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 (OpenGL)


Discreet 3ds Max 5.1 (DirectX)


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 Performance Workstation Applications
Comments Locked

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    Since you're here Jarred. Was the tested 4000 a San Diego core? Thanks much.
  • bob661 - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    #16
    There ARE San Diego core 4000's. Check here:
    http://tinyurl.com/cdy8m
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    Certain benchmarks are not 100% repeatable. WinStones, SysMark, WorldBench, etc. can all vary by a decent amount. While running multiple benches does help a bit, you can still end up with some odd results. I've seen variance of 5% on some benchmarks, for example. I don't know about the WinZip and Nero results, though - it looks like some other hardware or driver provided for a major change.
  • flatblastard - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    #10 "don't forget, a 200 MHz increase with AMD cpus is like a 300+ MHz increase for intel"

    #13 Also consider the fact that 200 "A64 Mhz" aren't equal to 200 "P4 MHz"

    I am aware of this, and I will now make you aware of the fact that I can afford to have 10 less FPS.
  • Tujan - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    ""Or does an endorsement by the Blue Man Group wash away all sins? :) ""...

    .........Nay think its a matter of reviewers not being aware of when the next shipment of bananas is going to come in.

    A load of bull can be a load of bull sometimes.
  • Tujan - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Is lower or higher 'better for the Sysmark Data Analysis scores ? The 670 got 183"". [ ]

    Weird how the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) did so badly in the Specviewperf 8- Pro/Engineer Performance Engineering and SolidWorks Viewset....

    I was trying to tell how well a given processor would do,so bliping on the AMD Athlon 3400+(2.4/512/1ch) I thought that would be a good processor to have,now is that a 754 platform processor/motherboard.

    Couldn't find same range processor from a retailer in 939 wich would only show it in 754?
    [ ]

    Somebody here said 1ch/2ch is dual channel ? The benchmark setup did tell of using the 754,lest an Nvidia SLI is one of those ?
  • SLIM - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Heres another request for some kind of explanation about the very odd scaling amongst the 6xx series chips especially in the PC Worldbench results.
  • mjz - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    14 - the 4000 is an FX 53 without the multi.. it is not a san diego core.
  • bob661 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Also, could you guys include an Autodesk Inventor or Mechanical Desktop bench?
  • bob661 - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know if the 4000 used was a San Diego core? Thanks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now