Cinebench R10 Rendering Performance
Cinebench R10 is produced by Maxon. It is based on their Cinema 4D animation application and is very CPU intensive. It allows benchmarks to be conducted using one, or all available CPU cores. Additional cores can provide very large improvements in Cinebench scores.
Three tests are conducted using Cinebench. The first is the rendering test utilizing only a single core. The second uses all available cores. Once both tests are conducted, Cinebench reports how much faster the multi-threaded test was. This scaling information is useful to determine how well multiple cores scale during rendering work loads.
The third test is the Cinebench OpenGL benchmark. I've thrown it in as well for good measure.
As you can see, in a core-to-core comparison, the 45nm Intel processors are incredibly fast.
Things look a bit different once Cinebench is allowed to use all available cores. The X3 8750 was able to outperform the Intel E8200. All of the X2s fell to the back of the pack, even though they are clocked higher than the X3s.
When looking at the core scaling, you can see that the non-native quad core nature of the Q6600 makes it the least efficient of the bunch. The X3s are quite efficient, with the dual core processors almost perfectly utilized across two cores.
The OpenGL benchmark clearly favors the Intel processors, however the X3s did well compared to the Athlon 64 X2s even though they are clocked lower.
Thanks for the review, Mike.
Very interesting.
It was great that you went the extra mile and cleared the "bad" core issue up with AMD. Go Mike!
These seem like a decent step up from the "X2" AMD processors. I'd personally like to see how they fold with an SMP client. Pretty encouraging for AMD, it's not beating intel soundly but the fab process definitely helps AMD to keep prices very competitive.
Learned lots thanks Mike!
Now I want one
As do I.
I'll have to wait and see-- can't afford such a machine in the next six months-- but will be interested to see how they spread and how popular they are. I am running a 2.66 GHz Intel processor now that was state of the art 4 years ago, due to the fact that I have no current applications that can use multiple cores in the versions I have.
No, AMD prices are de facto set by Intel. AMD has no choice in the matter.
Correct but the fab process helps take some pressure off of being forced to set that low price, as in it is more affordable for AMD than if they didn't have their fab process.
Well. Three cores...I don't really know what to think of that... I remember when two cores meant two physical chips, back in the day of the Athlon MP's and dual P3 Slot rigs...MAN thsoe made powerful machines. But I wonder if XP will handle 3 cores...?
XP can handle however many cores CPU manufacturers can fit into two physical sockets.
core-rect