Tom's Hardware Wants You: CPU Tests For 2011

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a professional 3D rendering studio that ALWAYS needs hard numbers: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE more serious rendering benchmarks! Best of all, a benchmark with Vray (the architectural rendering standard) in 3DS Max, would be the Holy Grail to us! It's always a huge pain figuring out just what CPUs are the best "bang for buck". Heck, if you supply the CPU's, we'll be happy render those Vray benchmarks 😉

Thanks for the great site!!
studio2a.net
 
An Adobe After Effects project "2 Min Project" With "Optical Flares, Glow, 5-10 layers, A simple mask & some Gaussian blur"

I use this all the time and its the reason i built my current PC. The more stuff you have in the project the more it will tax the system. Don't hold back.
 
Dunno if it has been suggested yet, but it would be nice to see OC-ed CPU results in all charts/tables etc. That is, test the cpu at its default clock speed and then also at the OC-ed speed which an average user with average components could most likely be able to achieve.
 
how about a 3d cad test
render time or frame rate while moving complex models.

Rhinoceros demo is fully functional with the exception of limed saves
combine with a prepared complex model and you are set.
 
I would also love to see some compilers tested. With a plethora of open-source projects to choose from, finding source code shouldn't be a problem. Firefox is obviously very well known and could easily be set up using https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build allowing any Tom's reader to setup a build chain for their own tests. With GCC/MinGW, Visual Studio Express Editions for C++/C#, Java and countless other languages/compilers, there should be an easy way of getting free testing platforms for any language out there.
 
[citation][nom]Cwize1[/nom]Covering the 3D rendering in the benchmarks is good but Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 is an an uber expensive piece of software. The people who use this software (legally) are the type of people who would buy whatever hardware happens to be the most expensive at the time and hence don't need these benchmarks.A more relevant tool would be blender.[/citation]

100% NOT TRUE. That's just ridiculous. The studio I work for is absolutely legal, and trust me- the cost of that software makes it necessary to be extremely thorough in our research of what hardware to use! This is serious issue for us, and I'm sure for many other studios. Not to mention, with the popularity of 3D rendering growing, many students also need this information to build their home-brew render farms. I know- I've been there, and it was shooting in the dark till I found TH! That said, the scanline/mental ray render is not the best- Vray is the standard for professional rendering, please add this!


 
Flight Simulator X (it's CPU bounded because it's essentially single threaded)
 
Cinebench is a good cpu benchmark. It's good at adequately showing the raw horsepower of a cpu, and there is nearly linear performance scaling with overclocking.
 
Let's be practical. How about benchmarking a game while encoding a video. Something I do all the time. What's a Quad-core for anyway? Something realistic for multi-tasking, maybe a big WinRAR while video encoding? Gaming while authoring a DVD? You get the idea.
 
I would love to see a old school Quake 3 time demo on there.. see how many fps these new CPUs can crank out. That would be pretty funny to see. :)
 
Use the Microsoft Zune encoder when transferring and encoding to a Zune. I think it would show a legitimate performance variable. Old hardware takes forever to re-encode the movie for the small screen and it takes it's tole on clock cycles when active. Also many CS5 products would make for good benchmarking titles. People could use those results as a blueprint to build a graphic workstation.
 
I'd like to see GIMP thrown in the mix.

In addition, something like Picasa's facial recognition would be neat...but I imagine it is throttled to only use minimal computer resources, at least unless idle. Regardless, it'd be neat to see, as well.
 
[citation][nom]D1RTYJU1C3[/nom]Ditch Modern Warfare 2 and add Crysis. MW2 plays great with old hardware.[/citation]
Crysis is dependent more on the GPU than the CPU, while MW2 is more on the CPU.
 
Add Civ5, I'm running a Athlon II 240 and it just doesn't cut it. It could be any number of things though. The tessellation option seems to have a big impact even when its your turn. Also I'm running a 4850 so no DX11 which also might be a killer. Drop MW2 because even with my sub-par system I average 85 fps.
 
[citation][nom]yahodahan[/nom]100% NOT TRUE. That's just ridiculous. The studio I work for is absolutely legal, and trust me- the cost of that software makes it necessary to be extremely thorough in our research of what hardware to use! This is serious issue for us, and I'm sure for many other studios. Not to mention, with the popularity of 3D rendering growing, many students also need this information to build their home-brew render farms. I know- I've been there, and it was shooting in the dark till I found TH! That said, the scanline/mental ray render is not the best- Vray is the standard for professional rendering, please add this![/citation]

Very true, though considering that some very large people (Nasa, Northrop Grumman) are moving to Blender from software such as Maya and 3Ds for simulation with the game engine and then also for rendering, it seems to me that Blender would be a very good candidate for testing. Not to mention this one peice of software can provide multiple tests, since it has a full game engine (uses the Bullet physics engine), and can push any CPU to its knees with rendering. Probably not worth much because they they are only single threaded right now (and other software have some better solutions in some cases) is the baking of it physical sims, such as
the particle, smoke, and fluid sims.
 
As much as I would like to see the game performance for each CPU I think that there won't be much improvements past a Core I5 750 unless running quad SLI/Crossfire configurations. As for which games to test would depend on their CPU dependence like Bad Company 2.

When I am reading an article which is showing the CPU performance it is because I am probably shopping for a new CPU and the main criteria is price for performance, I would like to see this as a chart and not have to search online for prices.

For myself the only benchmarks that matter are 3DMark Vantage,
PCMark Vantage, SiSoftware Sandra 2010 and of course the current game I am playing (BC2). And of course I love the CPU hierarchy charts as well.
 
This may sound crazy but, Mirrors edge with physX, everything maxed out.

I may not have a whole lot, but I have far more than the game needs, and it still has issues with keeping a balanced frame rate, and crashes a lot as long as PhysX is enabled.

I still think Crysis warhead should be on the list until something is found that gives it 30fps minimum at max 1920x1080.

The original Supreme commander is CPU intensive, so I'd love to see that.
 
After reading through all the comments I'd like to see some compiler benchmarks also and maybe for the sake of experimentation a DirectX software rendering benchmark.
 
SuperPi - single threaded fun that is easy to use.

I would also love to have access to the maps/media files that you use in your tests. Not being able to directly compare my computers with all of your tests is a bit of a bummer.

I'm a big fan of the DivX/H.264 tests, too. :)

Cheers
 
[citation][nom]brikbot[/nom]Very true, though considering that some very large people (Nasa, Northrop Grumman) are moving to Blender from software such as Maya and 3Ds for simulation with the game engine and then also for rendering, it seems to me that Blender would be a very good candidate for testing. Not to mention this one peice of software can provide multiple tests, since it has a full game engine (uses the Bullet physics engine), and can push any CPU to its knees with rendering. Probably not worth much because they they are only single threaded right now (and other software have some better solutions in some cases) is the baking of it physical sims, such as the particle, smoke, and fluid sims.[/citation]

Also very true 😀 Blender is a great program, no doubt, and I love it. Problem is, it probably costs more in training, time, etc, to convert a large office to blender than the cost of 3DS Max/Maya/etc... also there is no Vray support for Blender (yet!). I've been trying to ease my own office into the Linux/Blender/Luxrender path, but no go yet.

Luxrender is a great alternative, but it's not quite as mature or feature rich yet. I've got my eye on it though... 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom