.com/products/126699/Intel-Core-i9-7980XE-E...
- kilo_bravo_3 8y agoA Corona 1.3 benchmark between the i9-7980XE and the 2990WX saw, in that workload, the 2990WX 28% faster than the i9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9sMfWmCsk&feature=youtu.be&t=8m19s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9sMfWmCsk&feature=youtu.be... Its power consumption was 19% higher than the i9-7980XE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9sMfWmCsk&feature=youtu.be&t=26m7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9sMfWmCsk&feature=youtu.be... Tom's Hardware saw a stock 2990WX at a lower power consumption than a stock i9-7980XE during a Prime95 "torture loop". Overclocked, the AMD part was higher than the Intel one, but only slightly. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2-2990wx-2950x,5725-13.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-... Where have you seen that it has double the power consumption? Under what workloads? Personally, I don't care about "weaker cores". If a system has 2048 cores clocked at 7 THz and it is 20% faster at my workload than a single-core CPU at 700 MHz, it is faster. The fact that the "weaker cored" system is cheaper than the "burly muscly" single core system is a bonus. Power consumption doesn't even matter that much either. It is the equivalent to a single 60W light bulb (or several of those new-fangled LED bulbs). Big whoop.
- Symmetry 8y agoIf I were Pixar and was running one of these 24/7 then, well, it's theoretically possible that the extra you pay in electricity would make up for the lower capital price. But for a hobbyist running this at most 10 hours a week I really doubt that that's a consideration. But more importantly, The Tech Report looked at task energy for the Threadripper in rendering tasks and found that it took less energy to finish a render than competitorys. It's power was higher but the time was shorter to an even greater extent. https://techreport.com/review/33977/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx-cpu-reviewed/13 https://techreport.com/review/33977/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2... So if you're so serious about rendering that you're willing to spend thousands on a good rig for it there really isn't any reason not to use this boy.
- nv-vn 8y ago2x core count hardly ever offers anywhere near a 100% performance gain, even across Intel's lineup [1]. Very few workloads are that parallelizeable, and almost everything (from the program to the OS to the CPU itself) introduces some form of overhead when running in parallel. [1] https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7820X/3096vs3038 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i9-7960X-vs-...