Intel's Core i7 970 Reviewed, (Slightly) More Affordable 6-core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 29, 2010 3:23 AM EST3dsmax 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax CPU Rendering Test
Today's desktop processors are more than fast enough to do professional level 3D rendering at home. To look at performance under 3dsmax we ran the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 benchmark (only the CPU rendering tests) under 3dsmax 9 SP1. The results reported are the rendering composite scores.
You get 9% better performance than a Core i7 975 and 98% of the performance of the 980X. Not too shabby, but then again you're not saving a ton of money by comparison. The Core i7 970 still costs roughly $900.
Cinebench R10
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
Single threaded performance is very competitive, which is due entirely to Intel's well architected turbo modes. You get a 6-core processor that can act like the fastest single-core CPU on the planet if needed.
POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance
POV-Ray is a popular, open-source raytracing application that also doubles as a great tool to measure CPU floating point performance.
I ran the SMP benchmark in beta 23 of POV-Ray 3.73. The numbers reported are the final score in pixels per second.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
jlazzaro - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
agreed with throwing older (920/930) OC'd procs in the mixPatrick Wolf - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I don't understand why AT doesn't test games with max setings like with video cards. Doing so would be more helpful in seeing exactly what kind of CPU would actually be beneficial @ the settings most of us play at, or at least strive to play at.Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
No it won't help you see which CPU will be beneficial because test a game at max setting will tax more on the GPU then the CPU.Also I don't see how games can show the advantage of these multicore cpus, photo imaging and encoding shows a clearer picture.
Patrick Wolf - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Yeah but these tests only help people using the same GPU and game settings. Testing at GPU limited settings would show what kind of CPU you'd need before performance is affected.I suppose these tests show which CPU has the most raw power and getting the best peformer would be more "future proof". But it you're looking to upgrade it doesn't show if it'd even be worth it. Both kinds of tests should be included really.
kallogan - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I'm a cuda fan for 1080p video encoding. I'd never pay this price for a useless processor. My GTX 460 beat the shit out this i7 970 ;-) The only issue is that the Cuda x264 encoder in mediacoder allows only one pass for the moment...GPUs are our future !!!!
afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Imagine a 980X with two GTX 460s. Can always go more and more.ClagMaster - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I could do better from a price/performance standpoint with the AMD 6-core processors than this i970.AMD Motherboards are cheaper and have much better connectivity. The price differential I could spend on better motherboards and more memory.
I run MCNP parallel jobs and the AMD processor just takes a little longer to complete the job.
stephenbrooks - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
MCNP as in the neutron transport code for designing nuclear reactors?ClagMaster - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link
Yes. I do NJOY too.What is so ridiculous about the AMD and Intel Quad and Hex core products is they are more powerful than multi-million dollar Cray XMP and YMP computers I have used 20 years ago.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Looking at the Intel roadmap on page one is a little surprising. Are they honestly launching the new architecture in the mainstream and performance mainstream segments first? I was expecting them to launch the high-end chips first, like they did with Nehalem, and then trickle down the pricing ladder.If so, then great. We all won't have to wait another year for affordable Sandy Bridge systems.