UPDATED BENCHMARK (ITS FASTER I PROMISE)

[CXStudios]

Pentium-D 3.0 vs Pentium-4 3.0 HT

Finally got around to testing my 3 machines, so we have another Pentium-D 3.0 w/ 2GB DDR2 PC5600 RAM for comparison, running on an ASUS P5N32-SLi Deluxe. The other two machines are identical P4 3.0 HT 1GB DDR PC3200, running on Shuttle Zen Xpc boxes.

The first test of the Pentium-D without sending it to Backburner came in around 8m46s, so it got a very nice benefit from that. Here it is:


And the (2) P4s:
Box 1
Box 2

The first box was where the other computers saved the file, so that would explain the 7 second difference.

I builting the machines myself, the Pentium-D came to around $2000 usd, with (2) 10K SATA drives in RAID 0. And the boxes were each about $700 usd, everything is run on gigabit network.

Do you think I gain any speed by going up to 2GB on the boxes?

[TRGraphics]

I put together the dual 265 today and ran the file and this is what I came up with. This is great! I should have gotten a couple more of these! The big time saver is with the light cache calculations. I tested a couple other files and compared them to one of my 4200's with 4 gig of ram and the time was nearly half for the 265's.

[dlparisi]

I'm pretty sure that time is not correct since your on 1.48.03 rather than 1.47. If it compares close with 1.47 though it's great! Any chance you could drop down to 1.47 for a while and rerun it? Great machine though

And I'm still curious about the case you stuck the ASUS in since it's an Extended ATX board. I'd hate to order the parts with a case and not have it all fit. I'd like to avoid getting a giant server case if I don't have to.

Thanks.

[DaForce]

TRGraphics:
You MUST use 1.47.03 to render this benchmark otherwise there is no point posting here. As everyone else used 1.47.03, the results are not comparable unless you use the same version.

Please re-post your benchmark results using 1.47.03

[vergefio]

Hey guys, i just had the time to re-do this test using 1.47.03, here is reusult:



Forgot pc spec:

Dual 275 @ 2650Mhz

[DaForce]

DAMN thats fast!!!

Nice results

[TRGraphics]

Wow, that is fast! Geez, I just built my dual dual core orteron and now I want a new one.

[RErender]

Wow, that is fast! Geez, I just built my dual dual core orteron and now I want a new one.

Did you notice it is oc'd you could probably get yours to go that fast too

[DJ-Studd]

Wow, vergefio...
could you give us a complete breakdown of your hardware?

Just wondering if the cost justifies the speed

Cheers.
-- DJ

[re:FORM]

I must admitt I love our new Opteron stations. And our Opterons love overclocking.

2x Opteron 265 OC from 1800 to 2250MHz. After Opteron pricedrop it is very easy to build yourself small renderfarm


neoVISUAL

Great result there... can you outline your hardware, and overclock settings/techique?

I've got the same setup, but suffer from 'machine check errrors' if I push the OC to far....

[deflix]

....

Just got pair of 265's on an older MSI K8t Master (cheap). Overclocked ever so slightly... but Im using some older ram (pc2100 ecc reg).

[rivoli]

we just got a new dual opteron 270 machine, I just installed max, vray and ran the test. here's the result (under xp 64):

[dlparisi]

So we've got slightly overclocked 265's (@1888mhz) w/ slow ram beating stock 270's by 4 seconds?!? From everything I've seen here it seems like the time for the 270's is slower than normal (EDIT: I take this back, I think the 270 is about right, the 265 seems unusual). RIVOLI and DEFLIX: Can you post a little detail on your other hardware (MB, RAM, etc)?
Can anyone else shed some light on these times? I'm looking to build a new machine and am considering the 270's as I'd like to at least cut my rendering times by three from a P4 3ghz (tested at 9min54secs). Any help's appreciated.
David

[vlado]

So we've got slightly overclocked 265's (@1888mhz) w/ slow ram beating stock 270's by 4 seconds?!? From everything I've seen here it seems like the time for the 270's is slower than normal.

For some reason, the image from the last 265 is quite different - the antialiasing seems a lot worse... or is it because of image compression??

Best regards,
Vlado

[rivoli]

yes, I thought they were a bit slow compared to those 265s above, but after reading back through the posts I think they look ok. here's another 270s time (the same as mine):

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpB...=106204#106204

anyway, mobo is a supermicro H8DCE with nforce chipset and 4 gigs of corsair ddr 400 ecc registered. win xp pro 64.