4 ms·
> Blender Benchmark Maybe use a benchmark that actually makes sense for CPUs, rather than something that's always much faster on a GPU (eg. M3 Pro as any sane
by wtallis 2y ago
> Blender Benchmark
Maybe use a benchmark that actually makes sense for CPUs, rather than something that's always much faster on a GPU (eg. M3 Pro as any sane user would use it for Blender is 2.7x the performance of a Ryzen 7950X, not 0.4x).
> Apple Mac mini, 32gb, M2 Ultra, 2TB SSD, $2600
Not a real thing. You meant M2 Pro, because the Max and Ultra chips aren't available in the Mac mini.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoI would love to quote a compiler comparison, but I don't know a good and accepted compiler benchmark. What would you use as a compiler benchmark? (Preferably Go, but I assume Rust would be better, as it is much slower, so the differences are bigger) (corrected my c&p mistake with the mini, thanks)
- codewithcheese 2y agoThink chromium compile is widely used
- KingOfCoders 2y agoCan you point me to a comparison site? Didn't find a M3/M2/7950/... comparison site for chromium compile times :-( (Even phoronix is scares and mostly focuses on laptops - I have no laptop)
- pquki4 2y agoThere probably isn't a site that just comparess chromium compilation time, but you can find the number in many YouTube and text reviews.
- phonon 2y agoYou can look at the Geekbench 6 component. https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals.pdf https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals... (page 18)
- KingOfCoders 2y agoThanks, Clang looks good, now I need to check how to sort CPUs/systems by the Clang benchmark, no success for now. "Randomly" picking 14900K 215.3 Klines/sec 7950x 230.3 Klines/sec M2 Ultra 233.9 Klines/sec M3 Max 196.5 Klines/sec
- aurareturn 2y agoSingle thread: M3 Max: 3898 7950x: 2951 The ST advantage of Apple Silicon is real. 7950x does do better in highly parallel tasks. To me, Apple Silicon is clearly leading clients over AMD/Intel. Hence, my original reason for why AMD's announcement isn't "exciting". Because Apple Silicon is so far ahead in client. Of course, AMD can crank up the core via Epyc/Threadripper and Apple has no answer. For that, you'd need to look into ARM chips from Ampere/Amazon for a competitor.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoYes, and is great if you are a gamer / have software that doesn't multi-core.
- hajile 2y agoOr if you don't want to blow out the power bill. A 7950x system at IDLE uses 50% more power than an M3 Max going all-out on a CPU workload. https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review/page-7/ https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review/page-...
- KingOfCoders 2y agoYes, if you have very expensive power, then this is a consideration.
- JonChesterfield 2y agoBuilding clang using itself is a reasonable approximation to a compiler benchmark, speaking as someone who spends a depressing fraction of his life doing that over and over for permutations of the source code. That's somewhere in the five to ten minutes range on a decent single socket system.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoDo you know of a benchmark site that compares clang compilations for different systems (CPU/RAM/SSD)?
- bee_rider 2y agoIs blender 100% GPU now? Last time I used it, there were multiple renderers available, and it wasn’t a 100% win to switch to GPU. IIRC the cpu did better in ray tracing(?). This was a couple years ago though so things may have changed or I might not be recalling correctly.
- wtallis 2y agoI think GPU rendering was always faster as long as you had a supported GPU. Now that the Cycles renderer has support for all the major GPU APIs/vendors, the only reasons to render on the CPU are if you don't have a half-decent GPU, or if your scene doesn't fit in your GPU's memory. Neither of those are a concern on Apple systems. At least on NVIDIA hardware, Blender can use the GPU's raytracing capabilities rather than just the general-purpose GPU compute capabilities. Which means it doesn't take a very expensive GPU at all to outperform high-end CPUs.