![]() ![]() CnC says about CB 2024: "If an access is difficult enough to not be caught by L2, there’s a good chance it’ll miss 元 as well." "2 or 6" MB 元$/thread figures of the CB 2024 measurements of cache miss rate vs. ![]() But he pointed out in the R15 article that "元 misses are rare on both architectures, so cache performance is more important than DRAM performance here."īTW, note the little difference between 1 vs. …0.29 元$ MPKI on R9 7950X3D (2x 8c/16t, 32+96 MB 元$, 2 or 6 MB 元$/t)Īccording to the R15 figures, going from 1.5 to 2 MB 元$/thread already halved the 元 cache misses. It seems there aren't any features missing if you go to GPU, are there? (The stepping stones to really high rendering throughput would be GPU rendering -> multi GPU rendering -> GPU rendering on multiple networked render nodes.) Since nobody (?) seriously renders on CPUs, there is no serious need for a high core count CPU renderer benchmark (in the Maxxon Cinema 4D context), is there?Ĭlick to expand.I am not so sure if this is meant to be per thread. Well, I suppose somebody who is interested in high rendering throughput is not considering to render on CPUs in the first place. I also quickly looked around the Cinema 4D and Redshift sections on Maxxon's web site and haven't found the equivalent information there either. Previous versions of Cinebench are known to be unable to use all hardware threads of modestly modern dual-socket computers with higher core count CPUs. ![]() What I still am missing on Maxxon's web site is the info on the maximum number of logical CPUs which the CPU renderer benchmark is able to utilize. Maxxon provide a separate Redshift GPU renderer benchmark for multi-GPU computers, with a considerably larger workload than the one in Cinebench. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |