E6600/E6700 & 3ds Max

[lopri]

I've got a chance to toy with a trial version of 3ds Max and want to share the results for workstation folks. Tests were run with my E6700 at stock and OC'ed speeds, and I also simulated an E6600 using CrystalCPUID. Big thanks to lukx for guiding me through my first experience with 3ds Max.

3ds Max 8 trial version
Vray (Install after 3ds Max installation complete)
CornellTestNew (A scene used for the test)

Results are measured by time consumed to finish rendering the scene. (Lower is better)

E6700
Stock (2.66GHz, 10x266) / DDR2-800 (2:3): 3mins 53.5secs
OC (3.60GHz, 10x360) / DDR2-900 (4:5): 2mins 53.7secs

Stock with DDR2-1066 (1:2): 3mins 52.8secs

E6600
Stock (2.40GHz, 9x266) / DDR2-800 (2:3): 4mins 18.2secs
OC (3.60GHz, 9x400) / DDR2-800 (1:1): 2mins 52.8secs

Stock with DDR2-1066 (1:2): 4mins 18.4secs

Honestly I have no idea how these times measure up to other platforms but I could certainly see how stressful this application is to the CPU. It's completely SMP-aware and while rendering a scene the both cores are fully utilized. Memroy speeds and dividers weren't really a factor, at least for this specific rendering.

 

[Polish3d]

Interesting, you should run it on your opty if possible

 

[DrMrLordX]

Thanks for the results lopri, even if I don't have any of my own against which to test your data. You'd think some of the "real world" benchmark fans out there would chime in with their own figures.

Duvie maybe? *P

 

[Pabster]

Now don't start any flames.

FWIW I ran about 3m20s on this test. With very loose RAM (5-5-5-15).

 

[lukx]

lopri you rule!!!! Thanks man.

 

[lukx]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting, you should run it on your opty if possible

if you're interested in optys results as other configurations you can check this topic: http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=137843#137843

 

[lukx]

lopri, tell me casue you told me that you had 6600 before 6700. Is it worth in your opinion, spending extra money on 6700 instead 6600?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Now don't start any flames.

FWIW I ran about 3m20s on this test. With very loose RAM (5-5-5-15).

Not trying to start any flames, but I think it's great when we can get people interested in providing real-world benchmark data for other forum members. Granted, I don't know how many 3ds Max users we have on here, but . . . I figure someone with an impressive suite of hardware would probably be able to provide a few comparitive benchmark results.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: lukx
lopri, tell me casue you told me that you had 6600 before 6700. Is it worth in your opinion, spending extra money on 6700 instead 6600?

Only if you're serious about OC'ing. Otherwise, I wouldn't even get an E6600. Both E6400 and E6600 will do around 3.0GHz at or near stock Vcore. After that E6600 will need significantly more voltages to clock higher. If you are serious about OC'ing (meaning you know the basics - especially cooling- and are willing to invest time) then E6700 would be worth extra bucks for long term. E6600 took 1.57V for 3.6GHz and E6700 took 1.47V for 3.6GHz. (Both drops by ~0.02V under load) And there is a very good chance a E6600 won't clock higher than 3.5GHz.

With a right board, an E6400 will clock as high as an E6600, and will probably require less voltages, and even at the same voltage the temperature will be much lower.

P.S. I just checked out your website and your work is amazing. In how many years do you think it'll be possible to render such scenes in real time?

 

[lukx]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: lukx
lopri, tell me casue you told me that you had 6600 before 6700. Is it worth in your opinion, spending extra money on 6700 instead 6600?

Only if you're serious about OC'ing. Otherwise, I wouldn't even get an E6600. Both E6400 and E6600 will do around 3.0GHz at or near stock Vcore. After that E6600 will need significantly more voltages to clock higher. If you are serious about OC'ing (meaning you know the basics - especially cooling- and are willing to invest time) then E6700 would be worth extra bucks for long term. E6600 took 1.57V for 3.6GHz and E6700 took 1.47V for 3.6GHz. (Both drops by ~0.02V under load) And there is a very good chance a E6600 won't clock higher than 3.5GHz.

With a right board, an E6400 will clock as high as an E6600, and will probably require less voltages, and even at the same voltage the temperature will be much lower.

P.S. I just checked out your website and your work is amazing. In how many years do you think it'll be possible to render such scenes in real time?

thank lopri again.
In how many years? I'm giving it 10 years

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lopri
With a right board, an E6400 will clock as high as an E6600, and will probably require less voltages, and even at the same voltage the temperature will be much lower.

Mostly true, though it really depends. Some 6600's are better than others.

Also, don't forget that even at equal clock speeds, a 6600 will be faster than a 6400, due to the 4MB L2 cache. And this does make a difference in many areas.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Mostly true, though it really depends. Some 6600's are better than others.

Also, don't forget that even at equal clock speeds, a 6600 will be faster than a 6400, due to the 4MB L2 cache. And this does make a difference in many areas.

No, the higher FSB of the 6400 would make up for that. It would be just about a dead heat, I would bet.