3D Rendering Performance

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 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax 8 CPU Test

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we have a new champ once more. The 2600K is slightly ahead of the 980X here, while the 2500K matches the performance of the i7 975 without Hyper Threading enabled. You really can't beat the performance Intel is offering here.

The i3 2100 is 11% faster than last year's i3 540, and the same performance as the Athlon II X4 645.

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 Test

Single threaded performance sees a huge improvement with Sandy Bridge. Even the Core i3 2100 is faster than the 980X in this test. Regardless of workload, light or heavy, Sandy Bridge is the chip to get.

Cinebench R10 - Multithreaded Test

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.

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta Benchmark

Blender 3D Character Render

Video Encoding Performance File Compression/Decompression Performance
POST A COMMENT

282 Comments

View All Comments

  • Rick83 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    also, there is this:http://www.eteknix.com/previews/foxconn-h67a-s-h67...

    Where the unlocked multiplier is specifically mentioned as a feature of the H67 board.
    So I think anandtech got it wrong here....
    Reply
  • RagingDragon - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    Or perhaps CPU overclocking on H67 is not *officially* supported by Intel, but the motherboard makers are supporting it anyway? Reply
  • IanWorthington - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    Seems to sum it up. If you want both you have to wait until Q2.

    <face palm>
    Reply
  • 8steve8 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    so if im someone who wants the best igp, but doesn't want to pay for overclockability, i still have to buy the K cpu... weird. Reply
  • beginner99 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    yep. This is IMHO extremely stupid. Wanted to build a PC for someone that mainly needs CPU power (video editing). An overclocked 2600k would be ideal with QS but either wait another 3 month or go all compromise...in that case H67 probably but still paying for K part and not being able to use it.
    Intel does know how to get the most money from you...
    Reply
  • Hrel - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    haha, yeah that is stupid. You'd think on the CPU's you can overclock "K" they use the lower end GPU or not even use one at all. Makes for an awkward HTPC choice. Reply
  • AkumaX - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    omg omg omg wat do i do w/ my i7-875k... (p.s. how is this comment spam?) Reply
  • AssBall - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    Maybe because you sound like a 12 year old girl with ADHD. Reply
  • usernamehere - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    I'm surprised nobody cares there's no native USB 3.0 support coming from Intel until 2012. It's obvious they are abusing their position as the number 1 chip maker, trying to push Light Peak as a replacement to USB. The truth is, Light Peak needs USB for power, it can never live without it (unless you like to carry around a bunch of AC adapters).
    Intel wants light peak to succeed so badly, they are leaving USB 3.0 (it's competitor) by the wayside. Since Intel sits on the USB board, they have a lot of pull in the industry, and as long as Intel wont support the standard, no manufacturer will ever get behind it 100%. Sounds very anti-competitive to me.
    Considering AMD is coming out with USB 3.0 support in Llano later this year, I've already decided to jump ship and boycott Intel. Not because I'm upset with their lack of support for USB 3.0, but because their anti-competitive practices are inexcusable; holding back the market and innovation so their own proprietary format can get a headstart. I'm done with Intel.
    Reply
  • IanWorthington - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link

    Not really: the board manufacturers seem to be adding usb3 chipsets w/o real problems. Good enough. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now