PDA

View Full Version : cinebench score - is this for real?


sketchbook
11-18-2007, 02:18 AM
check out mash's database for R10 open GL scores. A mac on top? and by quite a ways!

what's the deal? is this for real?

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/ogl.php

NWoolridge
11-18-2007, 02:38 AM
check out mash's database for R10 open GL scores. A mac on top? and by quite a ways!

what's the deal? is this for real?

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/ogl.php

This has been the case for quite some time: Macs are competitive, and often score somewhat better, than Windows-based PCs. The result of the intel switch, much improved OS X openGL, and Apple's special deal with Intel for early access to high-frequency chips for the Mac Pros...

Nick

govinda
11-18-2007, 03:35 AM
It gets a tiny bit better, actually. I tested my new machine and sent the results to Mash, but there wasn't any need to post it, close as it is to other scores. Anyone with a similiar config will get the same, I'm sure.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : Govinda

Processor : Xeon Quad Core Dual
MHz : 3.0
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1900 OpenGL Engine
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 3253 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 19027 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5112 CB-GFX


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

Note: 8GB Ram. C4D R10.5

sketchbook
11-18-2007, 04:23 AM
looks like you have the exact same setup as i have. wish i could tell the difference between this X1900 card and the much cheaper 7300 in my second slot.

govinda
11-18-2007, 05:22 AM
Two slots? Je suis perdu. You can have two video cards? I really have to be more techno-philic to hang here. :shrug:

hvanderwegen
11-18-2007, 07:10 AM
Be careful: notice the graphics card in the case of the mac system: a Quadro 4500 FX. You cannot compare a dedicated $1900 OpenGL workstation card like that one with the fastest Windows graphics card in this list, the $550 GeForce 8800 GTX, which is a gamer's card. They are not really comparable.

Furthermore, the fastest rendering machine is actually a Windows XP 64 machine (21117 points) against 18576 for the mac. The single CPU score is again higher in the case of the pc.

Now, I am going to play the devil's advocate here... (just for fun): I have an imaginary $10,000 to spare!

I visited the Apple store, and decided I wanted a powerful mac as described in the list above. I chose a MacPro with the best processor and graphics card options.

And, just for kicks, let us buy the best and/or comparable components for a powerful PC until we hit about the same price. The mac should run WinXP too.

mac: 9,809.00
pc: 9,704.00

Result: the pc beats the mac hands down in the graphics department. With the same graphics card as the mac, the pc would have been $1700(!) cheaper.

Pros/cons:
- mac comes pre-built, pc is DIY (might pose a real problem to many people)
- mac comes with new Mac Os X (cool!)!
- pc is way better in graphics and sound (no denying possible here!).
- pc comes with both blue ray writer and dvd writer. Mac only 2 dvd writers.
- pc is more extendible hardware-wise.
- pc is a tad more inexpensive (much more so with same configuration as mac)
- mac is very suave, pc less so
- mac is probably more silent in operation.

Decide yourself.

Here's what I came up with, after some research on the web (mistakes are entirely my own :-) ):

mac: Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5365
pc: Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5365 ($1540)
pc: main board Asus serverboard DSBF-D/SAS raid ($450)
pc: Cooler Master Real Power Pro RS-A00-EMBA 1000W ($400)
mac: 8GB (4 x 2GB)
pc: 8GB DDR2 (4 x 2GB) ($1040)
mac: Raid 2 x 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3gb/s (mac Mac Pro RAID Card $999)
pc: 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3750640AS 750GB 7200-rpm 3gb/s ($400)
mac: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB
pc: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1,5GB ($2995, OUCH!)
mac 2 x super drive dvd writers
pc: 1x dvd writer ($99), 1 x Sony BWU-100A Blu-Ray Disc Writer ($600)
pc: Creative Sound Blaster X-FI Platinum FATAL1TY Champion Series 7.1 W/ Black Front Audio Bay & Remote ($200)
pc: Gigabyte 3DAurora 570 system chassis ($150)
pc: Logitech MX 5000 Laser Bluetooth Wireless Keyboard & Laser Mouse Set ($150)
pc: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition 64BIT DVD OEM and Microsoft Windows XP Professional OEM ($380)
mac: Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows XP Professional OEM

By the way, I own both mac and pc's. I am not geared towards one or the other in general, however, I do think, when looking at the above list, that Apple is really overpricing their professional machines...

Srek
11-18-2007, 08:51 AM
You cannot compare a dedicated $1900 OpenGL workstation card like that one with the fastest Windows graphics card in this list, the $550 GeForce 8800 GTX, which is a gamer's card. They are not really comparable.
Actualy you can compare them.
CINEMA 4D makes no use whatsoever of the extras a Quadro FX cards offers compared to a GeForce series. Those Workstation cards are aimed for the CAD/CAM market.

pc: main board Asus serverboard DSBF-D/SAS raid ($450)
This is a server board targeted for rack servers. It does not even have a real PCIe 16x slot. The PCIe 16x slot it has is only fed by 8 lanes halfing the busspeed of the graphics card.

Also by ordering each and every component from Apple you were choosing the most expensive option, while on the PC side you are optimizing by choosing where to buy each component. The mac pro can easily be upgraded using of the shelf harddisks and memory which comes a good deal cheaper than the same stuff in the Apple store.

You are basicaly comparing a diy computer with a high quality prefab system. The comparison is imo badly skewed by this since you don't factor in warranty (which isn't such a small deal with a system in this price class) and compatibility of components. What help is a $10K system if it does not work reliable?

Govinda: Windows and OS X support as many graphics cards as you can plug into a system. By default the MacPros support three PCIe 16x graphics cards while most PCs support 1-2. However you can usualy also add some PCI or PCIe 4x/8x cards.
CINEMA 4D makes good use of this, the maximum i used was three cards in a PC with two monitors each running CINEMA 4D stretched over six screens with OGL support :)

Cheers
Björn

hvanderwegen
11-18-2007, 09:48 AM
Quite right, I stand corrected regarding the mother board; I should have looked twice. And I did forget about the fact that C4d does not directly make use of a Quadro (I do wish to see a direct comparison between C4d working with the same Quadro on both platforms) and that I could have chosen off the shelf components for the mac.

As for the components in the mac, yes, both memory and hd's can be bought separately. And that will do away with part of the high price (although in my experience many mac and pc users that buy a pre-built system do not wish to be bothered with such issues and rather would pay the higher price). Likewise, I did choose rather expensive parts on the pc side (i.e. the keyboard, power supply, casing, no blue ray writer and sound card could be about $900 cheaper) to make a point that the pc would be of comparable or higher quality.

In addition, talking about warranty: all components come with at least 1 year, and often 3 years of warranty without extra costs. Apple's three year warranty will cost you extra again. In my experience, I find dealing with one faulty component at a time much more convenient and flexible than having to ship the whole system back to the supplier. But then again, I am a DIY with some experience under my belt, and do realise that most people just want a working system without any hassles. Systems I build are of extreme high quality, and include top-notch components, with every part chosen individually as the best in its class (for clients and myself). I wouldn't dare saying the same for Apple's products (or any other large computer manufacturer, be it Apple, Dell or Compaq).

Still, I do find it odd that for comparable prices, I was able to include some far superior components in the pc system, especially when looking at the graphics card. Yes, the comparison is skewed, but still...

Anyways, this wasn't meant to be a direct shoot-out between systems. Just some pondering on my part. I would love to have the money to buy and build that pc system, though! Cinema4d would sky rocket in my case (still working on a G4 and amd 4200 X2).

LucentDreams
11-18-2007, 10:00 AM
I don't get why someone would go so hardcore on such systems. 10k for a single station is just insane. At the studio I just finished with we were hurting for renderpower so we built 5 quadcores (2.4 becuase of the price jumps above 2.4 ghz) didn't need super graphics on these since they are render boxes, invested a little in high quality powersupplies that are super quiet. but basiclaly a plywood render farm

So inside one box we had 20 2.4 ghz cores for a combined cinebench power of around 40 000 and each system had 4 gigs of ram so we can do very intensive projects.

If you do that and then add a single workstation you should focus on the single core spec, remember while rendering may be quite multithreaded things like animation hair dynamics, particles etc are all single so maxmimum processing on a single core is key so just get 3 ghz dual core. with 3 or four gis of ram depending on what OS you run, and a good 24-30 inch monitor and a good 8800 graphics card. For 8-9 thousand you've built a setup with a total cinebench of around 45 000 compared to that measly 18-20 thousand.



Though I will admit Octo's have advantages when it comes to stills in that all 8 cores can work on a single still so illustrators or architects might have some appeal, but I dunno, seems i could also have 5 systems each rendering a different viewpoint so instead of sending them one kick add picture in an hour, I could send 5 in two hours.

parallax
11-18-2007, 12:12 PM
Hvanderwegen,

You're making the very basic mistake of comparing a professional retail pre-build workstation with all it's pro's (and some cons) with a home-build system using possibly cheap-ass components, wich might also not work together like a dedicated workstation.
You're comparing Apples and oranges, while you should be comparing Apples and Dells/HP's etc. It has been proven a million times by countless people that Apple hardware is fast and competitively priced compared to similar workstations on the Windows side.

Why don't you configure the same PC on the Dell site, and see for yourself. The argument is stupid.

@ govinda, sup' Guvnor.

NWoolridge
11-18-2007, 02:02 PM
It should be noted that the Mac Pro is well overdue for an update. The rumor mill pegs it as imminent, perhaps in the next few weeks or at the January Macworld.

This update would presumably take advantage of recently released intel Xeon processors, and offer better graphics card options (the current Mac Pro offerings are woefully out of date).

When it was introduced, and most recently updated, the Mac pro was actually a great deal, compared with comparable systems from other tier one manufacturers. Now it has slid into a less competitive price slot, unfortunately. Hopefully, Apple will use the update as an opportunity to revise the price (including non-US prices, which are generally well out of date considering current exchange rates...).

Nick

govinda
11-18-2007, 03:40 PM
Hah, my favorite dude. 1,384 posts for Parallax, and this is the first I see of you. :D

sketchbook
11-18-2007, 07:44 PM
It should be noted that the Mac Pro is well overdue for an update. The rumor mill pegs it as imminent, perhaps in the next few weeks or at the January Macworld.

This update would presumably take advantage of recently released intel Xeon processors, and offer better graphics card options (the current Mac Pro offerings are woefully out of date).

When it was introduced, and most recently updated, the Mac pro was actually a great deal, compared with comparable systems from other tier one manufacturers. Now it has slid into a less competitive price slot, unfortunately. Hopefully, Apple will use the update as an opportunity to revise the price (including non-US prices, which are generally well out of date considering current exchange rates...).

Nick

this is what i have heard as well. i don't have the ability to wait around however, when i have multiples animations that need rendering, and I did not want to get stuck with the new crappy mac OS which half my programs don't work on.

sketchbook
11-18-2007, 07:46 PM
I don't get why someone would go so hardcore on such systems. 10k for a single station is just insane. At the studio I just finished with we were hurting for renderpower so we built 5 quadcores (2.4 becuase of the price jumps above 2.4 ghz) didn't need super graphics on these since they are render boxes, invested a little in high quality powersupplies that are super quiet. but basiclaly a plywood render farm

So inside one box we had 20 2.4 ghz cores for a combined cinebench power of around 40 000 and each system had 4 gigs of ram so we can do very intensive projects.

If you do that and then add a single workstation you should focus on the single core spec, remember while rendering may be quite multithreaded things like animation hair dynamics, particles etc are all single so maxmimum processing on a single core is key so just get 3 ghz dual core. with 3 or four gis of ram depending on what OS you run, and a good 24-30 inch monitor and a good 8800 graphics card. For 8-9 thousand you've built a setup with a total cinebench of around 45 000 compared to that measly 18-20 thousand.



Though I will admit Octo's have advantages when it comes to stills in that all 8 cores can work on a single still so illustrators or architects might have some appeal, but I dunno, seems i could also have 5 systems each rendering a different viewpoint so instead of sending them one kick add picture in an hour, I could send 5 in two hours.

are you trying to make me depressed? it is working a little.

govinda
11-18-2007, 07:55 PM
I can only speak for myself and people I know, but hair, particles and other single-processor render items aren't as big a part of our time crunch as simple geometry, texturing, lighting and animation across a lot of frames. For those things, it's a big improvement in speed from the Mac Quad to the Mac Dual Quad. Btw, interesting how the Mac Quad is the single-worst price/performance machine in the Mac market.

imashination
11-18-2007, 08:15 PM
Be careful: notice the graphics card in the case of the mac system: a Quadro 4500 FX. You cannot compare a dedicated $1900 OpenGL workstation card like that one with the fastest Windows graphics card in this list, the $550 GeForce 8800 GTX, which is a gamer's card. They are not really comparable.

They're directly comparable, why wouldn't they be? Just because some marketing droid stuck a different label on it and quadrupled the price, doesn't magically make it in some untouchable level where it mustn't be compared to the other cards. No matter how much the manufacturers would like that.

They both run the latest OGL and DX software, they just come with different drivers, clock rates, support and price tags.

LucentDreams
11-18-2007, 08:19 PM
are you trying to make me depressed? it is working a little.

Ack man I forgot you are in portland dang I was just there, thats where the plywood computer is. Oh I'm so sorry I didn't get a hold of you while I was there.


@govinda, in editor polygons and animation still handled by single core. hence on your workstation the most important part is having the highest frequency CPU. But for animation as you say, the example setup I listed would more than double your animation render capabilities. And Hair rendering is some of the best multithreading cinema has. When I was suggesting les cores for the workstation I mean that in that when your not rendering most functions aren't using multiple cores. A single dualcore CPU at max frequency (currently 3.0), some good ram and a good graphics card (8800 variation) will out perform in editor performance of a 2.4 ghz with an nvidia 7300 or two 7300's.

sketchbook
11-18-2007, 11:03 PM
Ack man I forgot you are in portland dang I was just there, thats where the plywood computer is. Oh I'm so sorry I didn't get a hold of you while I was there.


what do you mean by plywood? are you serious? i take it you were at bent or with nando maybe?

yes, look me up next time you are in town for sure!

LucentDreams
11-19-2007, 01:25 AM
well just cheaper standard motherboards built onto sheets of plywood and slid into a custom box. So its like shelves but they aren't in standard 1u units server units. Takes up a lot more room.


Actually Jim Clark left Bent and Started a Visual Effects Studio Called Animationwerks. Its over on Clinton SE and 26th above two restaurants called DOT's and Noho's

PanzerMKZ
11-20-2007, 01:58 PM
ok what of the fact programs are being slowly coded for multitreading? And why just a single dual core chip? You lose the whole workstation motherboard option. You might not need that dual socket quad core box but you might need the ram that such a beast allows.



Panzer

LucentDreams
11-21-2007, 03:38 AM
well get as many as you want. I'm simply offering the most ideal setup for a budget of 10 000. yes multithreading is getting better and better, but in most 3D apps its primarily the rendering side thats multithreaded more than the interactive editor stuff which means a renderfarm is better suited than a single super powered workstation. As well consider if you have Vray or final render that distirbuted rendering would be far more beneficial on all those cores than on 8. I mean heck you could also build your render farm out of 3.0 ghz cores, I specified 2.4 because of the cost advantage. Right now for the same 9000-10000 budget discussued for both the PC and Mac Octo cores, you could have comparable workstation with more than double the render power. And you could render on the farm without affecting your workstations performance in the least.

I wasn't getting into the best setup possible, I was getting into the best setup possible in the specified budget area. Heck for extra cash I'd use Rendeboxx's instead of building plywood renderfarms, but the extra cost is substantial.


Keep in mind that cinema is very well multithreaded but it still can easily come up where a single core is the major bottle neck in your render. With 5 quad cores theres going to be five single cores doing something, but with a single octo, theres only 1.

aglick
12-05-2007, 02:37 AM
don't look now, but there's a new high score...

(ok, look now)

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php

;)

sketchbook
12-05-2007, 06:13 AM
sweet - thanks for the posting.

my guess is within the next month or so you will get bumped by the new mac pros which are most likely coming out in January.

when will boxx start building with c4d in mind?

cTennant
12-05-2007, 06:50 AM
My biggest OpenGL speed factor is if I'm working on my art or not. Machine can't work on OpenGL if I'm not there working on it.

RPG2006
12-05-2007, 01:36 PM
One of those qx9650s would be nice.

had to have a blast though with my q6600. Not bad for a 300 dollar chip and an 8800 GTX:D

This is a 24/7 setup.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : RPG

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 3.825GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 5.2.3790

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTX/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 4392 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 15439 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.52

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 8492 CB-GFX


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

RPG

aglick
12-05-2007, 02:02 PM
"my guess is within the next month or so you will get bumped by the new mac pros which are most likely coming out in January."

Nope - Only BOXX and two other workstation vendors can buy the top SKU 54xx Xeons. And we were first to market. When the other two workstation vendors announce their new roduct line(s), it will be with the same 3.2Ghz/1600fsb Xeon CPUs.


when will boxx start building with c4d in mind?

We have many C4D users banging out jobs on our machines every day. We engineer, build and test all of our 3DBOXXX and RenderBOXX systems to perform optimally for all 3D design pipelines.

Is there anything in specific you wold like to see us address ?

Cheers,

Adam
BOXXlabs

RPG2006
12-06-2007, 02:13 AM
A slightly better run.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : RPG

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
MHz : 3.91
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 5.2.3790

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GTX/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 4541 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 16053 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.54

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 8984 CB-GFX


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

Screen grab with cpu-z and gpu-z
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8573/cinebenchx64rpgxx4.jpg

RPG

imashination
12-06-2007, 04:48 PM
don't look now, but there's a new high score...

(ok, look now)

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php

;)

The below minimum wage child indian slave labour needs to update it manually. Ill whip them faster next time.

TylerAZambori
12-07-2007, 05:47 PM
"my guess is within the next month or so you will get bumped by the new mac pros which are most likely coming out in January."

Nope - Only BOXX and two other workstation vendors can buy the top SKU 54xx Xeons. And we were first to market. When the other two workstation vendors announce their new roduct line(s), it will be with the same 3.2Ghz/1600fsb Xeon CPUs.


when will boxx start building with c4d in mind?

We have many C4D users banging out jobs on our machines every day. We engineer, build and test all of our 3DBOXXX and RenderBOXX systems to perform optimally for all 3D design pipelines.

Is there anything in specific you wold like to see us address ?

Cheers,

Adam
BOXXlabs

After having been trhough two dual cpu motherboards, I'm coming to the conclusion
that single CPU mobo's are much more solid, last longer, and don't break as quickly.
I guess this is more important for individuals though, who want their hardware to last
as long as possible. A studio might care more about getting the most performance.

aglick
12-07-2007, 06:34 PM
"...I'm coming to the conclusion
that single CPU mobo's are much more solid, last longer, and don't break as quickly..."

I respectfully must disagree.

A well built dual socket machine staistically has fewer probems and lasts just as long as any single socket machine.

Perhaps you just had some bad luck...

TylerAZambori
12-08-2007, 02:47 AM
I'd like to see the statistics, please.

RPG2006
12-08-2007, 04:07 AM
So what's the score with the 3dfluff site and updating the benches? Anyone know? I posted about a few days ago.

Do they update infrequently or is there some sort of bias selection going on?

RPG

imashination
12-08-2007, 11:47 AM
So what's the score with the 3dfluff site and updating the benches? Anyone know? I posted about a few days ago.

Do they update infrequently or is there some sort of bias selection going on?

RPG

I update it when my benchmark inbox gets naggingly full, or in this case when someone has mailed me to say they have a particularly interesting score. 90% of the results I get are from people submitting the exact same score from their quad core intel macs.

RPG2006
12-08-2007, 12:11 PM
Cheers:D. That 9650 score is something else. That's at 3.0ghz? Quite a few of the 9650s seem to be hitting 4-4.5 ghz on air. In some cases 4 ghz is at stock voltage.

A little bit iof a push on that chip, and it would be up and beyond the 8 cores setups. Wow, that's food for thought.

RPG

RPG2006
12-08-2007, 12:15 PM
Actually something that puzzles me there. The following scores for single threaded perfomance.

Xeon quad 5482 3.2 ghz 3921

QX9650 3.0 ghz 4815

That QX9650 must be overclocked higher than 3.0 ghz surely? out of my budget right this moment, but may be able to borrow a 9650 chip in the next week. Will give it a test if I can.

RPG

imashination
12-08-2007, 12:22 PM
Well spotted, fixed, updated, 25 new entries. Heres the original entry for that one:

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : ***

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz
MHz : 4400
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 5.1.2600

Graphics Card : GeForce 6800 GS/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

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

Rendering (Single CPU): 4815 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 17118 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.55

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 3612 CB-GFX


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

RPG2006
12-08-2007, 01:04 PM
That's interesting then.

First off those xeon 5482s are blisteringly fast.

Who ever tested the 9650 ought to give xp64 a try. I'll dig out the link, but you can download a free 3 month evaluation xp64. I setup a dual OS on mine.

I'm only guessing but with the increase I saw between xp and xp64, that 9650's CB dual score would be up in the 18000s if not 19000+ with xp64. In other words equivalent to 2x Xeon 5355s if not faster. Not bad.

With decent cooling that overclock could quite possibly be a 24/7 setup.

Still reading through the threads but first post of interest a QX9650 at stock voltages on air cooling 4.0 ghz and Prime Stable(Edit: just noticed that's a 10 minute run, so not necessarily prime stable, but promising)

http://www.3doracle.com/bakan.jpg

Just a couple of threads on the QX9650

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166517

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59

EDIT: Scanning through these threads it seems that 4.4ghz is very much a suicide run. not realistic for a 24/7 setup on air or even water. Temps could be kept in control with Phase, but even that would probably not be up to 24/7 usage. Also expensive to run.

More realistic would be 4.0 ghz, and in xp64 I'd say that looks like it would be on par with a dual quad 5355 setup. Not bad at all.

The real monster workstations are going to be when the skulltrail board(I think that's the right name) comes out. being able to overclock 5482s will really set them in a league of their own.

RPG

RPG2006
12-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Here's a thread to keep your eyes on folks. Some jammy ba***rd has got his hands on a skulltrail board and 2 x QX 9775s for testing purposes. This board is an enthusiast board (Not enthusiast budget), so it has overlclocking in bios and run's SLI. Very much in theory quad sli.LOL

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=168433

RPG

ncsa
12-17-2007, 07:58 AM
Howdy, fell into this thread :D .... so here is my QX9650 at 4.8GHz and a wee 8800GTS 320, running Vista 64 with only 4Gb memory.. will run it again and this time save the text file.


http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/1a01b0ffa9.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

RPG2006
12-20-2007, 06:48 AM
:eek: Nice results there NCSA.

RPG

ncsa
02-06-2008, 08:34 AM
Well looks like the Power House is about to be readily available .. check this out.. 40K Rendering..

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=175984

imashination
02-06-2008, 09:35 PM
Lol, liquid nitrogen cooling 5.5GHz quad core, lovely ;-)

CGTalk Moderation
02-06-2008, 09:35 PM
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.