6 ms·

That Blender result is nonsense, they screwed up the test somehow. This is a better comparison: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2125?vs=2519 https://ww

by zrm 6y ago

That Blender result is nonsense, they screwed up the test somehow. This is a better comparison: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2125?vs=2519 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2125?vs=2519 The 3900X has 50% more cores and Blender is embarrassingly parallel, so it's more than 50% faster, as expected. That's the real question for whether it's worth it. For single threads the 3900X will be 10-20% faster. For well-threaded applications it's >60% faster. Keep in mind that the 2700X still has a resale value of over $200, so if you're selling one and buying the other it's not a very expensive upgrade. But the value proposition is a lot better if you can use the extra cores. (Of course, if you can't and you just want the single-thread performance improvement, there's always the 3700X.)

onli 6y ago
It's a presentation issue. The benchmark data agrees with you, the transformation from "lower is better" to "higher is better" makes the result misleading. That needs a better solution, showing that the difference is actually quite high.
- zrm 6y ago
  It's not a presentation issue, the pc-kombo.com site is just a garbage. In one of the Blender graphs it has the 3900X as "10839" and the 2700X as "10732" (very close together), but it links to the Anandtech results where the actual numbers are 161 and 268, not close together at all and completely different numbers. In another graph it links to a "source" where the 2700X isn't even on the page. Their graphs are completely fictional, probably as a result of bad data scraping code since it looks like they're just pulling results (inaccurately) from other sites.
  - onli 6y ago
    Look at the worst result in the anandtech benchmark. Remember what I said about converting from "lower is better" to "higher is better". It is a presentation issue. If the 2700X is not on the source page that page either got changed or it's a combined benchmark that was presented in multiple articles. In which benchmark do you see that?
    - zrm 6y ago
      This is that page: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+9+3900X&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700X https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5... This is the Anandtech benchmark that it links to from the first Blender graph (you can click on the graph): https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 The numbers on that page for the 3900X and 2700X bear no resemblance to the ones in the graph that links to it. Compare to their first 7zip graph which links here and contains the actual numbers for the 3900X and 2700X, because they evidently scraped that one correctly: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 This is the page they link for the second Blender graph: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-3970x-test/2/#diagramm-test-blender-benchmark https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3... The numbers in their graph don't match what that page has for the 3900X and the 2700X doesn't appear on that page at all.
      - onli 6y ago
        Computerbase hides some benchmark results by default. Click at the top right "+29 Einträge" to see 29 processors more, including the 2700X. I understand that the number in that specific benchmarks is confusing right now. Again, that's from the conversion done for the "lower is better" benchmarks. That's why it's not the same number, just the same distance. I hope a better solution can be used soon.
        zrm 6y ago
        It's not the same distance though. The way to convert "lower is better" to "higher is better" is to invert the results, e.g. convert seconds per render to renders per second. You take 1/X where the original number was X. Or do renders per day if you don't want results as small fractions, which just means multiplying the inverted results by a constant, e.g. the number of seconds per day. For both the Anandtech and Computerbase Blender results, the 2700X takes ~60% longer in reality, which is ~66% more renders per second (which is the same percentage more per day), but the difference in the length of the bars on pc-kombo.com is <10% for Computerbase and ~1% for Anandtech. Something has gone wrong there.

by zrm 6y ago

onli 6y ago

It's a presentation issue. The benchmark data agrees with you, the transformation from "lower is better" to "higher is better" makes the result misleading. That needs a better solution, showing that the difference is actually quite high.

zrm 6y ago
It's not a presentation issue, the pc-kombo.com site is just a garbage. In one of the Blender graphs it has the 3900X as "10839" and the 2700X as "10732" (very close together), but it links to the Anandtech results where the actual numbers are 161 and 268, not close together at all and completely different numbers. In another graph it links to a "source" where the 2700X isn't even on the page. Their graphs are completely fictional, probably as a result of bad data scraping code since it looks like they're just pulling results (inaccurately) from other sites.
- onli 6y ago
  Look at the worst result in the anandtech benchmark. Remember what I said about converting from "lower is better" to "higher is better". It is a presentation issue. If the 2700X is not on the source page that page either got changed or it's a combined benchmark that was presented in multiple articles. In which benchmark do you see that?
  - zrm 6y ago
    This is that page: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+9+3900X&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+2700X https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids%5... This is the Anandtech benchmark that it links to from the first Blender graph (you can click on the graph): https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2247 The numbers on that page for the 3900X and 2700X bear no resemblance to the ones in the graph that links to it. Compare to their first 7zip graph which links here and contains the actual numbers for the 3900X and 2700X, because they evidently scraped that one correctly: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2240 This is the page they link for the second Blender graph: https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3960x-3970x-test/2/#diagramm-test-blender-benchmark https://www.computerbase.de/2019-11/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3... The numbers in their graph don't match what that page has for the 3900X and the 2700X doesn't appear on that page at all.
    - onli 6y ago
      Computerbase hides some benchmark results by default. Click at the top right "+29 Einträge" to see 29 processors more, including the 2700X. I understand that the number in that specific benchmarks is confusing right now. Again, that's from the conversion done for the "lower is better" benchmarks. That's why it's not the same number, just the same distance. I hope a better solution can be used soon.
      - zrm 6y ago
        It's not the same distance though. The way to convert "lower is better" to "higher is better" is to invert the results, e.g. convert seconds per render to renders per second. You take 1/X where the original number was X. Or do renders per day if you don't want results as small fractions, which just means multiplying the inverted results by a constant, e.g. the number of seconds per day. For both the Anandtech and Computerbase Blender results, the 2700X takes ~60% longer in reality, which is ~66% more renders per second (which is the same percentage more per day), but the difference in the length of the bars on pc-kombo.com is <10% for Computerbase and ~1% for Anandtech. Something has gone wrong there.