We ran several off-the-shelf games on their highest visual quality settings at 4K resolution. The next step is to see how this translates into real games at real resolutions. Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Performance The newly released 3DMark Time Spy Extreme 1.1 favors Intel in its CPU test. It’s unlikely this is all a clock speed advantage. The overall score itself was basically a tie, with the Core i9 box hitting 8,864 and the Threadripper box scoring 8,630. If you dig into the sub-score focusing on the CPU, though, the Core i9 again has a performance edge by about 20 percent. Here’s how nearly identical PCs perform in the brand new 3DMark Time Spy Extreme 1.1. Luckily, we had it in time to run on our pair of Falcon PCs. 3DMark Time Spy Extreme 1.1 Performanceįuturemark has been hard at work creating an Extreme version of its new DirectX12 benchmark. The Core i9 still comes out ahead by 8 percent, but at least it isn’t the blowout we saw in Corona or Blender.ģDMark Time Spy also gives the nod to Intel. Like most encoders, Handbrake favors having more cores, and we see the two chips in the same neighborhood at least.
#1950x cinebench 1080p
Handbrake Performanceįor encoding, we ran our standard test, which tasks the free Handbrake encoder with converting a 30GB 1080p MKV file using the Android Tablet preset. In single-threaded tasks, the advantage Core i9 has over Threadripper is much clearer. Again, this is likely due to the clock speed advantage of the Intel chip over its AMD counterpart. IDGħ-Zip on multi-threaded tests has both CPUs fairly close in performance.ħ-Zip also features a single-threaded test, the results of which are no surprise: The Core i9 comes out about 21 percent faster than the Threadripper part. Using the internal benchmark, the Core i9 is about 9 percent faster. Moving on to a compression test, we use the popular and free 7-Zip to measure how fast each machine is at handling file compression. IDGĪMD showcased the Corona Benchmark for the Threadripper launch, but in a matched 16-core vs. Let’s remind everyone that it was AMD who recommended the Corona Renderer test. Ouch again.īenchmarks can be easily become political footballs, with one side’s fans claiming a test is cooked to favor the other. Where Cinebench and POV-Ray put the two CPUs fairly close, Corona Renderer 1.3 puts the Threadripper about 19 percent slower than the Core i9. When it’s 16-on-16, though, things go a little sideways. Corona Renderer 1.3 PerformanceĬorona Renderer was first introduced with AMD’s Threadripper, and it was used to soundly trounce Intel’s 10-core Core i9-7900X chip because 16 > 10. Using the popular BMW benchark load in Blender, The Core i9 has a small advantage over Threadripper. So who leads the way here? In the chart below (showing Blender using the BMW benchmark), lower scores are better in rendering, and the Core i9 has a double-digit lead over the Threadripper part. Even NASA uses Blender these days to produce 3D models.īlender was also the benchmark of choice AMD used when it first unveiled its Zen CPU last year.
#1950x cinebench movie
IDGīlender is an open-source 3D modeler that sees a lot of use by independent movie makers for effects sequences. (We’ll get into just how much of a clock speed advantage that is later on.) There’s no denying that on lightly threaded loads, Core i9 has the advantage.
As with Cinebench, we see a very clear advantage go to the Core i9, mostly due to the clock speed advantage the Intel chip holds. POV-Ray also supports running in single-threaded mode.
The AMD machine is hand-painted in luscious Red Clouds, while the Intel machine is hand-painted in the striking Cobalt Clouds. Other than the CPU and motherboard, the only other big difference is the color. We decided to keep both machines at DDR4/2400 to match in price as well as capability. At the time of our story, Falcon had qualified 128GB of RAM up to DDR4/3000 speeds for the Intel system, while the highest-clocked RAM on the Threadripper system when using 8 DIMMS was DDR4/2400. We matched carefully in most other areas. The Intel system has somewhat higher read speeds, while the AMD system has somewhat higher write speeds. Looking at the read and write performance of both machines, the difference doesn’t seem to matter much. Since then, AMD has introduced support for NVMe RAID. After all, at the time we requested the machines in early September, RAID 0 using NVMe drives was available only on the Intel platform (not VROC, but using the X299 chipset) not on AMD’s X399.
We settled for this variance so as not to hobble the Intel box.
0 kommentar(er)
