3dsmax 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.

3dsmax r9 - SPECapc 3dsmax 8 CPU Test

The 1075T comes close to its competitors in the 3dsmax test, while the Phenom II X4 970 definitely falls short.

The quad-core Athlon II X4 645 does much better than the dual-core i3 530 (and by extension the 540). The same holds true for the Athlon II X3 450 vs. the Pentium G6950.

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.

Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded

Single threaded performance is AMD's weakest point. Even at 3.5GHz the Phenom II X4 970 can't keep up with a turboed Core i5 750. If you run a predominantly single threaded workload, Intel will typically offer you better performance than AMD.

Cinebench R10 - Multithreaded

Turn up the thread count however and the value proposition shifts to AMD. The Phenom II X6 1075T gives you more for your money in a heavily threaded app than the Core i7 860, and the Phenom II X4 970 is a smidge ahead of the i5 750. The Athlon II X4 645 and Athlon II X3 450 both do very well.

I've started running Cinebench 11.5 in preparation for an update to Bench, some of the initial results are below:

Cinebench 11.5 CPU Test

The default benchmark is heavily threaded. As a result the scores echo what we just saw.

SYSMark 2007 & Photoshop Performance Video Encoding & Data Archiving Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Brucmack - Thursday, September 23, 2010 - link

    I'm sure it's fairly easy to come up with a couple of realistic scenarios to use. There are only really three variables - # of hours idle over lifetime, # of hours load over lifetime, and average cost of power over lifetime - where it should be fairly easy to come up with some numbers to give a good idea. A useful metric might be to say "given a cost of electricty of X, the breakeven point between processors A and B is after Y hours of use".

    The whole point of benchmarks isn't to say "here's how it will perform for everyone!", but to give readers an idea of how the product performs in some specific (and hopefully realistic) situations, thereby allowing them to make informed decisions based on their own needs.
  • AtaStrumf - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link

    I ditto that! Price is such an important factor it should be part of the graphs or do up a separate set of graphs with performance per $ per application, that'd be awesome. I know that ill be quickly outdated but just put date next to the graph and that'll make it very obvious to take that into consideration when looking at the graph.
  • BernardP - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    The sweet spot is the AMD lineup seems to be the Phenom II X4 955BE. For $ 145, you get a fully enabled 3.2 GHz quad-core with L3 cache, that you can easily set yourself @ 3.6 GHz with little or no voltage increase.
  • Dark_Archonis - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    Yet it will still lose to the i5 750 in virtually every benchmark. The real "sweet" spot is being able to get an i5 750 for a good price. I've seen them on sale at some places for as low as $170-175. At that price you'd be crazy to choose a Phenom II X4 955BE over it.
  • LordanSS - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    Depends if all you have to do is just replace whatever processor you have in your socket, atm.

    In AMD's case, you can just swap out the processor on most AM2+ motherboards and it'll just work. On Intel's case, chances are you'll have to get a new motherboard (and quite possibly RAM, if your system is old enough).

    Been thinking of getting one of those 955BEs for myself. Not much of an upgrade to my main machine that's running a 940BE, but then I can pass on my older processor to my second box which is running an X2-6000 of ancient times.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    Why an obsolete CPU when for the price of an i5 quad you get a 1055T wich a better chip overall with a lot of future proof.

    Besides 1055T, X4 955 is only one option below it's price (then the value segment with AII X4/X3).
  • Dark_Archonis - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link

    Future-proof? You DO know that Bulldozer won't work in current AMD motherboards, right? What would you be upgrading to exactly from a 1055T? A Llano?
  • Madmanden - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link

    Perhaps he meant 6 cores vs. 4 cores, so more future proof in regards to newer, more threaded software and games.
  • KaarlisK - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    Just look at the power consumption (even idle) of the newer chips compared to the older ones.
    Or maybe it's just binning.
  • quiksilvr - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link

    That's the big selling point for me. I'm willing to spend an extra $50 to save even 10 watts because over the life of the computer I will get that money back in electricity savings, maybe even more so.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now