i7 quad vs AMD 8core

[litleboy]

has any one seen benchmarks for i7 quad vs AMD 8cores for 3Ds MAX.

 

I know Intel is faster in most applications but what about 4cores vs 8 cores in 3ds max GI.

 

thks.

[Dimitris Tolios]

Intel 2nd and 3rd gen core architecture (Sandy and Ivy Bridge) has better single core performance than the current Bulldozer.

 

The FX 8120-8150s 8-cores can catch up and surpass an i5 SB/IB while rendering, but since 3DS just like most applications are not truly mutli-threaded outside of their rendering modules, Intel architecture is faster.

 

It does worth mentioning tho, that both intel and AMD chips are very fast, and do accept insane % overclocking ontop of that - unlocked i5/i7/FX CPUs can receive 35-50% O/C in both lines, which does make a huge difference, but since it is happening in relatively equal proportions for both companies, the balance doesn't change. So, long story short, I doubt that comparing apples to apples (otherwise same RAM, GPU etc), you will be able to "feel" that your FX-8120 in both 3.1 (stock) or 4.5GHz is really "slower" than your i5 or i7 in single threaded applications.

 

When you render or when you are running benchmarks, the comparison is more obvious.

 

You can see some rendering oriented benchmark results uploaded in the Cinebench 11.5 result site - http://www.cbscores.com/

 

You can also see the vastly better performance in the OpenGL module of this same benchmark Radeon cards have over both GeForce and Quadro.

[litleboy]

Thanks for the answer,

 

I was thinking on pure render, 4 intel cores (+HT) vs 8 amd cores, I wonder if still that way Intel can outperform ADM. I haven't seen any render times comparing those two CPUs.

[Dimitris Tolios]

Could not find much myself -

Anandtech appears to have some comparison results - out of the "bench" module where you can draw data out of their review database

 

Both 3770K and 2600K beat the FX8150. In high-overclock scenarios, the FX 8150 would get better % in comparison to its base clock - at least vs. the 3770K - but that's not enough to cover the distance in most applications. A 40% O/C, assuming linear multithreaded performance increase will make it faster than a stock i7, but that's not apples to apples anymore.

 

The "beauty" with AMD is purely in cost, as you can get a 8120 that overclocks to the same ceiling as a 8150 for around $140 in Microcenter - that is half or less than half of the best prices for an i7, so if you are on a budget, you can get i5 or slightly better performance using a chip priced closer to an i3.

[Superkames]

I7 2600K/I7 3770K are still better , I can show you some results that I tested before .

 

 

 

At the same speed 4.5ghz , I7 2600K render faster than any AMD FX 81xx ~ 10% . Cinebench is not actually like realwold rendering with Vray or mentalray ...

 

If you want more --> check this article : http://www.behardware.com/articles/842-14/amd-fx-8150-and-fx-6100-bulldozer-arrives-on-am3.html

Edited August 17, 2012 by Superkames

[Dimitris Tolios]

Well,

If someone can do with the 2x price of the i7 for an initial investment, then he surely gets the better chip for the job - at least before we go into LGA 2011 an even higher investments. For a hobbyist / student etc on a budget, the FX 81xx is not a bad chip. I believe it would work fine in home-build render nodes too - being slightly faster than i5s, yet sucking in more power - but it definitely doesn't break any speed records.

[Superkames]

For a hobbyist / student etc on a budget, the FX 81xx is not a bad chip.

 

Not bad at all . I'am using an AMD FX system for my hobby.

[litleboy]

Excellent Vu Thanh, just what I was looking for.

[luckytohaveher]

BE SURE YOU GET THE O.S. SCHEDULER PATCH!

 

There is no patch for older O.S. systems (Vista, XP, etc.), only Windows 7.

 

Without that, it is likely that you are not getting the FULL performance of those different cores. The new Bulldozer cores have two logic modules (cores?) and a shared cache and Floating-point unit (FPU). I believe virtually all rendering code is FPU centric, so getting to that standard is important.

 

Good luck -- the price is so much lower for the AMD, it is almost criminal not to go that direction!

Use the saved money on the CPU a go for a SSD RAID (RAID-1 Minimum) for the program, swap, and file image directory.

 

That will VASTLY increase overall performance and help in all other programs as well!

[Dimitris Tolios]

Ted, thanks for the patch clarification.

 

As far as RAID + SSD goes, I can see why someone would do mirror raid on 2x large HDDs containing his libraries/work files, photos etc, but why do such for your SSD? Sounds a bit excessive. Most non-sandforce based SSDs are reliable enough (in many ways more reliable than the latest batches of HDDs when new at least) and do worn you when things will start wearing down.