SPECViewPerf 8.01 make sad... please do the benchmark!!!!

[radioVOY]

Hi everyone!!!

 

I just run the SPECViewPerf 8.01 on my two pcs.

 

I use this benchmark as a point of comparison:

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3094&page=3

 

Vendor: DELL

Machine: Precision 380

CPU: Pentium D 820 (Dual core 2.8GHz, 2x1MB L2 cache, EMT64)

Motherboard Chipset: Intel 955X

Memory: Dual channel 1GB (DDR2 533MHz unbuffered None-ECC)

Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1300 (128MB)

Mass Storage: RAID 1: 2x Western Digital 800JD (80GB)

Optical Storage: 16x DVD-ROM (Sony DDU1615)

 

3dsmax-03 = 22.94

catia-01 = 21.88

ensight-01 = 11.32

light-07 = 19.91

maya-01 = 42.47

proe-03 = 36.18

sw-01 = 13.01

ugs-04 = 19.85

 

And this are the benchmark for my two pcs:

 

Dual intel xeon 2.4ghz 533fsb 2 gig ram pc2100 120gb ide 36 gb scsi

nvidia quadro 4 780xgl win xp pro 32bit:

 

3dsmax-03 = 7.230

catia-01 = 5.948

ensight-01 = 4.345

light-07 = 6.480

maya-01 = 10.16

proe-03 = 9.356

sw-01 = 4.153

ugs-04 = 3.327

 

another: compaq w6000 1x intel xeon 2.0ghz 400fsb 512rambus 40gb ide matrox 64mg dual head:

 

3dsmax-03 = 0.599

catia-01 = 0.4111

ensight-01 = 0.4821

light-07 = 0.6035

maya-01 = 1.297

proe-03 = 0.717

sw-01 = 0.4424

ugs-04 = 0.0000

 

and for the 3dmax 6 benchmark C-BALLS.MAX scene with specs:

1. Single frame render.

2. MentalRay renderer.

3. HDTV(video) - 1920x1080 resolution

4. Default options: - Atmospherics, Effects, Displacement

5. Advance lighting: Use Advanced Lighting, Compute Advance Lighting when Required.

 

the results:

 

dell 380

545secs

 

my dual xeon

645secs

 

my compaq w6000

1840secs

 

if anyone are interested on benchmark their own systems this are the websites:

 

for the software: http://www.spec.org/gpc/downloadindex.html

 

for the basic specs and the c-balls specs: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3094&page=3

 

im very confuss with this results because are really low, any coments are welcome.

 

please if you test your system post the results!!!.

[AJLynn]

These numbers look fairly reasonable to me. The Compaq got killed in SpecViewPerf because... I don't know what kind of Matrox card that is but I'm guessing it has no hardware OpenGL... The dual Xeon got beat by the new Dell because the new Dell has faster RAM and a newer video card. I didn't know there was a Quadro4 780, is it 128MB or 64?

 

For reference, my Precision m50 laptop with Quadro4 500Go 64MB, 1 gig PC2100 and P4 2.4 gets:

 

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 6.724

catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 5.916

ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 3.676

light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 10.97

maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 13.88

proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.368

sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 4.364

ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 3.847

 

which is in the same ballpark.

 

The Dell P4HT 2.8 / 1Gig DDR2-533 / ATI x600 128MB PCIE gets:

 

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 9.490

catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 7.043

ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 9.802

light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 5.552

maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 9.249

proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 9.059

sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 7.636

ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.403

 

I'd run it on my AMD64 3000 / 1gig PC3200 / Quadro4 900 but it's defragging right now and the numbers wouldn't be that interesting.

 

There are a few reasons why the Pentium D box rendered faster than the dual Xeon. It's got 800 more combined MHz, it's a faster chipset and it's got faster RAM, and the render isn't complex enough to put the 2 gigs in play. The Compaq lost here because it's much slower than the other 2 boxes.

[radioVOY]

mine its a quadro 4 780 xgl 128mb.

 

i dont understand why i get almost the same number with my dual xeon to your laptop.

 

if you can do the c-balls.max test with above spcecs just for rendering times comparison would be interesting if you try with your amd 64 3000.

 

thanks for taking the time.

[AJLynn]

mine its a quadro 4 780 xgl 128mb.

 

i dont understand why i get almost the same number with my dual xeon to your laptop.

 

if you can do the c-balls.max test with above spcecs just for rendering times comparison would be interesting if you try with your amd 64 3000.

 

thanks for taking the time.

 

I'll do it tomorrow when I have a chance, but I can tell you based on the numbers you gave that it should be about 1000 sec, ballpark. Er... what version of Max should it be run on? They changed mr a lot in the last update.

 

The reason my laptop and your machine got similar results is that they're very similar - Specviewperf probably doesn't use the dual CPUs, and the 2.4 Xeon isn't all that different from the the 2.4 P4-M, and it doesn't use so much RAM so our memory is giving the same performance, and the scenes it's using aren't complex enough to make the 64MB/128MB VRAM very important, so our video cards are pretty similar.

 

Take the benchmarks with an appropriate grain of salt. Specviewperf is for rating the speed of your 3D chip, and that's about it. What matters is application performance. Would you rather model and render a complicated scene on your system with twice as much VRAM, RAM and CPU, or on my laptop that has decent Specviewperf numbers? Anyway, the newer Quadros are really fast, and expensive, but it's like the Dell ads that tell you you need that P4 3.6 for fast Web surfing and email. The Quadro4 machines I have are certainly good enough for whatever I'm doing with them.

[AJLynn]

Er... 2 things-

 

Where do I get this c-balls2.max file?

 

And, it looks like the cgsociety,org people ran it on Max7, I'm on 7.5, it's a different mental ray version.

 

Anyway, here's the Specviewperf numbers for the Athlon:

 

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 15.56

catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.148

ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 7.018

light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.641

maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 25.80

proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 15.23

sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 6.950

ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 8.555

 

I'm a bit surprised at how high they are, this being a Quadro4 - I guess the 900 series really is just that mch better than the others, and at under $100 on Ebay a real good value. It probably also helps that this machine has a fast MB and RAM, don't know how the whole AMD/Intel thing factors in.

[thinice]

The SPECViewPerf basically measures OpenGL speed and the Quadro FX series are really killers on this benchmark.

 

As for rendering, I recommend you to use only the applications that you use daily. Rendering speed are very much application/cpu specific. If it doesn't concern your software, forget it.

[muzzy]

does video card mem affect those benchmark ?

[AJLynn]

does video card mem affect those benchmark ?

 

Yes - but only to a certain degree. The complexity of the scene being displayed and the textures involved influences the amount of VRAM you need, if you don't have enough to handle the scene well things will get much slower. I'm not convinced by the displays on screen during the Specviewperf tests that it's using very much VRAM, and the similarity of the Quadro4 780 (128MB) and Quadro4 500 (64MB) results support this - if the test doesn't need more than the 64MB, the extra VRAM isn't helping much.

 

This applies to applications as well, but a lot of the stuff you see here was probably modelled in an environment that used more VRAM than Specviewperf does - this depends a lot on what display settings people use in 3DSMax etc. E.g., sometimes I'm working on something complex on the laptop and have to lower the display quality settings because it's slowing down my feeble-by-2005-standards video hardware. So the benchmark doesn't cover real world application performance all that well, and you're likely to get significantly better performance on the 128MB card when you're modeling anything with a lot of polygons and/or textures being displayed.

[muzzy]

Thanks, AJLynn

[AJLynn]

Another set of results. Dell P4HT-2.8 with 1 gig and FireGL5100.

 

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 11.87

catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 13.21

ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 23.97

light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 12.37

maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 24.43

proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 18.83

sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 10.45

ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 28.30

 

This seems wrong. I'm going to muck with the software and retest.

 

-----

 

Edit: Apparently those are the numbers for a FireGL V5100 when OpenGL is not working. Not bad, considering. Here are the real numbers:

 

3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 30.45

catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 21.99

ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 27.11

light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 19.09

maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 36.97

proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 41.80

sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 25.44

ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 29.27

[Zdravko Barisic]

...I recommend you to use only the applications that you use daily. Rendering speed are very much application/cpu specific. If it doesn't concern your software, forget it.

SPECView Perf is F***** SINTHETIC TEST!!!! and it has almost nothing about REAL LIFE EVERYDAY WORK!!!

DO NOT believe to that bull*** of test, on the sam page you can download scripts/test (in exe file) for:

-MAYA

-PRO/E

-MAX 7

-SOLIDWORX

-Solid EDGE

even for 3dsmax yu can use "bmark 4" which was suplied was w/ MAX5/4/6 on second/third CD

check those linx:

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3321&page=1

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2004_6/quadrofx/results.html

and look at REAL time viewport rendering

(3dsmax7 & bmark 4.0)...so, FX3000FX540 not so differnt?!

 

Advice, check your everyday scenes, see wath you realy need in did, lights or wirefrime? shaded mode or ..?

how many polys your scene counts?

1 mil? 2 mil? 3mil? or 100k?

 

hehehe, propaganda is a mirracle

[Mario Pende]

Slazem se.

Sranje do JAJA!

[AJLynn]

We know. It's still useful information. No need to yell.