Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted February 26, 2021 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted February 26, 2021 I have been a big AMD fan, especially since they came out with the Ryzen series CPU's, but in my personal experience, I found that AMD is still crippled a bit by 3DCoat's usage of INTEL THREAD BUILDING BLOCKS LIBRARY for it's Multi-threading. I made some comparison videos years ago highlighting the difference, and recently noticed the very same difference. The Intel TBB library currently used in 3DCoat identifies Non-Intel CPU's and makes them take the long, unoptimized, inefficient way....making AMD CPU's seem inferior to Intel CPU's. Intel lost a major lawsuit about this dirty practice and I am not aware of the solution that was agreed upon. On a ThreadRipper 1950X (1st Gen ThreadRipper), performance using the new sculpting brush engine was very inconsistent. I did weeks worth of tests, because I did not want to have to purchase a new CPU and Motherboard (and CPU cooler as well), just to get the most out of 3DCoat. Nevertheless, I knew this was a glaring problem. Some days, the performance would be bad enough to report to Andrew. Other days, for some unknown reason, the performance would be outstanding and virtually impossible to discern the difference between 3DCoat and ZBrush in side by side comparisons. Zbrush is obviously the Gold Standard in this area and there were times where 3DCoat was every bit as smooth and responsive as it is in ZBrush. I tested on someone's new AMD laptop (AMD Ryzen 7 4800H 8-core/16 thread CPU) and it was super smooth and crisp in terms of performance. So, I decided to switch the CPU and Motherboard out for an Intel i9 10850k (basically a 10900k that didn't test as well as the best 10900k chips), and sure enough, the performance improvement over the ThreadRipper is very noticable. I say all of this as a means to give a "heads up" to anyone looking to build a new system or make a CPU w/Motherboard upgrade soon. The last generation of AMD CPU's may have overcome this limitation with new instruction sets (mandated by the court, for Intel to correct this issue?), and MUCH higher IPC performance than the first generation of Ryzen CPU's...so, if you have a Ryzen 3xxx or 2nd Gen ThreadRipper CPU, the problem may not be as noticeable as in previous generations. The laptop with an AMD 4800H APU was stellar, so there is hope that this is no longer an issue with the latest generation of AMD CPU's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Artomiano Posted March 2, 2021 Member Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 On 2/26/2021 at 6:22 PM, AbnRanger said: I have been a big AMD fan, especially since they came out with the Ryzen series CPU's, but in my personal experience, I found that AMD is still crippled a bit by 3DCoat's usage of INTEL THREAD BUILDING BLOCKS LIBRARY for it's Multi-threading. I made some comparison videos years ago highlighting the difference, and recently noticed the very same difference. The Intel TBB library currently used in 3DCoat identifies Non-Intel CPU's and makes them take the long, unoptimized, inefficient way....making AMD CPU's seem inferior to Intel CPU's. Intel lost a major lawsuit about this dirty practice and I am not aware of the solution that was agreed upon. On a ThreadRipper 1950X (1st Gen ThreadRipper), performance using the new sculpting brush engine was very inconsistent. I did weeks worth of tests, because I did not want to have to purchase a new CPU and Motherboard (and CPU cooler as well), just to get the most out of 3DCoat. Nevertheless, I knew this was a glaring problem. Some days, the performance would be bad enough to report to Andrew. Other days, for some unknown reason, the performance would be outstanding and virtually impossible to discern the difference between 3DCoat and ZBrush in side by side comparisons. Zbrush is obviously the Gold Standard in this area and there were times where 3DCoat was every bit as smooth and responsive as it is in ZBrush. I tested on someone's new AMD laptop (AMD Ryzen 7 4800H 8-core/16 thread CPU) and it was super smooth and crisp in terms of performance. So, I decided to switch the CPU and Motherboard out for an Intel i9 10850k (basically a 10900k that didn't test as well as the best 10900k chips), and sure enough, the performance improvement over the ThreadRipper is very noticable. I say all of this as a means to give a "heads up" to anyone looking to build a new system or make a CPU w/Motherboard upgrade soon. The last generation of AMD CPU's may have overcome this limitation with new instruction sets (mandated by the court, for Intel to correct this issue?), and MUCH higher IPC performance than the first generation of Ryzen CPU's...so, if you have a Ryzen 3xxx or 2nd Gen ThreadRipper CPU, the problem may not be as noticeable as in previous generations. The laptop with an AMD 4800H APU was stellar, so there is hope that this is no longer an issue with the latest generation of AMD CPU's. What tests did you do? ... some standard workflow we could reproduce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted March 3, 2021 Author Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 17 hours ago, Artomiano said: What tests did you do? ... some standard workflow we could reproduce? Mainly sculpting on a bust of around 10-17million polys. The 1st Gen Threadripper (1950X @ 4.1Ghz all cores) was OK, but seemed to have a tiny bit of noticeable lag. It was especially noticeable when I compared it side by with ZBrush, on the same model/bust. But, when I tested the same bust on a new AMD laptop, the laptop was every bit as lively and responsive in 3DCoat as in ZBrush. I knew then that either a new gen AMD CPU or Intel CPU was going to be needed to make 3DCoat match ZBrush's performance. I upgraded to an Intel i9 10850k (basically a 10900K that didn't necessarily win the "Silicon Lottery") and it too, performs very well....noticeably better than the 1st Gen Threadripper CPU. I suspect the higher IPC on both the new AMD CPU's and the Intel CPU's (plus 3DCoat multithreading is optimized for Intel chips) account for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member sprayer Posted March 3, 2021 Advanced Member Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 You forgetting new problem of AMD CPU it's price much higher when it was, now latest generation too expensive and Intel make lower their price and looks also good in comparison price\performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Artomiano Posted March 3, 2021 Member Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, sprayer said: You forgetting new problem of AMD CPU it's price much higher when it was, now latest generation too expensive and Intel make lower their price and looks also good in comparison price\performance You're right: the Ryzen has a higher price point. But I think when it comes to smooth and fast workflows you just can say "time is money". Look at these tests: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Cinema-4D-AMD-Ryzen-5000-Series-Rendering-Performance-1965/ and https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-After-Effects-AMD-Ryzen-5000-Series-CPU-Performance-1959/ ... you will find that the Ryzen fly above and beyond. The last years I worked on an Intel workstation - was not bad so far. But the transition to the new Ryzen is notable! Maybe Intel's next CPU will change the game again. But I would also say, the main question should not be 5900X or 5950X or 10900K instead of "enough (fast) RAM"? Complex models AND parallel workflow ... I see here some "RAM eater". Edited March 3, 2021 by Artomiano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted March 4, 2021 Author Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 15 hours ago, sprayer said: You forgetting new problem of AMD CPU it's price much higher when it was, now latest generation too expensive and Intel make lower their price and looks also good in comparison price\performance I don't think that is necessarily accurate regarding RETAIL prices. What I think you are seeing are 3rd party sellers trying to price-gouge consumers because there has been low availability right now. The page at Newegg is a great example: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=amd+Ryzen+5950x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Artomiano Posted March 4, 2021 Member Report Share Posted March 4, 2021 4 hours ago, AbnRanger said: I don't think that is necessarily accurate regarding RETAIL prices. What I think you are seeing are 3rd party sellers trying to price-gouge consumers because there has been low availability right now. The page at Newegg is a great example: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=amd+Ryzen+5950x Good point! I bought my one for 889,- EUR in germany. Was nearly the RRP of 819,- ... yes it's quite expensive though but nevertheless it's a great CPU and I was willing to upgrade my rig at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.