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
POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • yacoub - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Er, instead of "in the time a 2.8Ghz chip can", let's clarify and say "in a single clock cycle than a 2.8Ghz chip can". Reply
  • manno - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    I heard it has support for DDR I 533, any chance we can see some benches with that stuff slapped in it? Reply
  • yacoub - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    So is this graph an example of where pure clock speed determines performance?
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...

    And why is that? What about that test seems to be extremely tied to the pure "speed" of the chip? Is it a matter of a 3.8GHz chip being able to process 1,000,000,000 more instructions through it in the time a 2.8GHz chip can?
    Reply
  • ultimatebob - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Why are you still doing Mozilla 1.4 testing? Almost no one uses Mozilla anymore, they use Firefox.

    Besides... the explanation of why you're still using it (posted below) doesn't make much sense. You might want to reword it.

    "Quite possibly the most frequently used application on any desktop is the one we pay the least amount of attention to when it comes to performance. While a bit older than the core that is now used in Firefox, performance in Mozilla is worth looking at as many users are switching from IE to a much more capable browser on the PC - Firefox."
    Reply
  • The DvD - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    1) What's up with the Communication Sysmark Business Application Performance bench?

    2) Why list the Gallating 3.46EE? It's not for sale..

    3) Good work on the review.
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Why didn't you guys test the DDR-533 memory divider support that comes with the FX-57? That would provide a nice boost in many scores.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/27/amd_fx-57/

    "AMD has upgraded the chip's integrated memory controller to work with 533MHz DDR SDRAM. Its predecessor, the FX-55, was limited to 400MHz memory."
    Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Yes way too pricey. AMD's latest round of pricings has me questioning their business direction. WTF? What happened to undercutting intel and giving teh end user a sweet deal? Reply
  • Starglider - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    It is surprising that the processor wasn't stable at 3GHz, as every other FX-57 review I've read where overclocking was attempted achieved 3GHz stable on air (and in one case 3.5 GHz stable on phase-change). As Kocur suggests, perhaps this was a motherboard issue?

    Agree with the conclusion though.
    Reply
  • AndreasM - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    Loose, as in not tight.
    Lose, as in not win.

    Page 1
    Reply
  • finbarqs - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

    hrm.. is it based on the .09 micron process? Why is it clocked so poorly? is the San Diego core FX-55 better? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now