F J Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Full blown Core i7 940 review with apps and games benchmarks a lot of g33k stuff on the first pages, so u might wanna fastforward to the actual benchmarks i want one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 3D Rendering Performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I don't understand what numbers they are quoting from Cinebench - they make no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I don't understand what numbers they are quoting from Cinebench - they make no sense. hmmm.. isnt it CineBench's score result ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macer Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 "That's another 30%+ advantage for Nehalem. If you do a lot of 3D rendering on your system, Intel is going to give you $1400 worth of performance for $284. Merry Christmas." - page 17. Looks like it will be a good time to upgrade soon. Talk about bang for your buck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 The Cinebench scores make sense. On my Core Duo 2.16, using both cores, it scores about the same as 1 core of a Q9650. Using that as a baseline, the rest of the scores on the site scale reasonably. Unless you're referring to the fact that the "multiprocessor speedup" appears to be greater than 400%. These things are 4 cores, right?... You wouldn't think that could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Unless you're referring to the fact that the "multiprocessor speedup" appears to be greater than 400%. These things are 4 cores, right?... You wouldn't think that could happen. That and 18800 just seemed REALLY high. I know there was a 10X change in the values at some point. I guess its just been a long time since I've been benchmarking machines. Man, I built my own render farm in 2004 (10 2.6 P4s) and I think combined it hit around 2500 on Cinebench. Maybe I'm just mis-remembering everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 You know, one new Quad can beat the crap out of 10x 2.6 P4s. But yeah, the numbers change since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattclinch Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 why benchmark this on a version of MAX that is 2 years old?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 why benchmark this on a version of MAX that is 2 years old?? Because most of those website that test components do not understand rendering at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Because it doesn't matter that much - the renderers change but the requirement of an assload of CPU power doesn't and the CPU work isn't that different. Heck, if one CPU beats another in Cinebench rendering by more than a few percent it's also going to win in Vray, mental ray, etc. All this only seves to compare two systems (because in the real world you never actually need to render that motorcycle) and only on one thing. Now, using an old version of Max to benchmark display performance, that's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now