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

Using the SPECapc 3dsmax 6 rendering test, we continue to see extremely good performance when running multithreaded applications on dual core CPUs. The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is definitely the fastest desktop CPU that we've seen running 3dsmax.

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 The Real Test - AnandTech’s Multitasking Scenarios


View All Comments

  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link


    Consider that an open invitation for dinner and drinks at The Rocks in Sydney Harbour.
    Ya know, Computex Taipei is coming up at the end of this month...and those circle pacific fares aren't THAT expensive... ;-)
  • nserra - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    I was looking at the transistor count of both AMD and Intel implementations of dual core and the look almost the same, despite intel uses 300mm vs amd 200mm. But my point is amd have ondie memory controler and intel Hyperthreading, all in all the processors “look” the same? Could i say this? (5% die for HT vs 5% die for Memory controller)

    Of course Amd have a better design since it drains less power and offers better performance.
  • Jeff7181 - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    We're definately interested in some preliminary overclocking results... well... I am anyway. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link


    Sorry about that, it's not intentional. I haven't published any overclocking tests for one major reason: the CPUs are still far away from being widely available; I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea based on the overclocking results of these early samples.

    If you guys are interested, I can publish some preliminary findings here however.

    Take care,
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link


    If I ever manage to get some time off, both Vinney and I would love to head down to Australia :)


    If the differences are negligible (around 3% or less) then I'd say that's due to normal variances in the benchmarks - at a quick glance, that's what the majority of single threaded benchmarks are showing. There are other situations where the scheduler may confuse the picture a bit, but for the most part I'm not seeing any evidence of that in these tests.


    I used 32-bit Windows XP Pro. At this stage the 64-bit version of Windows is pretty much useless for the desktop unless you've got some very specific 64-bit desktop apps that you're using.

    Take care,
  • Samus - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link


    Why are you continuing to neglect our questions regarding overclocking? Is there an NDA or something disallowing you to discuss the topic?

  • Murst - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    So, is there any explanation why, in many tests, the single core 2.4 w/ 1mb cache is significantly faster than then dual core 2.4 w/ 1mb per core?

    That just doesn't seem to make any sense. Seems like the design of the dual core is not as great as everyone was saying if it slows down applications by that much.

    It just seems like there shouldn't be a performance hit by adding another core with AMD's implementation, but there obviously is.
  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    tagger123 - as most (if not all) of the apps are 32bit only, I would guess it was standard XP... Reply
  • tagger123 - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    hi Anand

    Would like to know if you used windows xp or xp64 and if so - would it have any performance hit or increase on amd 64 x2
  • Viditor - Monday, May 9, 2005 - link

    "you going to hire anand as a consultant?"

    Nope...but I'll buy the first round if he and his lady ever hit Sydney...! :-)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now