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. The performance standings don't change between the two, only the actual numbers themselves, so we'll only talk about the OpenGL numbers while displaying both.

AMD manages to take the lead in WorldBench's test, with the FX-55, 4000+ and 3800+ all outperforming the Pentium 4 560. The 3.4EE doesn't appear to carry its weight too well as it is outperformed by the single channel Athlon 64 3400+. Also pay attention to the margin of victory here though, most of the top performing parts here are actually within a couple of percentage points of one another, nothing too significant.

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. We've reported the Rendering Composite score for easy comparison to the benchmarks in SPEC's database as well as for a quick set of numbers to look at and compare, however for those that are interested we have also provided the render times for the four benchmarks that go into the Rendering Composite score.

While AMD took the lead in WorldBench's 3dsmax 5.1 test, in the SPECapc 3dsmax 6 test, Intel's Pentium 4 3.4EE holds on to the lead. AMD actually only makes one appearance in the top four performers, basically tying with the Pentium 4 560.

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

Discreet 3ds max 6 (OpenGL) - 3dsmax5.rays

Discreet 3ds max 6 (OpenGL) - CBALLS2

Discreet 3ds max 6 (OpenGL) - SinglePipe2

Discreet 3ds max 6 (OpenGL) - UnderWater

Gaming Performance Continued Workstation Application Performance
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • Live - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Splendid reading! This site is doing a great job right now. I really would love more of these very informative articles that help you so at seeing the big picture.

    A really helpful article.
  • Disorganise - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    I’m a bit disappointed by you inconsistency…

    The comparison with Intel over who wins….slightly inconsistent but no biggie.

    What really is bad though, is the penultimate page – is socket 939 worth it?

    I agree it is but…..
    You’ve taking an identical chip and found it about 5% quicker than on socket 754. OK, no problem. But AMD have wacked a whopping 12% increase in rating, to 3800+ from 3400+. It doesn’t gel, the numbers don’t work.

    The 3800+ is also more expensive than the 3400+ to the tune of about 250% here in Australia and about 220% over there in the U.S. a 5% increase in performance does not warrant a doubling in price.

    Dave
  • at80eighty - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    way to go Anand...excellently comprehensive article...

    /waiting for those HDD articles you promised : p
  • SLIM - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Going along with what #6 said:
    Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
    Athlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
    Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit <---should be a socket 754 3700+ right?
    Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
    Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit

    SLIM
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    #12, even GPUs aren't going anywhere fast. There's still a shortage of something or other needed to make the Ultra/PE parts, and there isn't a planned refresh for 2004. ATI/Nvidia have another speed grade of RAM to jump to(1.6ghz GDDR3), and can die-shrink down to 90nm once TSMC gets there, but they're so close to CPUs right now, they're destined to hit the same wall too.

    Anand, someone has been a busy beaver.;-) That was a long, but well thought out and informative article; you've basically written the definitive CPU article for now until the multicores come out.
  • Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Ah I read the conclusion wrong.
  • Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    why is this site putting down an amd performance gain and making excuses for intel at the same time.
  • Doormat - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Its a shame the processor wars are coming to an end. I see dual core as neat, but a dud performance wise. It'll be another year or two before the GPU wars start to die out... hmmm..

    -CPU performance levels off
    -HD capacity levels off

    The only interesting stuff going on is GPU stuff.
  • dvinnen - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Best artical from Anandtech I've read in a long time. Good job Anand.
  • skiboysteve - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    wait nevermind, you put your comments ABOVE the graphs. threw me off cause this isnt what you usualy do...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now