3D Rendering

3dsmax 5.1

WorldBench includes two 3dsmax benchmarks using version 5.1 of the popular 3D rendering and animation package: a DirectX and an OpenGL benchmark.

Discreet 3ds Max 5.1 (DirectX)

Discreet 3ds Max 5.1 (OpenGL)

3dsmax 6

For the next 3dsmax test we used version 6 of the program and ran the SPECapc rendering tests to truly stress these CPUs. Since there's not much new to report here we're only going to report the Rendering Composite score.

Discreet 3ds max 6 (OpenGL) - SPECapc Rendering Composite

Gaming Workstation Application Performance
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Aha! Thx guys!
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I meant #8 not #6 for the above post sorry
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #6 You are right probably since they didn't mention 754 and that would give more parameters for the test. Good catch. They simply downclocked the 130nm 939 3500+.
  • Glassmaster - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #6: I'm pretty sure they downclocked a 130nm 939 3500+ for those measurements.

    Glassmaster.
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Quote:
    "[...]We also included power consumption figures from 130nm Socket-939 Athlon 64 3200+ and 3000+ chips, which as you may know, do not exist.[...]"

    Mea culpa...
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    Hmmmm so 2CH isn't like dual channel or? coz afaik 754 is single channel!
    Thx for the info :)
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    #4. They are using the 754 130nm core 3000+. That is why they say 90nm beside the 3500+ and not any of the other AMD64's
  • Dustswirl - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I don't understand how the A64 3500 90nm consumes less power then the A64 3000 (512/2CH) that is supposed to be also a 90nm part...
  • michaelpatrick33 - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    The power consumption at load is a tad high for the 3.8 at being nearly twice as high as the 3500+. 226 vs. 114. That trend is obviously why Intel killed the 4.0 and beyond and the Tejas I would imagine. I wonder how much the 600 series chips from Intel will be with the extremely expensive L2 cache vs the current 3.6 and 3.8 chips.
  • AtaStrumf - Sunday, November 14, 2004 - link

    I've probably said this before, but I really like those tables with % numbers. You might wonna switch everything over to it. It gives a much more precise picture of diffence than those graphs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now