In a way, yes. Most reviewers simply do not know how to benchmark workflows that 3D artists use in Blender or CInema 4D. Nobody uses the CPU to render working with these kind of applications.
In a way, yes. Most reviewers simply do not know how to benchmark workflows that 3D artists use in Blender or CInema 4D. Nobody uses the CPU to render working with these kind of applications.It is better simply on basis of including GPU and shows how much faster those are at this kind of tasks.
Geekbench 6 Ray Tracer scaling is 52-55x (I only looked at two results). So it seems to scale a bit better than CB R24.According to Techspot/HUB, scaling is 48x for the 7980X in CB 2024. Anandtech shows 52x scaling in CB R23.
I like TechGage, they are like the first reviewer i noticed to test GPUs for pro work, when everyone else did only games.In a way, yes. Most reviewers simply do not know how to benchmark workflows that 3D artists use in Blender or CInema 4D. Nobody uses the CPU to render working with these kind of applications.
Go on chips and cheese site, they say that there is quite bit more trips to RAM,
LTT posted Threadripper 7000 results a) with quad-channel and b) dual-channel RAM. I am not sure if it was DDR5-5200 or -6400 in those tests, seemingly the latter.Could be the higher RAM bandwidth that helps the CB2024 renderer.
I have to disagree with this statement. Many multithreaded applications (like your web browser) do the opposite approach…like your web browser. (1 process per tab…50 tabs, 50 processes).This edition, even though memory bound, is a much better benchmark among renderers. Regardless of single core or multi core, all of the CPU works in tandem to render a SINGLE tile, unlike the previous versions. It is closer to how MT scaling works in the real world. Kind of like Geekbench 6.
I have to disagree with this statement. Many multithreaded applications (like your web browser) do the opposite approach…like your web browser. (1 process per tab…50 tabs, 50 processes).
Except Firefox. Maybe more a badly designed Javascript infested web page issue but it's there. Often imgur.com will spike the CPU utilization up to 100% when no imgur tab is currently open. Seems the JS process is not killed when the imgur tab is closed.Tabs that are not active are usually put to sleep on any modern browser.
Those numbers are wrong, scaling should be measured at same frequency, using a 5GHz+ ST test to compute scaling with a MT score at 4GHz is forcibly terribly inaccurate, real number is at 0.7-0.75x, wich is still not impressive but surely better than GB5/6.According to Techspot/HUB, scaling is 48x for the 7980X in CB 2024. Anandtech shows 52x scaling in CB R23.
What is needed is that people stop looking at an aggregated score as if it could represent the real performance of every workload.Even for the workloads GB6 is supposed to be measuring, many of them do scale beyond what GB6 will do.
What is really needed is a hybrid score that can represent both.
That'd be very interesting but quite a demanding task. And a frustrating one as you'll have people criticizing your work because it doesn't match what they believe and their biases. Or just because they're convinced they know so much better than you.Note that I am investigating the possibility of building an open source benchmark similar to GB 5/6.
My results were done on tight 5600 MT and I was under the impression that the scores are high enough to not be memory or Ring bottlenecked. This might also depend on the number of cores/threads being served by the memory, so those quad channel CPUs might benefit more from memory bandwidth because of their high core-count.Could be the higher RAM bandwidth that helps the CB2024 renderer.
Yeah. Those beasty cores want moar data to munch on. Makes sense that more memory channels feed them better.so those quad channel CPUs might benefit more from memory bandwidth because of their high core-count.
Not a good example. The use case for browser tabs is that once you load the page, it usually does not do any more computing work. If you have 50 tabs, 49 of them are using 0 CPU. Occasionally, you might have a tab with an active compute need but it's usually very low.I have to disagree with this statement. Many multithreaded applications (like your web browser) do the opposite approach…like your web browser. (1 process per tab…50 tabs, 50 processes).
Yeah, I agree adblocking is great and highly recommended. But when not doing so you absolutely have tabs wasting compute just for cycling through useless ads.Not a good example. The use case for browser tabs is that once you load the page, it usually does not do any more computing work.
The point is that the old GB5 does not measure how fast web browsing with multiple tabs is, like @eek2121 claims here.Yeah, I agree adblocking is great and highly recommended. But when not doing so you absolutely have tabs wasting compute just for cycling through useless ads.
I have to disagree with this statement. Many multithreaded applications (like your web browser) do the opposite approach…like your web browser. (1 process per tab…50 tabs, 50 processes).
EXACTLY.What GB6 actually needs is a separate MT test that is more like GB5 MT. Both MT use cases are valid. But the GB6 MT is much more common for consumers - whom GB targets.
Yeah, I agree adblocking is great and highly recommended. But when not doing so you absolutely have tabs wasting compute just for cycling through useless ads.
Indeed, an many sites cycling through ads over time ensures that such imo exploitative ads can randomly appear and disappear at any time.It's not necessarily cycling through the ads, it's that the ads contain video or audio (even if muted) which suppresses the browser's background tab deprioritization.