3D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7 & CineBench 9.5

We're looking at 3D rendering performance using two different applications: 3D Studio Max and Cinebench 9.5. Cinebench is a free performance testing utility based off of the CINEMA 4D R8 rendering package. Our scores from 3D Studio Max are a composite score from four rendering tests: CBalls2, SinglePipe2, UnderWater, and 3dsmax5 Rays.

General Performance - 3D Rendering

General Performance - 3D Rendering

General Performance - 3D Rendering


3D rendering relies almost entirely on CPU performance, and cache sizes have very little impact. The end result is that our overclocked E6300 and E6400 place very near the top of the charts, and the overclocked E6400 actually manages to take the lead over the X6800 in the Cinebench multi-CPU rendering test. Clock for clock, Core 2 Duo holds about a 9-11% performance advantage in 3D rendering over the AMD X2 processors. The difference between the fastest and slowest systems tested here is roughly 60%-70%, and due to the time-consuming nature of 3D rendering even small performance increases are very welcome.

Once again we see that while the Core 2 Duo E6300 is slightly faster than the Athlon 64 X2 4200+, and once overclocked it's out of reach of even an FX-62. The E6400 is also an impressive little chip, offering performance around the X2 4600+ and X2 5000+ levels.

Application Performance using Winstone 2004 Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunes
Comments Locked

137 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Really, this amd fanboi crap has seriously gotten out of hand lately. I love amd. But the FUD that you guys have been spewing lately is just garbage. I
    Give me a break dude the Intel fanbois were doing the same thing. Nothing to see here. Move along.
  • araczynski - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    looks like i'll be gettig the E6600 for great base performance with capability to overclock decently. I'll probably be sticking with a P965 mobo since i won't be going for crazy overclocking or crazy cooling solutions (that turniq cooler looks just about right for my tastes).

    now i just have to figure out whether to get a 7900gt/gtx/50gtx.... to last me until the second generation of the dx10's comes out...
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    The pricing in this article is inaccurate. The Conroes are too low and the Athlon64s are too high.

    Seems to me you're using vendor pricing for one and suggested retail for the other.
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    No the pricing is completely accurate they are using AMD's price lists that come directly from AMD itself, and they are using Intel's prices for 1000 Unit Quantities, that will also be published on their website.

    If your talking about actualy price on online retailors that will remain to be seen.
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    No, I'm not talking about online retailers.

    I'm talking about actual prices that I can get right now from my distributors and the listed suggested retail prices.

    Where, exactly, are you getting your prices?
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Go to AMD.com and you can get their official pricing, the listed numbers are what will be on Intel's website when they get updated for Core 2 Duo.

    OEM Distributer pricing is a different metric.
  • drebo - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    Distributor pricing is what determines street and retail pricing.

    Intel can post the MSRP of $999 all they want, but if distributors are selling their products for more than that, the price will never be seen.

    What matters is that these prices are not accurate, and paint an entirely different story than should be painted.
  • goinginstyle - Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - link

    quote:

    What matters is that these prices are not accurate, and paint an entirely different story than should be painted.


    Neither are the AM2 prices currently as most places are selling the FX62 well above the $799. So what was your point? It is all about supply and demand, the same thing happened when AMD launched S939, the prices were way over the stated numbers by AMD. You have to start with a base, the published pricing is the base.
  • drebo - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link

    quote:

    most places are selling the FX62 well above the $799


    Genius, $799 is not MSRP for the FX-62. $799 is the price at which AMD sells the processor to its distributors. The distributor then sells the processor to retail and/or wholesale outlets with a markup. The retailers and wholesalers then sell the same product with yet another markup. Currently, my price for an FX-62 is $811. MSRP is near to $1000, but then I, and many other sellers, do not use MSRP. I use cost-based pricing.

    I'm not trying to prove anything here other than that the prices listed in this article are incorrect, and that the conclusions drawn are vastly different than conclusions that could be drawn were the pricings correct.

    By the way, all prices I've quoted have been for PIBs, not tray processors. I don't use OEM processors...too much liability.
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, July 27, 2006 - link


    And, that's the thing the prices quoted are correct.

    Using distributer pricing isn't a good idea as it could vary between the companies, depending on the deal you got as well, those particular prices can't be verified.

    The prices listed on this chart can be since they are listed on AMD site and will be on Intel's.

    There isn't a choice, unless you wish to use the real world pricing floating around as that is what matters at the end of the day, but there are issues with that, as that fluctuates.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now