Cinibench 2003 Is Out

[pgp_protector]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pgp Protector

Processor : AMD XP 1700+
MHz : 1700
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WIn XP PRo

Graphics Card : Nvidia Gforce 256
Resolution : 1152 X 864
Color Depth : 32 Bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 167 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 166 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 633 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 664 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.00

****************************************************

[Nonproductive]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel P4
MHz : 1.8ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win XP Home

Graphics Card : Asylum GeForce 4600Ti
Resolution : 1600 x 1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 173 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 177 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 857 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1554 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.76

****************************************************

[Anadin]

Boo Hoo!

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Andrei Nadin

Processor : emac
MHz : 700
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : MacOS X

Graphics Card : GeForce 2 MX
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 60 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 77 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 187 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 94 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.43

****************************************************

i'm getting a 17" powerbook in the next few weeks - I'll rerun it then

[LucentDreams]

did we reallly need a second thread PGP, should always check first, happened on Postforum too. Oh well since results are in this one here's mine:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Kai Pedersen

Processor : AMD 1.2
MHz : 1200
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP SP1

Graphics Card : ATI 9000pro
Resolution : <1024x1792>
Color Depth : <32bit>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 148 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 151 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 681 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1195 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.90

****************************************************

[pgp_protector]

Originally posted by Kaiskai
[B]did we reallly need a second thread PGP, should always check first, happened on Postforum too. Oh well since results are in this one here's mine:

Yes, but dose everyone on this forum Read postforum ?

[LucentDreams]

no I'm refering to Srek's post a few slots down, thats what I'm talking about, Srek announced on both forums, and on both someone else started a thread a little after making things confusing as there are now five threads on 3 forums.

[AdamT]

Don't think there'd have been a problem if Srek had used the word Cinebench in his subject line.

For those who haven't read the Postforum thread, the big news is that v.8.1 will support OpenGL hardware lighting, which appears to make editor redraw speed about twice as fast as even the peppy 8.012 redraw--assuming you have a video card that takes advantage of it.

[pgp_protector]

Originally posted by Kaiskai
no I'm refering to Srek's post a few slots down, thats what I'm talking about, Srek announced on both forums, and on both someone else started a thread a little after making things confusing as there are now five threads on 3 forums.

Then My bag & sorry :)

[DiGiman]

Its obvious that PCs are much faster than my MAC

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : DiGiman

Processor : PowerBook G4
MHz : 800
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 10.2.4

Graphics Card :
Resolution : 1280 x 854
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 72 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 91 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 216 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 128 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.39

****************************************************

[AdamT]

Originally posted by DiGiman
Its obvious that PCs are much faster than my MAC

Yeah, I got a bunch of crap a few months ago for saying that the fastest PC is more than twice as fast at rendering as the fastest Mac. But if you look at the numbers here and at Postforum, it appears that that was something of an understatement. PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS IS AN INVITATION TO START A PLATFORM WAR!!! It's just a statistic and Macs have many wonderful things to recommend them aside from pure rendering speed. :)

[DiGiman]

its so sad, but obviously true

[polo2000]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor : PowerMac G4
MHz : 500
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.4

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 8500
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 28 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 32 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 88 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 128 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.04

****************************************************

[CosmicBear]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : CosmicBear

Processor : Dual G4
MHz : 1000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X

Graphics Card : GeForce 4 MX
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 16,7 Mio. Colors

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 96 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 170 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.78

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 120 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 331 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 172 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.76

****************************************************

[handige_harrie]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : handige_harrie

Processor : Intel Pentium 4 2.0A
MHz : 2000@2667
Memory :768MB PC2700
Mainboard: :Asus P4S533
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP

Graphics Card : Leadtek GeForce 4 Ti4200 64MB
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 262 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 257 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1253 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1946 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.58

****************************************************

[FusionDG]

here's me:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Fusion

Processor : Dual AMD 2000+ MP
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
RAM :1G
Operating System : Win 2k

Graphics Card : GeForce Ti 4600
Resolution : <1280 x 1024>
Color Depth : <true color 32 bit>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 159 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 295 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 164 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 694 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1057 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.44

****************************************************
paul

[AdamT]

Looks like the P4 is kinda whuppin' up on the AMDs, huh?

[AdamT]

Handgie,
You seem to have the P4 from hell. Why's it so fast?


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : amt

Processor : AMD T-bird
MHz : 1.33ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : W2K SP3

Graphics Card : Ti-4600
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 164 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 171 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 786 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1494 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.75

****************************************************

[mecha]

Boy does my machine suck......


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : mecha

Processor : mecha1
MHz : 800
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win 2K

Graphics Card : Matrox G400 Max
Resolution : <1152x864>
Color Depth : <True Colour 32-Bit>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 90 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 167 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 95 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 293 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 137 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.09

****************************************************

Yup it sucks, Matrox card aint helping neither...... :hmm:

Do I get an award for crappiest machine?

[AdamT]

Mecha,
That's not so bad. Actually it's one of the faster Mac scores I've seen. You just need a better video card. Get a Ti-4200; they're not that expensive.

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by AdamT
Handgie,
You seem to have the P4 from hell. Why's it so fast?


Lol, my name seams to be very akward in english, just say harrie (or Peter, cause that my real name) ;).

I have an overclocked Pentium 4 Northwood 2000mHz running at 2667mHz with standard boxed Intel cooler (This is basically the same as a retail P4 2.67). Rock Stable for over half a year :thumbsup:. It even goes up to 2800mHz.
This on a Asus P4S533 mainboard with a SiS chipset (SiS is really good these days) in combination with 768mb of fast PC2700 DDR-RAM.

What surprises me however are the viewport scores, they are really high in comparison to others, even Ti4600's are beaten. That must have got something to do with the P4's power.

The Gfx-card isn't overclocked, I might be able to get a performance gain of 10-15% if I do.

PS. If you want something really fast get a P4 3.06gHz, not because of the mHz's but because pf HyperThreading support. It makes a huge difference:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-21.html

[DeathCarrot]

heh, i remember amds were wayyy above intels in R7, but seems not so in R8...

[medula]

Here's my home system specifications:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : medual home

Processor : PowerMac G4 agp
MHz : 400
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.4

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 8500
Resolution : 1280X960
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 42 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 55 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 148 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 225 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.07

****************************************************

And my work computer:

BENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************
**

Tester : medula

Processor : iMac 17" G4
MHz : 700
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.4

Graphics Card : GeForce4MX
Resolution : 1440X900
Color Depth : Millions

**************************************************
**

Rendering (Single CPU): 70 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 85 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 212 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 106 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.49

**************************************************
**

[AdamT]

Peter it is then! The overclocking explains it. I was comparing your score to several P4 2ghz scores that've been posted. Gotta love the free boost! Ironically I'm running a water-cooled rig that *isn't* overclocked. :( My overclocking mobo died and my backup Asus board just does not want to go fast. I've been planning on building a dual Athlon, but these P4 numbers are giving me second thoughts. Maybe a fast P4 or a dual-Xeon? Or a dual Mac--nah, just kidding! ;)

[ThirdEye]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : ThirdEye

Processor : dual PIII 1ghz
MHz : 1ghz + 1ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : win xp pro

Graphics Card : geforce 2 gts 32mb
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 112 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 207 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 111 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 502 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 631 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.68

****************************************************

[pgp_protector]

Home System :)

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Home
MHz : 1800+
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : ATI 9000
Resolution : 1152 X 864
Color Depth : 32 Bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 190 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 872 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1345 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.09

****************************************************

A Little better on the OpenGL :)

[michaeli]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Michaeli

Processor : Michael
MHz : 700
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win2k Pro

Graphics Card : TNT2 pro
Resolution : 1280 X 1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 79 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 90 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 63 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 40 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 0.70

****************************************************

[ChrisK]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : ChrisK

Processor : Athlon 2000 XP
MHz : 1666
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win XP

Graphics Card : Radeon 9700 Pro
Resolution : 1152x864
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 208 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 229 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1014 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1688 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.38

****************************************************



Intel's P4 fares better this time, but the results of a 1000 MHz lower clocked Athlon don't seem too bad.

I wonder how polished the OpenGL drivers for the Radeon 9700 are... there doesn't seem to be dual-plane support and it still won't let me do anything in Wings3D.

Chris

[LucentDreams]

youu'll need to use riva tuner to change your 9700 to an fx1 or whatever it is to get some overlay support (still not as good as nvidias overlays) and dual planes. On the subject of wings though you shouldn't have any problems.

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by AdamT
Peter it is then! The overclocking explains it. I was comparing your score to several P4 2ghz scores that've been posted. Gotta love the free boost! Ironically I'm running a water-cooled rig that *isn't* overclocked. :( My overclocking mobo died and my backup Asus board just does not want to go fast. I've been planning on building a dual Athlon, but these P4 numbers are giving me second thoughts. Maybe a fast P4 or a dual-Xeon? Or a dual Mac--nah, just kidding! ;)

When I built my machine I was also doubting between Dual-AMD and Single P4.

I chose for the Pentium:
-Dual AMD needs heavy PSU
-Dual AMD often needs ECC RAM
-Dual AMD XP's almost never work properly for a long time (problems with both CPU's being seen by mainboard) so you need expensive MP's
-Dual AMD = Dual Heat = Dual Noise
-Dual AMD is more expensive
-I had very bad experiences with my last AMD Thunderbird 900 (I blame the VIA chipsets:thumbsdow) and I wanted stability for a change.
-P4 overclocks like hell:p
-R8 would have P4 optimalisation

However don't forget dual is sóó nice in workflow (I've been told:)) Multiple tasking (let's say C4D and PS) without slowdown. "If you have had a dual once you will never want anything else" ;).


Again: I'm stunned even the ATI Radeon 9700Pro doesn't beat my humble TI4200 :eek: must have got something to do with drivers.

[ChrisK]

Kaiskai wrote:
you'll need to use riva tuner to change your 9700 to an fx1 or whatever it is to get some overlay support (still not as good as nvidias overlays) and dual planes. On the subject of wings though you shouldn't have any problems.

Thanks for the advice. Wings kept always crashing the whole OS, though. No big loss so far, because I was only toying around with it to see what Wings is all about. AFAIK ATI has released one new set of drivers since, so I got to try that some time.

handige_harrie wrote:
Again: I'm stunned even the ATI Radeon 9700Pro doesn't beat my humble TI4200 must have got something to do with drivers.

The other option being that even OpenGL shading could depend heavily on CPU speed. That probably depends on whether the CPU has to send all the vertex data each time it is being rendered or whether the geometry is being stored in video memory (I think this is possible with the latest OpenGL version).

A comparison between two systems with similar video cards but different CPUs would be interesting.

Regards,
Chris

[XPeriment]

http://www.xp3d.de/cinebench2003.png

[CosmicBear]

http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/kermit.gif i've been on the mac-drug since about 10 years but seeing the results on those benchmark-tests, i think, i'll get a pc next time. most of you single-processor-guys easily run out my mac mp... http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/yikes.gif http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/tilt.gif

[Cheers]

interesting results FusionDG
Heres mine, basically the same machine as yours, and I didnt have any background tasks turned off :hmm:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Cheers

Processor : Dual AMD Athlon 2000+ MP
MHz : 1.67
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows 2000 SP3

Graphics Card : GeForce4 Ti4600 (Driver Version 30.82)
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 190 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 354 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 196 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 901 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1456 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.43

****************************************************

[That Adrian Guy]

Exactly what does the speed up mean?


Would a 4.5 speedup be a 4%? or a 4x increase in speed?

Does it only speed up C4D? Does it affect all OpenGL?

Thanks

[AdamT]

Originally posted by That Adrian Guy
Exactly what does the speed up mean?


Would a 4.5 speedup be a 4%? or a 4x increase in speed?

Does it only speed up C4D? Does it affect all OpenGL?


It indicates a 4.5x increase in editor redraw speed. It's just calculating the ratio--Time for OpenGL sim/Time for Software sim.

Whether you get a similar boost in other applications depends upon their use and implementation of hardware acceleration for screen display; it has nothing to do with render performance or anything else. Basically it helps alot in supported 3D apps and games.

[medula]

Originally posted by CosmicBear
http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/kermit.gif i've been on the mac-drug since about 10 years but seeing the results on those benchmark-tests, i think, i'll get a pc next time. most of you single-processor-guys easily run out my mac mp... http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/yikes.gif http://www.cosmicbear.de/icons/tilt.gif

I have to say if what I have posted below is not true, I too will have to switch since 3D is my life blood.

-----
SNIPPED FROM : http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum64/HTML/001106.html#


Apple has been rumoured to be using the PPC970 in upcoming PowerMacs. The estimated processor speed of the PPC970 was to be 1.2-1.8ghz on introduction, and even at those speeds, it puts it more than twice as fast as the fastest current PowerMac in terms of benchmarks (for the floating point benchmarks, the amount is significantly more than that). Drool-worthy already.

However, check out the processor specs on the PPC970's being used in these blades from IBM. Need I point out the implications?

from: http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/highlights/powerpcblade.html

.....

IBM PowerPC Blade

Prototype from the IBM Development Lab in Böblingen, Germany

With the planned introduction of the PowerPC Blade, IBM will expand the performance of the IBM eServer BladeCenter and further extend its range of open source IBM eServers. To customers in the high performance computing sector (HPCS) the PowerPC Blade presents a very interesting and competitive extension of the IBM eServer BladeCenter and offers cost-effective computing power in the Unix and Linux area.

The PowerPC Blade offers outstanding performance and is superior to Intel Blades for certain applications in the High Perfomance Computing Sector. It is ideal for very computing intensive applications, for example in the area of simulation like meterology or geological calculations. The PowerPC Blade integrates seamlessly into the IBM eServer BladeCenter architecture with all its software components. Power und Intel Blades can be mixed in a BladeCenter in any order depending on the software applications.

The new IBM PowerPC 970 is the heart of the PowerPC Blade. It is based on the 64-Bit Power 4 architecture which is also used in the processors of the IBM eServer pSeries. The 64-bit microprozessor
· Offers full symmetrical multi-processing
· Has a high reliability (with parity L1, ECC L2 and parity checked system bus)
· Is manufactured in the latest 0,13 micrometer Copper/SOI CMOS technology
· Runs at frequences ranging from 1.8 GHz - 2.5 Ghz
Therefore the IBMPowerPC 970 is the fastest PowerPC so far.

Further technical highlights of the PowerPC 970:

· Onchip 512 KB L2 Cache
· Altivec ? Vector/SIMD unit
· 6,4 GB/s I/O system bus throughput

The IBM eServer BladeCenter has been available since December 2002 and is currently delivered with Intel processor blades.

IBM offers a solution for modular computing with the space-saving BladeCenter. The IBM eServer BladeCenters distinguish themselves by their high reliability and extensive system management software. The flat servers create free space in the computing center and can simply be supplemented with additional server "slices" when needed.

Further information in the Internet: www.ibm.com/de/entwicklung

[Triple G]

I've been reading about these new IBM chips that Apple's supposedly going to be putting in their next generation of desktops....I just hope it's not too little, too late. Macs have lagged behind PCs in terms of 3D performance for far too long. I figure I'll wait for these new chips to come out, and if their performance isn't at least on par with what Intel/AMD have to offer, I'll be jumping ship. Sorry Apple, I love ya....but for 3D? :thumbsdow

Oh yeah....my benchmark results:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Triple G

Processor : PowerPC G4
MHz : 1000 (Sonnet Encore ST)
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 10.2.4

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 8500 64MB AGP
Resolution : 1280x1024, 85Hz
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 91 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 106 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 275 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 362 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.43

****************************************************

[LucentDreams]

sorry but even double the speed for the same price just seems like too much. I would love a mac to have on the side, but will never be able to justify the spendature.

[mwa]

This is what I got from my Dell I bougt 3 mounths ago:

[mwa]

ehh.. SORRY!

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Magnus

Processor : Intel P4 2x2.4 XEON
MHz : 2x2.4
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WIN XP PRO

Graphics Card : quadro 4 900 xgl
Resolution : 2048x768 TWO MONITORS
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 237 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 446 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 243 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1109 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1890 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.77

****************************************************

Magnus

[Arrias]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Alex

Processor : AMD AthlonXP 1800+
MHz : 1.533ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WinXP Home SP1

Graphics Card : GeForce3 ti200


****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 187 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 189 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 917 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1157 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.13

****************************************************

[9nine]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : 9nine

Processor : AMD 2000+XP
MHz : 1666
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows 2k SP3

Graphics Card : Radeon 9000 128mb
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 203 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 216 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 937 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1444 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.70

****************************************************
using catalyst 3.1, the ati drivers are not so fast like the detonator, had a gf2mx before the radeon and the gf2mx was faster :thumbsdow

but running trillian and norton internetsec :D

[AdamT]

Originally posted by 9nine
had a gf2mx before the radeon and the gf2mx was faster :thumbsdow

but running trillian and norton internetsec :D

I seriously doubt the gf2mx would come close to the OpenGL scores you posted.

[Srek]

Originally posted by AdamT
I seriously doubt the gf2mx would come close to the OpenGL scores you posted.

You are most likely right Adam, a Quadro 2 wich is based on the Geforce 2 will achieve OGL HL of 1056 in my Dual Xeon 1.7

Regards
Srek

[LucentDreams]

can't help but notice my results beat a few TI4600, even a TI200 beat some 4600's, I think many testers didn't RTFM and sclose other apps and stuff before hand. alot of thopse scores seam innaccurate, I mean the rendering ones seems somewhate consitent, but the OGL scores are all over the place no consitency whatsoever.

[handige_harrie]

Done some more tweaking :bounce:

I tried SoftQuadro but I couldn't get it to work :shrug:, anyone else here tried it?

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : handige_harrie

Processor : Intel Pentium 4 2.0A
MHz : 2000@2800
Memory :768MB PC2700
Mainboard: :Asus P4S533
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP

Graphics Card : Leadtek GeForce 4 Ti4200 64MB
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 274 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 269 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1296 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1950 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.25

****************************************************

[Cheers]

Kai Said:
"can't help but notice my results beat a few TI4600, even a TI200 beat some 4600's, I think many testers didn't RTFM and sclose other apps and stuff before hand. alot of thopse scores seam innaccurate, I mean the rendering ones seems somewhate consitent, but the OGL scores are all over the place no consitency whatsoever."

Yep, I expected my results not to be all that hot on the OpenGL front, because I'm still running the nVIDIA 30.82 drivers. Of course, as you mention, I was a culprit of having a few background tasks running as well ;)
I will do a more accurate benchmark at a later date...

Cheers

[LucentDreams]

don't get me wrong its always good to see how your system perfomrs with the common other apps you have open like trillian and such, but for the ones you share for the CBrsults I think it should be a reflection on your system and not your work environment

[imashination]

It is perfectly possible that some machines are more heavily tweaked that others. a badly set up Ti4600 cn be slower than a nicely overclocked Ti4200, in fact the results show that they are. Janine's Ti4200 is currently around the 2100 mark, if you have the MIP mapping set to full quality with all of the other rubbish which doesn't make much difference in C4D, then you can make a Ti4600 crawl.

The OpenGL speeds are also dependent on the CPU and RAM speed, the gfx card can only display what its told to. If there is a bottleneck in sending data to the gfx card, then the OpenGL scores will suffer.

eg. A Ti4200 running on an Athlon 2.1Ghz with 333MHz RAM and AGP 8x could beat a P4 2.5GHz with a slower bus speed and AGP port. especially if it is badly set up.

[LucentDreams]

I don't know mash, on my system I can set the entire card settings to full which doesn't make much of a difference (except the smoothvision which isn't really usable in any 3D app IMO) and my benchmarks only go down about a hundred points. and when I OC my card a bit I notcie a minimal difference, I'm being safe when overclocking but still I only get an improvement of 60 to 80 points, this all in the Hardlighting SO I don't think those make much of a difference compared to running a few apps in the BG

[chi]

thought id add my comp to the battle....trying to defend amd
still cant beat harrie but he is overclocked like nuts...so oh well




CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : pat

Processor : xp+ 2000
MHz : 1.67
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : xp home

Graphics Card : 9000pro 128mb
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 208 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 195 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 972 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1496 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.67

****************************************************

[kwshipman]

Another AMD for yall

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************
**

Tester : kwshipman

Processor : AMD
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win2ksp3

Graphics Card : MSI gForce 4 Ti4200 128MB
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32bit

**************************************************
**

Rendering (Single CPU): 207 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 211 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1039 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1631 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.72

**************************************************
**

[AdamT]

Something else to keep in mind is that some of these video cards may be overclocked, either by a third-party utility, by an overclocked AGP bus, or even by the manufacturer.

[chi]

heh i know thats why im so happy i scored a cpu of 208 compared to harries 278....he has an extra 1.3ghz on the amd's

i wish i could get my video card that high though

[Arrias]

I just want to say that neither my 3dcard or cpu are overclocked.
I've tweaked windows half to death but it's nothing that would count as overclocking... just cleaning up the mess;)
I'm actualy surprised mine did so well compared to some of these machines.

One thing anyone might want to check is whether they've got FASS (full screen anti-aliasing) on, even at 2x it can give a significant performance drop to your 3d apps. I personaly alway have it off since I use UnrealEd quite a bit and you can't select anything wiht AA on.
I don't know if it'd affect this test but I would have through so.

Disable all backround services that you don't need, they just take up more memory and don't have nay perpous (the indexing service is nafarious for this IMO)

Also check some of the X-Setup plugins (such as improving performance between AMD CPU's and your 3d hardware, doesn't give very much boost but every little counts right) that can be useful if you don't want to go arround digging in the reg.

DMA, DMA, DMA... if you don't have this enabled it probably wont make much difference to the test but it can usualy improve your general system performance so it may be worth making sure it's enabled on all your IDE hardware (no idea about SCSI, I've never used it).

I've probably just given tips that noones actualy insterested in or they already know but never mind:shrug:

[DiGiman]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
_
Tester: DiGiman
_
Processor: Xeon 2.66X2
MHz: 2660
Number of CPUs: 2
Operating System : XP
_
Graphics Card: Quadro 900XGL
Resolution: <1600X1200>
Color Depth: <32 bit>
_
****************************************************
_
Rendering (Single__ CPU): 269 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 568 CB-CPU
_
Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.11
_
Shading (CINEMA 4D): 272 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1197 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1737 CB-GFX
_
OpenGL Speedup: 6.39
_
****************************************************

[9nine]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : 9nine (clean system)

Processor : AMD 2000+ XP
MHz : 1666
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win 2k SP 3

Graphics Card : Radeon 9000 128MB
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32bpp

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 206 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 219 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 951 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1457 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.66

****************************************************
clean system - no apps running
only 3 points faster in rendering and shading, but 13points in hardware lightning and 14!! (:D) in software lighting
so the ram ist not the indicator - 256mb and now 108mb free lasttime ca130mb free
think the grxboard and the cpu arre most important

[AdamT]

R8 definitely likes those dual Xeons! Mmmmm...Xeon.

[FusionDG]

@Cheers;

weird, huh? We have almost the exact same setup and I’m definitely behind on the comparison. But I’ve also noticed that I’m behind some lower Mhz AMD single setups, so something is not right in my setup .

I had all apps closed and even downloaded the latest nvidia drivers before testing, huh :shrug:

I did notice that I have SP2, and not SP3. Would that make a difference?

Maybe I just need a good ole fashioned reformatting of the HD and reloading everything back on to clean house.

Best,

paul

[Cheers]

Well my OS installation is 6-7 months old, so I've probably built up some junk ;)
I'm wondering about motherboards, I'm running an ASUS A7M266-D. I foget the revision, but it is post USB bug era...I made sure I waited until they had sorted that can of worms out. It runs really well, and had no issues at all.
The motherboard is only the real big difference that we can have between our two machines, and it would surprise me to have such differing results if you had the same board.

Cheers

[medula]

Originally posted by AdamT
R8 definitely likes those dual Xeons! Mmmmm...Xeon.

Ugh. :rolleyes: grrr . . . . :curious: must keep control of myslef **gasp** :insane:

j/k

[FusionDG]

Originally posted by Cheers
...I'm wondering about motherboards, I'm running an ASUS A7M266-D....and it would surprise me to have such differing results if you had the same board.

Cheers
Huh, nice MB, it's the same one that I have :D

How about memory, how much RAM you running?

I definately think it's something on my end, because even some single AMD's are beating me.

I did notice that in Norton System Info that it says my CPU is 1.3 Ghz, while i think you mentioned a 1.67Ghz speed on your end. Why the difference I wonder? :shrug:

You do have the MP's right, and not XP's modified to the MB? No overclocking?

What is the latest nvidia driver that you have DL'd?

My CPU usage whle typing this reply has never been over 4%, usually around 1% - 2%, so I don't think that I have some weird spyware thing running in the background. Got me, I will have to do an overhaul when i get a chance in think. :hmm:

best,

paul

[Triple G]

Originally posted by DiGiman
Processor: Xeon 2.66X2
MHz: 2660
Number of CPUs: 2
Operating System : XP

Rendering (Single__ CPU): 269 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 568 CB-CPU
_
Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.11

:surprised I didn't think it was possible to achieve higher than 1.8 or 1.9 for a dual system?! I mean, theoretically, the highest you should be able to get is a 2.0, right? Or am I missing something here?

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by AdamT
Mecha,
That's not so bad. Actually it's one of the faster Mac scores I've seen. You just need a better video card. Get a Ti-4200; they're not that expensive.

A mac with win2k?

(That's what it says in the CineBench profile...)

[Cheers]

Ha, ha :-)
Are you running the board in jumper mode or through the BIOS. I'm running MP CPU's that are certainly rated at 1.67Ghz. No overclocking, just running a 133Mhz External Frequency Setting through the jumpers.
1024MB DDR Registered RAM (2 X 512MB).
Is there a chance you could be runing your CPU External Frequency speed at anything other than 133MHZ, it certainly sounds like it?
I will have to look in the manual :hmm:
Still using the old nVIDIA 30.82 drivers on the graphics card.

Just looked at the manual, and the jumper settings available for for the frequency settings are:
100Mhz
103Mhz
105Mhz
110Mhz
115Mhz
133Mhz

These settings will effect the speed of your CPU.

Cheers

[FusionDG]

Originally posted by Cheers
Ha, ha :-)
Are you running the board in jumper mode or through the BIOS. I'm running MP CPU's that are certainly rated at 1.67Ghz. No overclocking, just running a 133Mhz External Frequency Setting through the jumpers.
W/my history of computers, it seems that I'm a magnet for poor computer performance :annoyed:

i'll have to check this out, because i know when the computer was put together, the store i bought this from [local] had a heck of a time with somethings on the MB. Maybe someone screwed the pooch and set something wrong in the bios or on the MB?

I'll check it out, thx for the info :thumbsup:

best,

paul

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by Triple G
:surprised I didn't think it was possible to achieve higher than 1.8 or 1.9 for a dual system?! I mean, theoretically, the highest you should be able to get is a 2.0, right? Or am I missing something here?

The theoretical best case is a 95% scaling when processor count doubles.

However, with a P4 Xeon there are more variables involved, including HyperThreading that can easily throw that off... what you're seeing isn't really supra-linear scaling, it's just the illusion thereof.

[FusionDG]

@Cheers,

Ha ha! You were right! Now my speed reads 1.67 Ghz after altering my bios to 133. [Who set that thing at 100 mhz?!]

Here's the new cinebench test results:

Date 3/3/03 revised bios @133mhz
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Paul Griger

Processor : Dual AMD 2000+ MP
MHz : 1.67
Number of CPUs : 2
Ram : 1G
Operating System : Win 2K SP2

Graphics Card : Nvidia GeForce 4 Ti4600 bios: 4.25.00.27.32
Resolution : <1280 x 1024>
Color Depth : <32bit>

****************************************************



*******
Date 3/3/03 revised bios @133mhz
*******
Rendering (Single CPU): 209 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 389 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 214 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 897 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1272 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.94

****************************************************

Here’s my old test, same machine

*******
Bios @100mhz
*******
Rendering (Single CPU): 159 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 295 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 164 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 694 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1057 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.44
*****************

interesting that my rendering single and dual CPU results are a bit higher than yours now, I'm guessing because you have a higher resolution than I do, does that sound right?


But why are you beating me still in the OpenGL area still? I noticed that in the settings for my Nvidia card it says Bus = AGP[PCI mode] that doesn't sound right, does it?

anyways thanks for the tip!
Agghhh, makes me a bit mad that i have been letting this thing sleep the last 9 months on me for rendering!

best,

paul

[Cheers]

Hi Paul, ahh thats good news...you'll think that you have a new machine ;-)
The OpenGL scores have probably the greatest chance of varibles. There are so many settings that can be made that can make a difference, that I feel that if you are happy with your performance then stay with what works.
Without looking, I think I may have enlarged my Graphics Apperture Size to 128MB (in the "Advanced>Chip Configuration" settings of the BIOS).

I'm not sure, and may be wrong, but I have a feeling that it depends on the nVIDIA driver version, on if the BUS shows up like that or not in the settings. My BUS just reads AGP, but don't worry just make sure that "AGP 4X Supported" is Enabled in the BIOS settings (located in "Advanced>Chip Configuration" ).

I will do another test within the next couple of days, after a reboot and with no tasks running, and see if that does improve my score a bit.

Glad I could help :-)

Regards,

Martin

[muhkuh]

Hello,

another AMD system. (Tyan Thunder)

I would like to see some MP 2400 or MP 2600+ to know what to expect when upgrading my old XP's

I tried also Softquadro 4 without any improvements :-(

Overclocking the Graka was only a little plus.




CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : MuhKuh

Processor : Dual XP 1800+ Palomino
MHz : 1530 x 2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win XP sp1

Graphics Card : MSI Geforce Ti 4600 Nvidia 41.09 300/660
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32b
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 187 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 347 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 195 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 916 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1594 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.17

****************************************************

[Alfred_a]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Alfred_A

Processor : dual atllon
MHz : 1800+
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : windows 2000 sp3

Graphics Card : geforce MX 440 64MB
Resolution : <2560*1024t>
Color Depth : <32 bitt>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 191 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 354 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 198 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 288 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 274 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 1.46

****************************************************
I am actively looking at doing something about my graphics card. (Screen reolution didnt change the test much).
i was looking into Softquadro, but the softquadro info refers to geforce 2MX and others, But the soft quadro4 refers only to geforce 4ti* , So it seems geforce 4 mx is not supported(?) . Anyone know. I do have a geforce 2mx on my other system , maybe I'll test it on that (32MB only)
cheers
Alfred

[Thalaxis]

The GF4mx family are memory and feature limited... probably not worth the trouble.

Since it's so close to release (within a month) I'd advise that you wait until ATI launches the Radeon 9800 series, and snarf up a 9700 card when the new toys drive the price down. :bounce:

Right now, the 9700 Pro is the fastest gun in the west... though the GeForceFX can give it a run for its money on the off chance that you can find one that hasn't already been sold.

[3Design]

Here goes:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : threeD

Processor : Apple Dual G4
MHz : 800 x 2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS X 10.2.4

Graphics Card : NVIDEA GeForce 2
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 77 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 140 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.82

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 97 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 250 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 132 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.58

****************************************************


Maybe not too shabby for a mac... but in comparison....
Let's go 970!!

[StefanB]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : XP 1800
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win XP

Graphics Card : Geforce 2Ti
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : 32 bit
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 193 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 204 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 972 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1532 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.52

****************************************************

[ChrisK]

Thalaxis:

I wouldn't count on the GeForce FX. Its Ultra variant is about as fast as a Radeon 9700 Pro, but (at 500 MHz) it's overclocked as hell and therefore has a fan that is as noisy as a leafblower or something.

This has earned it a lot of mockery already (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4063&highlight=geforce+fx).

I guess I don't have to comment on how annoying fan noise can be.

BTW, my normal Radeon 9700 Pro is now 100% quiet and passively cooled - works marvellously with Zalman's ZR80-HP heatpipe cooler.

Chris

[handige_harrie]

We got a AMD XP2100+ Thoroughbred today :).

It's a AIUHB 0304 core, so It doesn't get any better.

Unfortunately no good mainboard around at the moment, and the hsf isn't spectacular but I'll see what I can do. Maybe beat the P4 @2800 ;)

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by ChrisK
I wouldn't count on the GeForce FX. Its Ultra variant is about as fast as a Radeon 9700 Pro, but (at 500 MHz) it's overclocked as hell and therefore has a fan that is as noisy as a leafblower or something.

That's what I said. I also implied that they're in short supply and made the same reccomendation that you did.

[Alfred_a]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
The GF4mx family are memory and feature limited... probably not worth the trouble.

Since it's so close to release (within a month) I'd advise that you wait until ATI launches the Radeon 9800 series, and snarf up a 9700 card when the new toys drive the price down. :bounce:

Right now, the 9700 Pro is the fastest gun in the west... though the GeForceFX can give it a run for its money on the off chance that you can find one that hasn't already been sold.

Thanks Thalaxis,\
I'll look into ATI. Interestingly, I never really liked ati products, but I guess times have changed.
cheers

[muhkuh]

This is a cinebench test from our server (supermirco superserver 8042)

its an intel quad board - but only there are only 2 P4 Xeon MP with 1.5 GHz (and Hyperthreading) in it.

unfortuately we cant take the other 2 CPUs from the second cluster, because the system is already running :-(

There were also some small Background Apps - but nothing trivial.

maybe when we do maintainance on weekend we will put all 4 cpus in a board
:-)

Memory is 1 GB

Grafik is a onboard ATI 2000 ?? or something similar - tested over Remote Desktop (Dual P II = old server)




CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Supermicro Superserver 8042

Processor : Dual Pentium 1,5 GHz Xeon MP
MHz : 1500
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : Win 2K Adv. Server

Graphics Card : onboard ATI
Resolution : 800 x 600
Color Depth : 16 bit (4bit over Remote Desktop)

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 111 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 292 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.62

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 211 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 83 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 48 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 0.39

****************************************************

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by Alfred_a
Thanks Thalaxis,\
I'll look into ATI. Interestingly, I never really liked ati products, but I guess times have changed.
cheers

As much as I like nVidia, I have to say that this looks a lot like the Intel/AMD situation when the Athlon was launched... the GeForceFX is memory and YIELD limited (that last part is VERY bad for nVidia, because if TSMC can't make enough of them, nVidia can't sell enough of them), and ATI is on a roll... www.tech-report.com has an article about the Radeon 9800 Pro up, which I will be reading at some point... while all that nVidia is talking about at GDC is lower-end versions of the GeForceFX that they already released.

It won't last forever I'm sure, but for now ATI is firmly in the lead.

[AdamT]

Pretty amazing, considering that just a year ago nVidia thoroughly dominated the market. Even still, although ATI has improved its drivers quite a bit they still aren't as good a nVidia's. That's why I bought a Ti-4600 even though I knew the 9700 Pro was the faster card. Oh yeah, and the Ti was almost $200 cheaper. :)

[Thalaxis]

I think it had a lot to do with ATI's acquisition of ArtX, to be honest. ArtX in case you don't know were responsible for the design of the GameCube's graphics engine.

IMO nVidia made a mistake with their new memory bus; ATI's has significantly higher bandwidth, which is why nVidia's limits the GFFX's performance compared to the Radeon 9700's.

nVidia's biggest problem, however, is the same as AMD's... which is to say that they are having trouble with the foundry side of things; ATI went the conservative route and used a foundry partner with a mature .15 micron process, while nVidia went with an untested .13 micron process -- and is paying the price for it.

Still, I'd guess that the next generation of graphics processors that nVidia is cooking up will make use of the IP that they gained as a result of acquiring exLuna and 3Dfx, so there are most likely some very cool things coming down the pipeline to team up with the "coming soon" monstrosities from Intel and AMD. :bounce:

[STRAT]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************

Tester : Steve Leworthy (STRAT)

Processor : IBM Intelli Station
MHz : 2.66 Xeon
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : nvidia quadro4
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32 bit

**************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 269 CB-CPU - 1 min 38 secs
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 501 CB-CPU - 51 secs

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 275 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1177 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1219 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.43

**************************************************

[AdamT]

Hi Strat,
So that explains the interest in *my* new system! One thing--you can improve your scores a fair bit by enabling hyperthreading in bios. With HT enabled Cinebench will report 4 cpus and your multi-cpu improvement will be between 2-2.12x. I can't believe these big-name PC makers are shipping these hot systems with this important function disabled!! A guy on Postforum had the same thing with a new dual 3Ghz Dell machine. By simply enabling HT his rendermark improved by about 15%!

[STRAT]

trying now......

[STRAT]

yup, reduced from 51 seconds down to 45 seconds.

cheers Adam :)

[Erik Heyninck]

I assembled a new PC (AsusP4G8x mainboard, 1,5 GB Dual DDRam, no overclocking). I still have to learn how to tweak the OpenGL settings though...
It's fun to see how the CPU doubles and Carlos Piles' image is rendered not only from top down, but also from halfway down.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Erik

Processor : PIV
MHz : 3.06GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXP SP1

Graphics Card : GeForce4Ti 128MB
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 306 CB-CPU (86.1sec)
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 361 CB-CPU (73.0 sec)

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 305 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1442 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1950 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.40

****************************************************

[handige_harrie]

The best proof that Hyperthreading had a great effect on rendertimes :thumbsup:.

I would like to do a price/performance comparison soon. Just looking at mainboard/cpu (and maybe include ram) combinations.
Because Intel might well the fastest by a wide margin, how do they perform in relation to their costs.

My bet is that an AMD 1700+ to 2100+ combined with a cheap Asrock K7VT2 will come out best.

I did a lot of searching quite a while ago for someone who wanted to buy nodes to build his own renderfarm (for LW), the AMD's came out best.

[Erik Heyninck]

In fact, because I was told that ATI does not support the DualPlanes technique, I went for a GeForce4Ti (I am not a gamer). And the moment I ordered the parts, due to a local quarrel between two well-known shops, the PIV3.06 dropped 30% in price. Otherwise I would have gone for a PIV 2.8. Unbelievable but true: two days later it was back at the original price...
Although I love assembling comps, I consider the art one creates with them of a much higher value. And we all know that an experienced artist can make rendertimes much shorter because of a better control of the mesh and the rendersettings.
One of my favourite artists on the web works with Photoshop4 on a G3. If he hadn't written it on hi site, no one would ever have noticed it...

;)

[tilo.kuehn]

Originally posted by Erik Heyninck
In fact, because I was told that ATI does not support the DualPlanes technique, I went for a GeForce4Ti (I am not a gamer).;)
whoever told you this ... it's not true ... most newer ati cards support dualplanes (e.g. firegl x1) and work with dual monitor support too with a very good performance (2350 CB-GFX on my p4 2.8 GHz) ...
but i guess it's to late because you already ordered the stuff ...
cheers
tilo

[LucentDreams]

no tilo fire GL is the only one, unless you mod the 9500 and 9700.

Can't say for the 9500/9700/FireGL, but the 9000 and 9000 pro are having some serious problems with C4D still too. Save frequently is all chi and I can say when it comes to the ATI 9000 and 9000 pro.

[Erik Heyninck]

Tilo, it was certainly not my intention to say that ATI is not as good as NVIDIA. But first of all I asked on several forums, and I always got the same reply (about the dual planes I mean), and secondly the difference in price between the Ti4200 and the RadeonPro9700 was such that I got WinXP Pro so as to say for nothing. ATI never mentions dualplanes either.

Wildcats, FireGLs and the NVidia pro cards are of course much better, but I am a painter with brushes and oils who uses Cinema on a non professional basis. So a good "van" is more than enough for me. No need for a "large truck"( dualxeons or AMD's etc...).

[rirad]

Removed my comment.
@Handige_Harrie. I indeed mistaked dualplane for dualmonitor.

Maybe someone can explain what dualplane is. I did a search on gooogle and I think it is an OGL extension.

OK found it: The dual planes extension allows for objects not being animated to not be redrawn every frame

[handige_harrie]

rirad are you sure you are not mistaking dualplane for dualmonitor?

[pixel8or]

Hey, this is a cool benchmark. I love that "Daylight" rendering!

Here's mine. I just upgraded a month and a half ago.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : rfm

Processor : Asus P4PE, Intel P4, 1 GB PC2700 DDR333 @ 418 MHz
MHz : 2.4 GHz @ 3.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win XP Pro, SP1

Graphics Card : Geforce 4 Ti4200, 128 MB @ 290 MHz core, 540 MHz memory
Resolution : 1152x864
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 301 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 308 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1458 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2178 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.07

****************************************************
http://home.attbi.com/~moorerf/cinebench40.72.jpg

I turned off all the background stuff, but left my wallpaper and XPThemes on. TwinView was turned off.

Price to performance? I seriously looked into a dual proc setup but said, 'No thanks' when I realized I could get this mobo and processor for less than a dual mobo alone. And the nice thing about it is, this mobo supports Hyper Threading. So as soon as the 3.0 GHz P4s come down in price, I'll have room to upgrade.

Now if I can just get my 3D skills up to a level worthy of my computer.:cool:

[pixel8or]

I ran this again for a comparison in a more 'real world' setting with my computer running as it does normally.

-cable moden on with Zone Alarm and Popup Killer running
-Motherboard Monitor running with temps displayed in taskbar
-Nvidia desktop manager enabled with TwinView on
-Web browser and Windows Explorer running


****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 294 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 300 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1358 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1955 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.52

****************************************************

[pixel8or]

I hope I'm not stirring up any resentments here, but I downloaded the latest Detonator driver for my Ti4200, set the quality slider to the "performance" setting, bumped the AGP/PCI timing up one notch in the BIOS, and ran this benchmark again.

http://home.attbi.com/~moorerf/cinebench43.51b.jpg

Up to a couple months ago, I was an AMD kind of guy... had been for 3 years. Needless to say I'm very impressed with this CPU. My 3 gig overclock is done at default voltage with a stock Intel heatsink and fan.

[Emberghost]

AMD User

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************
**

Tester : Adam

Processor : AMD 2700 xp
MHz : 2162GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WinXP home

Graphics Card : MSI GeForce4Ti 4200 128MB 8x agp
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32

**************************************************
**

Rendering (Single CPU): 266

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 276 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1268 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1812 CB-GFX



**************************************************

Seems like a pretty good score for my setup, I also have 512mb 2100 ram *1 stick*

[seeker010]

Woohoo beat some P4's running faster :-D And them Geforce4s too.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : seeker

Processor : Athlon XP 2600+
MHz : 2100 MHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP

Graphics Card : Radeon 9700pro
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 227 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 260 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1131 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2300 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.84

****************************************************
:applause: :applause:

[Per-Anders]

hmm... i guess i should post too... i guess sometime i should go about tinkering with the cards settings rather than using default...


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Per

Processor : Single P4 with multithreading
MHz : 3ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Radeon 9800 Pro
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 302 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 356 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 316 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1423 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2772 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.78

****************************************************

[GabrielP]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : GabrielP

Processor : Pentium IV
MHz : 2.4
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP Home

Graphics Card : ATI Mobility Radeon 7500c
Resolution : 1024x768
Color Depth : 32
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 100 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 125 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 444 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 859 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.86

****************************************************

[lllab]

gabriel, if this is your benchmark something is seriously wrong with your system. a PIV 2,4ghz should have about 240 for cpu rendering not 100!!!!

cheers

lllab stefan

[GabrielP]

Originally posted by lllab
gabriel, if this is your benchmark something is seriously wrong with your system. a PIV 2,4ghz should have about 240 for cpu rendering not 100!!!!

cheers

lllab stefan

Hi !
Yes !! That's why I have posted it! I don't know much about hardware or configuration... but I realice the difference between my machine and yours....

I have a New Vaio Notebook and my computer is so fast... but the benchmark is slow... well I guess I have to optimize the machine....

Just don't know how....

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
hmm... i guess i should post too... i guess sometime i should go about tinkering with the cards settings rather than using default...


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Per

Processor : Single P4 with multithreading
MHz : 3ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Radeon 9800 Pro


What chipset and memory type are you using, if you don't mind
my asking?

I'm just about to buy a Springdale rig (unless Shuttle or AMS ships
a Canterwood box in the next few days :)), and a 3.0 or 3.2 GHz
P4, so if you're using one of those two, then this would be a
pretty good indication of what to expect. :)

[dfaris]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Pentium
MHz : 2.99 ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXP Pro

Graphics Card : Geforce 4 MX
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 299 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 354 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 296 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1313 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1285 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.44

****************************************************

[Per-Anders]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
What chipset and memory type are you using, if you don't mind
my asking?

I'm just about to buy a Springdale rig (unless Shuttle or AMS ships
a Canterwood box in the next few days :)), and a 3.0 or 3.2 GHz
P4, so if you're using one of those two, then this would be a
pretty good indication of what to expect. :)

My machine is basically a Dell 8300, the configuration is a single p4 with ht running at 3ghz with a 800mhz fsb, the ram is ddr400. the mobo afaik is just a fairly bog standard dell/intel job. to get a good result out of the graphics card though i did do a clean instal of xp pro and left out all of dells "helpful" software that was doing nothing i needed and everything it could to slow the machine down rather drastically.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
My machine is basically a Dell 8300, the configuration is a single p4 with ht running at 3ghz with a 800mhz fsb, the ram is ddr400. the mobo afaik is just a fairly bog standard dell/intel job. to get a good result out of the graphics card though i did do a clean instal of xp pro and left out all of dells "helpful" software that was doing nothing i needed and everything it could to slow the machine down rather drastically.

Cool, thanks. I'm building this machine largely from scratch,
though by using a Shuttle barebones, the task of installing the
hardware becomes largely trivial. Getting rid of said "helpful"
software is easy when you don't install it in the first place :)

[modestmouse]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : modestmouse

Processor : Dell Dimension 8200
MHz : 1.7 Ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP

Graphics Card : Geforce FX 5200 128 mb
Resolution : 1280*1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 145 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 163 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 729 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1113 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.81

****************************************************

[Iggy]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : iggy

Processor : Iggy 44.03
MHz : 1.8
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : xp pro

Graphics Card : geforce3 ti 500
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 177 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 186 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 883 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1074 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.76

****************************************************

[Iggy]

Just tried tweaking with RivaTuner to no great effect. A small boost in Open GL shading, but nothing else. Bummer. Going back to the real thing...


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Iggy

Processor : Iggy 40.72 SQ
MHz : 1.8
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Geforce3 Ti500 Softq'd to Quadro DCC
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 178 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 186 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 866 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1222 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.59

****************************************************

[dpvtank]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : dpvtank

Processor : 1
MHz : 2.8 Ghz (I think)
Number of CPUs : 1 (AMD Athlon XP 2800+)
Operating System : Windows XP Pro

Graphics Card : nVidia Geforce FX 5600
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 257 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 281 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1255 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1635 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.83

****************************************************


is that good?

[Aevium Viemme]

An Athlon XP 2800+ actually operates at 2.08 GHz :).
And I thought your new system had a 5800, Dpv.:shrug:

[dpvtank]

oh yeah..typo.

[GregHess]

Someone should really either copy this, move it, or do something to get this sticky'd in the hardware forum.

[Maven]

Here are my results.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************
Tester : leonec

Processor : Dell Precision 530
MHz : Dual 1680Mhz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows 2000 SP3

Graphics Card : 3DLabs Wildcat 5110 64MB
Resolution : 1600x1200 and 1024x768
Color Depth : 32 bit

************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU) : 162 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU) : 292 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup : 1.80

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 159 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 664 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 941 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup : 5.92

************************************************

[handige_harrie]

Here the results of a friend of mine. We just overclocked his new pc.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : kretzzzer
Processor : Intel Pentium4 2.4C Boxed
MHz : 3.2gHz (1.067gHz FSB)
Number of CPUs : 1 (with Hyperthreading)
Operating System : Windows XP pro

Graphics Card : Geforce 4 Ti4200 64mb
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 321 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 376 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.17 x

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 335 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1550 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1840 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.50 x

****************************************************

Further relevant specs:
2x 256mb GEIL PC3200 Ultra CL2 2-4-4-8 running at DDR427 Dual Channel.
Asus P4P800, Turbo mode and MAM-enabled. 1.008 BIOS.
Enermax 350Watt PSU.

Voltages:
Vcore: 1.6V
Vmem: 2.75V
Vagp: default

Temperatures (stressed):
CPU: 47 C
Mainboard: 40 C

If we tweaked some settings of the Geforce4 we probably would have had better OpenGL scores.

[reddrake]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : reddrake

Processor : AMD XP2500
MHz : 1.9 ghz?
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP Profesional

Graphics Card : ti4200
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 224 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 253 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1153 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1637 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.47

****************************************************


:beer:
Richard

[Cartesius]

Better late than ever.

/Anders

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Anders Kjellberg

Processor : Pentium 4
MHz : 3.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1 (HT)
Operating System : Win XP Home

Graphics Card : Radeon 9800 Pro
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 301 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 355 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 312 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1393 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2499 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.01

****************************************************

[kromekat]

Is anybody ever going to compile this into something meaningful? ;)

[Cartesius]

A good start is to submit the score to Imashination's Cinebench (http://www.imashination.com/bench.html).

/Anders

[squidinc]

better late than never

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Mike Robinson

Processor : squid
MHz : 2.8 gig
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : win xp

Graphics Card : GeForce FX5900
Resolution : 1280 x 960
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 330 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 285 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1318 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2344 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.23

****************************************************

[Pseudonym]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pseudonym

Processor : Athlon XP 2500+ @ 3000+
MHz : 2100
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win 2000 Pro

Graphics Card : GeForce4 Ti4800 SE
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 263 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 295 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1216 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1742 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.90

****************************************************

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by squidinc
better late than never

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Mike Robinson

Processor : squid
MHz : 2.8 gig
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : win xp

Graphics Card : GeForce FX5900
Resolution : 1280 x 960
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 330 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 285 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1318 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2344 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.23

****************************************************

Ever thought of overclocking your Pentium4? With a decent motherboard and RAM (I hope you do have) you should be able to run at 3200-3400mHz without losing stability.

It's about 15-20% free performance gain ;).

[jono338]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Jonathan

Processor : Athlon-mp
MHz : 1600
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win2000

Graphics Card : ATI Fire GL 8800
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 32 bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 198 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 367 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 207 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 861 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1429 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.91

****************************************************

[s0real]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : s0real

Processor : Dell 650 dual Xeon
MHz : 2.8ghz (dual)
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : XP

Graphics Card : QuadroFX 500
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 281 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 591 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.10

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 286 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1290 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1540 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.38

****************************************************



Woot! :thumbsup:

[kromekat]

Tester : kromekat

Processor : PowerPC G4
MHz : 1Ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.6

Graphics Card : NVidia GeForce4MX (64Mb)
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 93 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 114 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 316 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 164 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.77

****************************************************

:blush: Fairly appalling really! - roll on the G5 dual 2Ghz!
:buttrock:

[kromekat]

And then this just for a laugh!

Tester : kromekat

Processor : PowerPc G4
MHz : 400Mhz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.6

Graphics Card : ATI Rage 128 (16Mb)
Resolution : 1152x870
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 43 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 54 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 134 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 82 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.47

****************************************************

[squidinc]

Originally posted by kromekat
And then this just for a laugh!



oh dear oh dear :D, I think I've got a 450 knocking around somewhere

[kromekat]

If only PC's ran OSX and had all of that out of the box 'just works' that a Mac has... :rolleyes:

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by kromekat
If only PC's ran OSX and had all of that out of the box 'just works' that a Mac has... :rolleyes:

The only thing missing is OSX, which is almost purely an
aesthetic preference.

[bobtronic]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Bob

Processor : PC AMD
MHz : 1000
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP

Graphics Card : Geforce2 Ti 64MB
Resolution : 1152x864
Color Depth : 32

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 123 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 129 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 593 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 776 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.04

****************************************************

[dfaris]

New test with the Geforce 5900

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel
MHz : 3.0ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Geforce 5900
Resolution : 1280 X 1024
Color Depth : 32 Bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 301 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 357 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 313 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1408 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2090 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.68

****************************************************

[kromekat]

First G5 DP 2Ghz Cinebench (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/Powermac_Dual_g5.html#storytop)

Looking good so far - can't wait to see it again after Cinebench is optimised for G5.

:buttrock:

[flyingP]

Great, now if they could only get there act together with the delivery...

[hundredthirtyseven]

These results make me sad:( They are really bad... Okay, these are 32 bit results, but it seems that a 2 Ghz G5 barely outperforms a 2 Ghz P4, and can't even be compared with a 2 Ghz (real) AMD. So the architeture of the G5 processor (@32 bit) hasn't really changed from the G4. That oldie had the same results at such speeds... And in dual mode 401 CPU-points...Hm...a single 3 Ghz p4 with HT does about 360-370 points, not to mention Dual Xeons.
And much more more worse are the Open-Gl Hw lightning speeds. 1168 CB-GFX points from a radeon 9600???? And 875 from a radeon 9800 (even if this were a 1,25 Ghz machine)??? These Macs seem to have problems with videocard handling. I have 1553 points on a p4 using ati8500, and about 1200 points on a Celeron! 1200 using the same ati 8500. It is sad, that a celeron 1.2 Ghz outperforms the best G5.
Okay, I know that these results were measured on a 32 bit operating system, but even if the 64 bit system has a 1.5x multiplier on the results (and this is a very-very optimistic theory), the G5's power won't be enough to outperform the best p4. I hope that Apple comes out with something which solves the problems.

[hundredthirtyseven]

Abit NF7@203Mhz fsb, 11.5x multiplier
AMD XP 2200+ Thoroughbred "B" AIUHB @ 2335 Mhz, Air Cooling

Low budget power:)

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : supremacy

Processor : AmdXP2200+@2335Mhz
MHz : 2335
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WinXp Pro

Graphics Card : Ati 8500LE@default 250/250
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 286 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 294 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1307 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1553 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.28

****************************************************

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by supremacy
These results make me sad:( They are really bad... Okay,


Well, I knew this would happen, given Apple's idiotically
outlandish claims combined with the technical incompetence of
the press.

At least if the press had figured out what the difference is
between 32-bit and 64-bit processors, there would be a lot less
confusion. The disappointment in the machines was inevitable,
due to Apple's attempts to set such unrealistic expectations.


these are 32 bit results, but it seems that a 2 Ghz G5 barely outperforms a 2 Ghz P4, and can't even be compared with a 2 Ghz (real) AMD. So the architeture of the G5 processor (@32 bit) hasn't really changed from the G4.


Yes, it has. The difference between the G5 in 32-bit and in 64-bit
is nearly non-existent, that's not even remotely relevant to how
well it will perform.

Remember the Pentium4 when it was launched? Sound familiar?
The G5 will get faster with optimizations... not 64-bit software,
which will actually be slower in most casts than otherwise
identical 32-bit software.


That oldie had the same results at such speeds... And in dual mode 401 CPU-points...Hm...a single 3 Ghz p4 with HT does about 360-370 points, not to mention Dual Xeons.


Xeon = P4. Same architecture, slower memory, lower clock speeds, larger cache, more validation.


And much more more worse are the Open-Gl Hw lightning speeds. 1168 CB-GFX points from a radeon 9600???? And 875 from a radeon 9800 (even if this were a 1,25 Ghz machine)??? These Macs seem to have problems with videocard handling. I have 1553 points on a p4 using ati8500, and about 1200 points on a Celeron! 1200 using the same ati 8500. It is sad, that a celeron 1.2 Ghz outperforms the best G5.


Apple does need to do some work on their OpenGL
implementation, true.



Okay, I know that these results were measured on a 32 bit operating system, but even if the 64 bit system has a 1.5x multiplier on the results (and this is a very-very optimistic theory), the G5's power won't be enough to outperform the best p4. I hope that Apple comes out with something which solves the problems.

Of course it won't. It was never expected to. Even IBM didn't
claim that it would.

But a full conversion to 64-bits will probably cause more like a
.95x factor "improvement" in performance. When you convert
all of your addresses to 64-bit ints instead of 32-bit, you increase
your memory overhead, which will slow things down, not speed
them up. The G5 is architecturally identical in either 64-bit or
32-bit modes. Ignore the imbeciles in the press; their claims that
64-bit processors can process 2x the data of a 32-bit processor in
each clock cycle are based on nothing but pure stupidity combined
with a total lack of anything remotely resembling journalistic
integrity.

[FredSpeaks]

I ran the test 3 times to see if the new speed setting on the G5's make a difference. Answer, no not really.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Michael Rensing

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.2.7

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800 (Retail)
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
RAM : 1.5 GB

Automatic Speed Setting
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 192 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 233 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 599 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1198 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.14

****************************************************

Highest Speed Setting (first time)
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 192 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 233 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 604 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1138 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.88

****************************************************

Highest Speed Setting (second time)
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 193 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 232 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 595 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1189 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.12

****************************************************

[hundredthirtyseven]

Check this out: Athlon 64 FX-51 Cinebench Tests!

OpenGl HW Lightning: 3499 points!:)


http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a64fx51/20.shtml

[hundredthirtyseven]

Result update. I have bought a second RAM chip, so now I have dual channel ram, which has about 10% boost on shading scores. I also overclocked my system to 209 Mhz FSB, so now it operates at 2400 Mhz, still with Air Cooling. 56 Celsius on load, it's been working for 2 days, so it seems to be stable.


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************
**

Tester : supremacy

Processor : AmdXP2200+@2402Mhz
MHz : 2402
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WinXp Pro

Graphics Card : Ati 8500LE@default 250/250
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32bit

**************************************************
**

Rendering (Single CPU): 297 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 308 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1399 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1668 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.42

**************************************************
**

[medula]

Getting better! :D I'm running Panther with this test and I have 2gigs of ram. I have 2 more gigs showing up this week.

I want a better graphics card now! ;)

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
**************************************************

Tester : Medula Oblongata

Processor : Dual 2ghz G5
MHz : 2 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon Pro 9600 (64mb)
Resolution : 1600X1200
Color Depth : MIllions

**************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 287 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 510 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.78

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 278 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 777 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1431 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.14

**************************************************

[FredSpeaks]

Can you try it with the new Cinibench. I have to wait till I get home to run it (only a dual G4 @ work)

Cinebench (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94746)

[LucentDreams]

have to say new render times are pretty awesome, now if apple can get the OGL up to par they'll be head on i think.

[flyingP]

Just as a comparison this is mine with 10.2.7 and 1.5 GB RAM, looks like Panther really does make a difference.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : B. Read

Processor : G5 Dual
MHz : 2 x 2GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.2.7

Graphics Card : ATI 9600 Pro
Resolution : 1600 x 1200
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 219 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 396 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.81

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 266 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 702 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1331 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.00

****************************************************

[kromekat]

Looking damned good their marcus! - Panther definitely helps - are these results with the new optimised for G5 Cinebench also? - if not, I look forward to those greatly! :)

[medula]

Originally posted by FredSpeaks
[B]Can you try it with the new Cinibench. I have to wait till I get home to run it (only a dual G4 @ work)

I did!

[medula]

Originally posted by flyingP
Just as a comparison this is mine with 10.2.7 and 1.5 GB RAM, looks like Panther really does make a difference.

Yes, Panther is truly awesome! :eek: :scream:

And yes I did use the G5 optimized version of cinebench....

Now I just need a G5 optimized verison of Cinema 4D! :D

[FredSpeaks]

Thanks for the clarification. Maxon need to change the number on Cinebench; maybe CINEBENCH 2003 v1.1 or something.:)

[flyingP]

Originally posted by medula
Now I just need a G5 optimized verison of Cinema 4D! :D

Amen

[ronhondo]

shrug:

Jaguar with 1 Ghz RAM...I know it's basic to you guys, but how much will increasing the RAM to 2 Gigs or 4 Gigs help???

CINEBENCH 2003 v1 G5 (Beta)
****************************************************

Tester : ronhondo

Processor : Mac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.0
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OSX 10.2.8

Graphics Card : ATI 9800 BTO
Resolution : <1900x1200>
Color Depth : <millions>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 340 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.80

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 186 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 551 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1060 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.69

****************************************************
Comments????

[Erik Heyninck]

Sorry to have to say this, but I am shocked. I do hope that there are still some hidden settings on the G5 that make it take off, as a good friend of mine ad to lend money to buy one, and these results make me sad for him.
I suppose that I would feel like lynching someone...

My 3GHz HT PC with a cheap GeforceTi 4200 card (costs less than half the price of the Radeon9800, not even the Pro)
gets 306/361(1proc with hyperthreading), and 305/1442/1950...

There must be some setting somewhere as this is NOT possible.
My friend is far from rich, and he'll have to pay a long time before this comp will be his.
GD, makes me angry.

[FredSpeaks]

Just Re-ran on my 1.8

CINEBENCH 2003 v1 (G5 beta)
****************************************************

Tester : Michael Rensing

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.2.8

Graphics Card : 9800 (Retail)
Resolution : 1280X1024 (times 2)
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 251 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 240 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 683 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1219 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.08

****************************************************

[mrblifil]

Are you quite sure you downloaded the G5 beta? Those numbers resemble the early G5 numbers on imashination's site, prior to any optimization.

Kevin

[ronhondo]

Kevin,

DUH --- Processor Speed was set to "Reduced" on earlier test. I like the machine, but, I admit that I fell for Steve's NORMAL BS. Mac user since 1984, so I a used to being a bent over end user. Too old to change over.

Ron

CINEBENCH 2003 G5 (beta)
****************************************************

Tester : ronhondo CB G5 beta

Processor : Mac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.0
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OSX 10.2.8

Graphics Card : ATI 9800 BTO
Resolution : 1900 x 1200
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 509 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 278 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 809 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1378 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.96

****************************************************

[medula]

Originally posted by Erik Heyninck
Sorry to have to say this, but I am shocked. I do hope that there are still some hidden settings on the G5 that make it take off, as a good friend of mine ad to lend money to buy one, and these results make me sad for him.

I'm not sorry I bought the G5. I prefer to work in Mac OS X! Wahoo! :D

As for hidden settings? No such thing. Apple just needs to get OpenGL cranked up a little bit more... (coming soon). :thumbsup:

[Emberghost]

Originally posted by medula
Apple just needs to get OpenGL cranked up a little bit more... (coming soon). :thumbsup:

Although the new G5's processor performance is very good I agree that their open gl is lacking. My $120 4200 gets 1800 in open gl....

[Monty]

From http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

G5 Optimized Cinebench 2003 Beta version released - Maxon has made a G5 optimized beta version of Cinebench 2003 available now.

"CINEBENCH 2003 G5 is a technology study. MAXON has optimized crucial parts of the render engine for the G5 with the support of Apple, which now reaches speed increases of approximately 20%. Further improvements are expected once an optimized compiler with G5 support is available, which shall produce efficient and reliable G5 code. We expect new compilers and tools to be released during the first quarter of 2004, allowing us to deliver production quality G5-optimization for CINEMA 4D and BodyPaint 3D."

A previous report from a reader from Germany said that CT magazine tests with an early G5 beta showed about a 25% gain in the render score compared to the original 1.0 release.
Update - I've revised my previous page of Dual G5 tests to show include the results of this beta CB2003 version (in the benchmarks section). I saw an appx 25% increase in performance of the render score compared to the previous CB2003 version, although the scene flyby FPS rates showed less gain.

[handige_harrie]

Doesn't that look :drool: a score of 992 for the quad Opteron 848.

Dual Xeons, Dual and Quad Opteron scores:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000284

In case you have some thousand dollar bills lying around somewhere :p.

[JamesMK]

Quad Opteron.... Sounds like an affordable configuration :D

Gosh, I should give Cinebench a spin on my box. Is it capable of calculating negative scores, you think, - or will it crash with a divide-by-zero exception?

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by JamesMK
Quad Opteron.... Sounds like an affordable configuration :D

Gosh, I should give Cinebench a spin on my box. Is it capable of calculating negative scores, you think, - or will it crash with a divide-by-zero exception?

If you get lucky it finishes just before the sun burns out :D.

j/k

[Venkman]

Yeah, guys Cinema will be much more optimized once the mac version is compiled with tools that (1) take full advantage of the G5 and (2) take full advantage of Panther.

True G5 compilers and dev tools will make a huge difference.

I saw a test somewhere where a high-end Alienware blew away a dual G5 in video editing, but the program they tested was PREMIERE.

Try the same thing in the latest G5 optimized multiprocessor aware version of Final Cut and it is a different story.

I hope by next September, when I buy a G5, the recompiled rev. of Cinema will be out, and the second batch of revision 2 (the second batch of 90nm processors) G5's will be out. Oooo, baby.

[Venkman]

Also, G5 users- make sure to disable the "bus slewing" feature on the G5. I believe it is under the energy saver settings. Apple says the power conserving features do not affect performance, but various tests by MacWorld, MacAddict, and other companies have shown up to a 10% increase in speed acrooss the board with bus slewing turned off.

As with any app, tweak your CPU until it is the beast you always wanted it to be.

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by Venkman
Yeah, guys Cinema will be much more optimized once the mac version is compiled with tools that (1) take full advantage of the G5 and (2) take full advantage of Panther.

True G5 compilers and dev tools will make a huge difference.

I hope by next September, when I buy a G5, the recompiled rev. of Cinema will be out, and the second batch of revision 2 (the second batch of 90nm processors) G5's will be out. Oooo, baby.

You talk about further optimisations for the G5 but I remember a quote from someone at Maxon a while ago that they were optimising for the G5 to get a score of around 500 for the Dual2.0. Aceshardware says that the G5 already benefits from great optimisation. Is there so much more to gain?

By next september C4D will probably (at least hopefully) also be optimised for Opteron/AMD64 (64bit) and maybe even for the Intel Prescott that will be released around Februari 2004.

At the moment the G5 _isn't_ the fastest posible config available for C4D. But who cares that 500cb-points is nothing to be ashame of ;).

Please don't let this start a Mac vs. Pc flamewar, that's not my intention :love:.

[Venkman]

Most people here I think understand you will buy what you like, speed/price be damned. Everyone here seems pretty relaxed about their own PC/Mac camp. No flame wars here or intended.

But I think there still remains a lot of optimization for the G5. For one, it is truly 64 bit. This lets the hardware, for example, break the 2 GB RAM barrier (up to 8).

But, a program such as photoshop, can still use only up to 2 Gigs. Photoshop, and the Mac OS need to jump to 64 bit code.

Panther, although faster, is not a 64 bit OS. When that happens, expect faster performance in general from the G5, and then programs will have to be compiled to take advantage of that (Bobcat? Cheetah?).

One of the reasons Apple went with IBM is because of the backwards campatibility to run 32 bit, altivec applications without a peformance hit. Although these applications do not get a significant gain simply because they are running on the G5.

The g5 appeals to me because I work in Final Cut and sound (will be getting Logic soon) a lot, and I am getting DVD Studio Pro. Apple owns all these products, and these programs will see significant speed increases under a G5 processor.

Plus, I like the Mac OS best. My music programs (Reason, etc) all work very flawlessly and VERY easily under Core Audio.

Sorry for the onlg post, I love talking Computer tech. Love it, i say.

[JamesMK]

Originally posted by handige_harrie
If you get lucky it finishes just before the sun burns out :D.
Oh my - better get started right away then...

But seriously though - it's pretty interesting to see how everything just keeps getting faster and faster considering the fact that I clearly remember some source from Intel not too many years ago claiming that there was a serious physical boundary coming up concerning the construction of CPU's - and this was back when they just only had started to speak about the possibility of speeds close to 1 GHz.... It's a strange world.

[joefitzm]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Joe

Processor : Dual 2.0 G5
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Panther

Graphics Card : ATI 9800 Pro
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 287 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 514 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 277 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 776 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1321 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.77

****************************************************

[Thalaxis]

(It's one physical processor.)

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Rakesh Malik

Processor : Pentium4c
MHz : 3.2 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXPPro

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800Pro
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 317 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 377 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 328 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1483 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2678 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.16

****************************************************

[JamesMK]

Oh my - better get started right away then...
Oh man! It's finally done! Only took 18 months to complete the tests :bounce:
EDIT: Ok, 12 months then.... these frigging post timestamps are all backwards you know...

Seriously though, this is a really nasty case of thread zombiefication, but as it seems Santa is going to bring me a new system I wanted to document the performance, or lack thereof, for my current box in order to be able to point and laugh at it in a couple of weeks...

So, brace yourself, here's "The CB result from Hell"

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : JamesMK

Processor : Intel Celeron
MHz : 466 MHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows NT4 sp6

Graphics Card : NVidia GeForce 2 GTS
Resolution : 1152 x 864
Color Depth : 32 bpp

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 40 CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 52 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 204 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 295 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.69

****************************************************



EDIT, update using my new box

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : JamesMK

Processor : P4
MHz : 2.4 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP sp 1

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9550
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 204 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 243 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 848 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1320 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.43

****************************************************

[andronikos916]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester : Andronikos Bisogiannis
Processor : 3.04 Xeon
MHz : 3.04
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WinXP
Graphics Card : Fire GL 128 (Pro Eng. Congig.)
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 302 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 647 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.14
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 307 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1304 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2505 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 8.17
****************************************************

[andronikos916]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Philip Soucacos

Processor : Athon 64 3200
MHz : 2.00 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Win XP

Graphics Card : Radeon 9800 128
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 280 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 337 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1564 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3123 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.27

****************************************************

[andronikos916]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Paul

Processor : Dual Xeon 2.8 Prescott
MHz : 2.8
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : Win XP

Graphics Card : Ati 9200
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 247 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 531 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.15

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 317 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1280 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1512 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.77

****************************************************

[andronikos916]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Andronikos Bisogiannis

Processor : AMD64 3500
MHz : 2200
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP SP2

Graphics Card : Geforce 6600GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 298 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 297 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1528 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2731 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.20

****************************************************

[andronikos916]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : andronikos BISOGIANNIS

Processor : xp2800
MHz : 2.19ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP

Graphics Card : radeon 9700 pro 128
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 272 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 282 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1248 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1938 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.88

****************************************************

[Byla]

Has anyone done any G5 2.5 benchmarks in Cinebench? If so, please, share the results...

[rocarpen]

rHas anyone done any G5 2.5 benchmarks in Cinebench? If so, please, share the results...

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

You'll find the various 2 x 2.5GHz G5 results falling in the 607-to-633 range. (That's the CB Dual scores. About 358 for the CB Single ratings.) Not sure what accounts for the 26 point spread among machines with the same processor and operating system (10.3.4), but I imagine it's got to do with background processes running, available RAM, etc.

Hope that helps! imahination's resource has become my bible, as I plan out various dual-processor options.

[acid2002]

Here is mine would'nt swap my mac

[Rass]

Hello there is my first Bechmark.. :) i want to optimize my computer later :)

Cheers

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Rass
Processor : Pentium 4
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win XP SP2
Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800 XT
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32 Bits

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 262 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 313 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 335 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1333 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2812 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.40

****************************************************

[Rass]

Ops now i install the last driver for my ati, but I do not see difference great...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Rass

Processor : Pentium 4
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win XP SP2

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800 XT
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32 Bits

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 262 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 313 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 336 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1349 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2870 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.55

****************************************************

Anyone know any idea to up performance on render time? any optimization?

Thank!

[andronikos916]

Ops now i install the last driver for my ati, but I do not see difference great...

Anyone know any idea to up performance on render time? any optimization?

Thank!

for OpenGL new drivers and dif. settings will make it a bit faster...
Bout render times if your cpu is cool you can OC it.
I have A Dual Xeon 2.8 OC @ 3.44Ghz...of course not with the normal heatsinks! Monitor the temperatures at the biggining all the time...

that is the only way for faster render times = more Ghz!

[Rass]

Thanks andronikos916
To OC my cpu, what i need? i have to much risk?.. any recomendation? plz :)

[andronikos916]

Ohh that is a new topic... if you want you can add me at msn and talk about it there...

andronikos916@hotmail.com

[Rass]

I do not use the messenger for a lot of time, for problems a time ago.

But I can contact with you with my email.

murb.83@gmail.com

Thanks! for the help!

[andronikos916]

feel free to mail me : andronikos916@gmail.com

[lcf]

my duron + fx5200, lil bit O/C-ed:CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : lcf

Processor : AMD Duron 1600 @ 11x200
MHz : 2200
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP SP1

Graphics Card : GeForce FX5200 @ Quadro FX500
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 271 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 300 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1253 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1405 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.68

****************************************************

[imashination]

> Processor : AMD Duron 1600 @ 11x200

Are you sure?...

[lcf]

> Processor : AMD Duron 1600 @ 11x200

Are you sure?...yup, 100% (tested with SuperPi and Prime95 torture tests, rock stable). it's Soltek 75FRN2-L (nForce2 Ultra400) rev. E4 with proper BIOS (1.7LFB, needed to contact Soltek support to get one :]) - it can get some horsepower from old good Applebred core :] (btw. my friend is riding Duron 1400 @ 12x200, but mine can't - for 11 x 200 I needed Vcore 1.75V - I could try higher, but I don't want to risk killing it, just doing safe amateur O/C :]).
mem 2xKHX3200A/256 in dual (1:1 fsb:ram) (couldn't get KHX3200UL in Poland, when I was buying it).

http://img200.exs.cx/img200/5360/lcfcpuz1xl.th.jpg (http://img200.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img200&image=lcfcpuz1xl.jpg)

[hundredthirtyseven]

Despite the low L2 cache of the Durons, they almost do the same results as Bartons. Because of the huge L1 cache which is the same in every Athlon. I had a Thoroughbred running at 2400 that reached 296 CB points. A Barton at 2400 exactly had the same results. By the way, 1,75 VCore is by far not an overkill for this CPU. I used a 1,85 V overclock with air cooling and nothing went wrong. According to cpudatabase, the best Athlon XPs can run at 3120 Mhz, so keep on trying! You have basically nothing to loose. You can get another Duron for about 30 Dollars everywhere:)

[lcf]

@supremacy: all true, if you have good cooling & good power supply. I've bought Pentagram Freezone QC-80 Cu + Arctic Silver 5 thermal compound recently to seriously lower temperature (about 25 *C lower than box cooloer (on stress tests)), so I have not bad cooling now, but I didn't get good power supply yet (ordered it yesterday, waiting for it to come - Topower 400W P5 (about $100 in Poland, one of best for that price - and very quiet :])), using my current one (Codegen 300XX/"350W" - just cheap random crap) for serious O/C (like 2200+ MHz & Vcore > 1.8V) is just asking for trouble (I don't want to risk burning out my mobo & other parts, used to them a bit :]).

EDIT: Topower inside, but I think that 2.2 GHz is max for my Duron - even at 1.85V when O/Cing to 11.5x200 there are problems running Prime95 (at 1.85V & 12x200 Windows can't start).

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.