[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 5 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

Happy 14th Birthday, 4chan!

File: serveimage.jpg (247 KB, 1280x720)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
Is anyone here using a Threadripper 1950x?
I would like to know what its performance is like in ZBrush. If you can, post results from its performance test: Preferences - Performance - Test Multithreading

Afaik, ZBrush scales well with many cores, so this CPU should be very good for it. The RAM speed also matters.
Can anyone confirm?
Ryzen 1700 is probaly your best bet. 8C/16T. Can overclock close to 1800X. Best bang for buck.
Why? I didn't ask for a good bang for buck CPU, I asked about the performance of a specific HEDT CPU in a specific software package.
I don't see what part of using Zbrush would actually justify using Threadripper over Ryzen. Threadripper is hardly better than Ryzen for most workloads. It's a server CPU built for virtual machines and web servers.

Keyshot? Maybe.
You're an idiot. That's why you don't see it.
I wrote in my first post that ZBrush scales well with many cores.
If you don't see a need for higher performance in ZBrush, you should just keep out of this thread.
Here are some other ZBrush benchmarks I came across. Ryzen 1800X vs dual xeon with 32 threads, Xeon wins, now what do you say?

AMD Ryzen7 1800x

Single = 2.742
Multi = 0.617982
Multithreading = 443%
Dual Xeon E5-2690 @ 2.9Ghz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) - 8 hyper threaded cores per CPU = 32 cores total
64 GB quad channel ram

single thread - 3.519
multi thread - 0.4429
multi thread performance - 794%
If you're willing to pay three times the price for something like 30% increased performance in things that take vast minority of your time and don't really affect your art, then cool. I just don't see any sense in it.



Also if you just want to buy cool hardware for the sake of hardware, I can relate to that.
To continue I also tried to dig brush engine and dynamesh benchmarks, but those don't seem to exist. It would be cool to see if Threadripper scales at all. I would be very surprised if there's any concrete difference when compared to Ryzen.
Where did I say that ZBrush is all I use and I wouldn't benefit from the CPU in other software as well? I am only asking about ZBrush because that is the only factor of uncertainty for me and I'd like to see actual benchmarks. The inbuilt performance test is all that is needed.
Honestly for the money I would pick up 2 used E5-2667 V2's and a new 2S mobo. I got a pair of em for $490 on ebay for a CPU rendering rig for 3ds Max. Was gonna go 1950x but I just needed a spare rig to crunch frames.
Don't insult the dude when you're the one who came here asking questions. Do you even fucking know which operations in Zbrush are multithreaded or did you just hear a vague 'Zbrush scales well with more cores'?
Jesus christ, why not aswer OPs question? A dual xeon ebay board or a Ryzen isn't good alternatives to a Threadripper in all cases.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.