Like you mention, previous generation CPUs, even high core count variants are floating around in the second hand market and I got myself an OEM variant of the E5-2699v3 (E5-2696v) about two years back for around $700 from China via eBay (“extremely affordable”).
The W-2195 goes toe-to-toe in the multithreaded test against the TR 1950X, but easily wins against it in the single threaded test.
Intel power gadget 3.0 software#
High IPC and high frequency gives performance in ST, whereas having good scaling and many cores is where the MT test wins out.Ĭinebench is a 'classic' benchmark, despite being four generations behind the Cinema4D software at this point. The latest version of CineBench has also become one of those 'used everywhere' benchmarks, particularly as an indicator of single thread performance.
Intel power gadget 3.0 code#
Our version and benchmarking started just before that was happening, but given time we will see where the POV-Ray code ends up and adjust in due course. It just so happens that during the run up to AMD's Ryzen launch, the code base started to get active again with developers making changes to the code and pushing out updates. In this instance, aside from seeing the comparison in each coding mode for cores and IPC, we also get to see the difference in performance moving from a C++ based code-stack to an OpenCL one with a CPU as the main host.Īnother regular benchmark in most suites, POV-Ray is another ray-tracer but has been around for many years. LuxMark v3.1: LinkĪs a synthetic, LuxMark might come across as somewhat arbitrary as a renderer, given that it's mainly used to test GPUs, but it does offer both an OpenCL and a standard C++ mode. The W-2104 is pushing against the Core i5-6600K, despite the lower frequency, due to the quad-channel memory in play. Being one of the bigger open source tools out there, it means both AMD and Intel work actively to help improve the codebase, for better or for worse on their own/each other's microarchitecture.īlender is a very threaded test, but not completely, as we can see with the W-2195 still trailing even the Core i9-7960X. We managed to wrap up a standard workload into the February 5 nightly build of Blender and measure the time it takes to render the first frame of the scene. Blender 2.78: linkįor a render that has been around for what seems like ages, Blender is still a highly popular tool. The difference between the W-2195 and the Core i9-7980XE is much more as we expect for a fully MT test, with the W-2155 trading blows with the TR 1920X and the lower quad-core SKUs bringing up the rear. Corona likes to pile on the threads, so the results end up being very staggered based on thread count.Ĭorona is very multi-threaded, so we expect most of the chips to push their legs on this one. The official benchmark tables list user submitted results in terms of time, however I feel rays per second is a better metric (in general, scores where higher is better seem to be easier to explain anyway). OK, it's more complicated than that, but the benchmark renders a fixed scene six times and offers results in terms of time and rays per second. Corona 1.3: linkĬorona is a standalone package designed to assist software like 3ds Max and Maya with photorealism via ray tracing.
Intel power gadget 3.0 windows#
Here we take a few of the usual rendering packages under Windows 10, as well as a few new interesting benchmarks.Īll of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench. Sometimes rendering programs end up being heavily memory dependent as well - when you have that many threads flying about with a ton of data, having low latency memory can be key to everything.
Rendering tests are a long-time favorite of reviewers and benchmarkers, as the code used by rendering packages is usually highly optimized to squeeze every little bit of performance out. Benchmarking Performance: CPU Rendering Tests
0 kommentar(er)
