_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM
You couldn’t see anywhere? How strange; it’s so obvious. You can either apply the percentage advantage to a long time frame, or simply read through the linked article for the raw data. Out of the “bunch of random apps” (actually a carefully chosen range to represent the likely uses of the CPUs) there are three 3D rendering programs.
The Blender render took 42 seconds with the i7-3960X, and 56 seconds with the FX-8150.
The 3DSMax render took 1 minute 56 seconds with the 3860X, and 3 minutes 10 seconds with the 8150.
The Solidworks render took 1 minute 47 seconds with the Intel, and 3 minutes 24 seconds with the AMD.
Those aren’t fractions of a second. There isn’t a Bryce result, no; but given that Bryce makes big use of floating point operations whereas the AMD emphasises integer operations, my estimation is that Bryce will be at the top end of any advantage scale. Extrapolate those results out to typical Bryce render times and they become a significant improvement.
Worth the money? Buyer’s call. But the advantage is real and easy to see. To double-down on the claim of “fractions of a second” is simply to relay misinformation.
Well first of all you keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment which I already stated was based on the notion it was a different kind of test that measured the actual speed. I can only presume it’s your blind devotion to the defense of Intel that has caused you to ignore that and keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment. You’re estimation and extrapolation based on programs not even remotely similar to bryce? In other words it’s your opinion that Intel is the better choice for Bryce but you have no hard evidence to support that opinion.
_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM
Why not? What results led you to conclude that the FX-8150 is significantly different to the i5-2500K? In the link I gave, the two are shown close with an advantage to the 2500K. Other results in various tests show the two close with the advantage going the other way. Given that the 2500K was older and cheaper than the 8150 when the latter launched, it’s fair to say that it’s always given it a run for its money. The AMD was quickly discounted whereas the Intel remains close to its launch price despite the arrival of its successor.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following PC developments.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html
My conclusion comes from the 4 tests, two where Intel wins, two where it loses. That does not say to me that the Intel is better. At best it says to me they’re equal. Also you’re making alot of your case on the results of the AMD processor when it was first released about a year ago. I could point to past releases of Intel where they failed badly at release but then a few months later improved performance with hotfixes.
_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM
Not spin - objective facts derived from testing - with links. AMD has occasionally been price / performance competitive at the high end of the desktop market. Now it’s only price / performance competitive at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water. This is nothing to do with brand preference - just facts. The A8 is such a good entry CPU for 3D rendering (i.e. floating point calculations) that it outperforms its own replacement - which is based on the integer favouring architecture “Piledriver”, the Bulldozer replacement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-11.html
Sorry I’m still seeing spin. Extrapolations based on your estimations aren’t objective facts, they’re subjective opinion with links that seem to support your opinion but really don’t. Then here now you try to further muddy the waters by comparing APU’s to other APU’s that aren’t even released yet. You also completely ignore from your own link this little tidbit “APUs aren’t being positioned as great solutions for workstations”. So why exactly are we now talking about APU’s? APU’s are in their infancy and if you look at computer technology historically things in their infancy quite often don’t do as well as the hype, even with Intel. RDRAM comes to mind. So yeah if you want to play that game of make the company look bad by highlighting it’s mistakes that can go both ways. AMD has always beat Intel price wise and still does, it’s only the performance arena where AMD hasn’t been as competitve as many would like
_ PJF _ - 30 September 2012 03:47 PM
Well, no, you’re not. The original poster specifically asked what would be the very best setup for Bryce and what would be the minimum / efficient. Any useful answer will include those parameters along with some guide as to the price / performance trade off. Advice that a $1000 CPU based system will give you mere fractions of a second advantage over a $200 CPU based system is not useful because it isn’t true.
It’s one thing to extrapolate and make conjecture on what an artical says but please don’t do it with what I said. I didn’t advise the OP to buy what I put up for a configuration, I said that’s what I would buy and that my choices weren’t strictly centered around what would be best for Bryce. I also told him that to answer his question for the very best and the minimum efficient was impossible with the limited info he provided. Further I made the point that CPU preference was very important to being able to answer his questions because if a person is an AMD only person then it would be a waste of time and energy to try to convince them they should go with Intel. Just as it would be a waste of time to try to convince an Intel only person that it would be better for them to go with an AMD. I’m not here to sell particular brands, I don’t get kickbacks from companies if I convince someone to switch to thier brand. So I’m not going to play that game like you’re trying to do and that is why the very first thing I said to the OP was, “Well it kind of depends on a couple of things. First of all are you and Intel only person, and AMD only person or are you open to either option?” Also the comparrison of the AMD CPU to the Intel CPU that I made was just an example of the point that competing model to competing model AMD is significantly cheaper. Let me put that in simpler terms so maybe you can grasp it this time, that was an example of the differences between Intel and AMD not a reccomendation. I had hoped it might draw the OP out into stating his CPU preference so I might be better able to answer his question based on his criteria. I certainly wasn’t looking for some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot because I mentioned AMD is cheaper. Nor thru that Intel fan’s response, try to trample over my opinion rather then answer the OP’s question with his own opinion.
Frankly your whole response here has pretty much ignored the OP’s question and focused on attacking my opinion. Presumably because you didn’t like what I said to you in another thread where once again you were arguing minutiae while disrespecting someone else’s opinion, much like you are doing here now. That and clearly you’re biased in favor of Intel.
