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:
There are definitely cases where Bloomfield's memory controller is a boon, the Core i7 860 is able to approach but not outperform the i7 920.
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.
Since threaded performance is excellent on the 860, after all it's running at 3.46GHz in this situation. The 920 doesn't stand a chance.
Up the thread count and we see the Core i7 860 slightly ahead of the 920.
Blender 2.48a
Blender is an open source 3D modeling application. Our benchmark here simply times how long it takes to render a character that comes with the application.
Blender performance is again faster than a 920 and nearly on par with the Core i7 870.
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.
POV-Ray performance is nearly on par with the Core i7 870 and equal to that of the i7 920.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
has407 - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
No, there's nothing "wrong" except maybe your assumptions or math?22x 133MHz = 2.93GHz. That's exactly what an 860 should be at with 4 cores active under full load.
An 870 would idle at 2.93GHz; with 4 cores active and under full load you should see 24x 133MHz = 3.20GHz.
yacoub - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Go learn about TDP.hulu - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
" According to the Turbo charts, the slowest Turbo speed is higher than the stock speed. Why is that? "It's not only how many cores you use but also what instructions are being executed that contributes to whether turbo is used.
TemjinGold - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I'm guessing it's because if you turn turbo OFF, it would be 2.66.I'm wondering though, if you need 2 cores on the 860, does it shut off 2 cores and use 2 physical ones or does it shut off 3 cores and use 1 physical plus 1 HT core?
TA152H - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Despite your love affair for this chip, it's a solution in search of a problem.It's clearly inferior to the Bloomfield. Despite running at higher clock speeds, sometimes a lot, it actually loses to the i7 920. Overclock them, and there's just no comparison. The i7 920 is better. No one with any knowledge of computers would buy the i7 860. They'd get the real deal, the i7 920. This pertains even moreso for the i7 870. Basically, the Lynnfield is an idiot's procesesor, except for the i5 750.
If you can't afford a Bloomfield, that's really your best choice. Except, like I mentioned in a previous post, this is a Celeron, without the platform. If they coupled this with an IGP, you'd have something that would sell. The i5 750 is still not without appeal with a discrete card, but, then, most of the market likes IGPs. And if you know something, and have some money, you're not going to get the brain-damaged Lynnfield. You'll get the Bloomfield.
It's not a mystery, really. The mystery is why it would even sell marginally well. I think once they couple it with a decent IGP, it will really take off though. Until then, I think they'll be lucky to settle for mediocrity.
The Athlon stole the show. No one needs a brain-damaged version of a better chip, unless it breaks into a new market with price. Arguably the i5 750 did, kind of. Clearly the Athlon did. I think that's going to generate more real excitement, if less motherboard pictorals.
KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Incorrect, there are already benchmarks out there where the i5 720, i7 870, and i7 920 are all underclocked to 2.66ghz (the speed of the i7 920) and overclocked to 3.2ghz (a very attainable turbo speed by the i7 870 and i5 720). The difference in nearly all gaming benchmarks, using settings that takes the GPU out of the mix as a bottleneck, all at the same clock speeds, are within a very very tight percentage range, at the very most a 10% spread (with Crysis and Far Cry 2 it is closer to a 1% spread).http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/07/intel_ly...">http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/...ntel_lyn...
I think the lower price of motherboards makes the LGA 1156 CPUs very very attractive. I don't see any reason to get an LGA 1366 board unless you really want to futureproof yourself for six and eight core CPUs. That said, I don't see a point; most games still use single, maybe dual cores, and upgrading CPUs within a motherboard cycle almost never happens for me. By the time it is time to put together a new PC (average every two years for me) there is an entirely new ecosystem of CPUs, motherboards, and RAM that I need to get into and I end up keeping almost nothing from the old rig.
So yeah, I don't really agree with you.
chrnochime - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Wouldn't it serve you better by creating your own website, instead of attacking Anand's articles and playing second fiddle here? You seem to think you know better than Anand does, so why don't you enlighten the rest of us with your better/correct knowledge at your own site? Or has that been done already?Just saying...
jordanclock - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I'm currently in the process of putting together a new system and the choice between the i5 750 and the i7 860 is very hard. The 920 isn't even an option for me; The 860 outperforms the 920 in most scenarios, and when the 920 comes ahead, it's less than the margin of error.Are you looking at the same graphs I am? The ones that show the 860 performing better, or at worst identically, to the 920 over and over? For the same CPU price and lower motherboard price? This isn't a Celeron. This isn't something you pair up with an IGP. This is the current generations upper-end bang-for-the-buck champion.
Add in the 750, and I see no reason to get a 920. Two-thirds the price, with most of the benchmarks showing performance parity, sometimes a little less. Again, with a lower motherboard cost as well.
If anything, the 920 is the solution searching for a problem. The 860 just took over the job of the 920, except for a few cases. The 750 offers almost the same performance, but at an even lower cost.
These chips aren't brain-damaged; They just took out the cancerous tumors. Lower cost, lower power, and equal performance. The 860 stole the 920's thunder, and the 750 gives us a very complete mid-range.
the zorro - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
if you go to newegg you can see that lynnfield is not selling, because is crippled, expensive and phenom 2 wipes and mops the floor with core i5 750.KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
You are either deluded or trolling. The i5 720 both costs less and outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 BE in pretty much every chart.