NEW Benchmark scene (Max 8 Vray RC3 required)

[leotchest]

Go for the QX6700

On this benchmark test its 'almost' 3 times quicker than, say an E6400. Its about 4 times more expensive (comparing just the cpu prices)- however, its cheaper & less hassle to build 1 QX6700 system than it is to build 3 E6400 systems.
I just got a QX6700 system and I love it. I dont overclock it since the speed increase is not really all that great/necessary, and running it with a Zalman CNPS9500-AT its super quiet. id be inerested to see how the upper end Athlon64 X2's compare against the conroes - anyone got a benchmark on an X2 5200 ?

[TutanMark]

id be inerested to see how the upper end Athlon64 X2's compare against the conroes - anyone got a benchmark on an X2 5200 ?

I'm waiting for a PC based on that processor to be one of my renderservers, should be in my hand next week... but if anyone got it before would be interesting to see how it works..

[meanadam]

speed per $

Guys, again, what is most important for these tests, at least for those of us running renderfarms and DR = speed per $. Obviously the most fastest newest multi-cores in 1 machine is gonna win the single box test, but that doesn't really help the rest of us.

Since I did it last time, would somebody please figure this up in today's cpu and USD? Thanks.

Edit:
As for the AMD debate. As a big AMD follower, I would like to believe there is something left for the AM2, but unfortunately it seems that Intel's 65nm chips will always beat the 90nm. I didn't read thoroughly, but AMD released press on their quad-cores today. Did anybody get that? I am afraid to read or find out that the new chips WILL be 65nm, thus making both our 939 slot and AM2 slot machines obsolete before they are even 1 year old. Not a good way to keep us in AMD…..

I would like to hear more about the Mac Pros – you mac pros. Any problems with bootcamp? What about getting files back and forth? All network transfer?

[Geertvdp]

it's not only the CPU speed per dollar that is important. You have to look at the complete system.
as shown above, the Q76700 equals about 3 E6400's, costs about 4times as much, BUT taking into account you have to build 3 PC's (case, HD, memory, gxfcard, cdreader, etc) to get those E6400's running, you'll end up paying more then when aqcuiring a single QX6700 system...

The cost evaluation can't be done just by comparing CPU's alone...

but anyway, here is a short rough list on intel machines:
E4300 21.75mhz per €
E6300 21.14mhz per €
E6400 19.59mhz per €
E6600 16.01mhz per €
E6700 10.79mhz per €
QX6600 12.03mhz per €
QX6700 11.74mhz per €

[sv]

I know this isn't as fast as some of the QX6700's, but we've just got three N1 rack mounted render servers - the 2x quad Xeons, only running at 1.6GHz, but the time is respectable compared to our other 20 machines.

The main reason for the post - these machines cost £1400. The fact they are N1 (or U1 or whatever that size stat is), for the price to speed, i'd say they are a ruddy good bargain....

[zeilveen]

"these machines cost £1400."

Ah man, please post some more details on those machines please!

[gilicom]

it's not only the CPU speed per dollar that is important. You have to look at the complete system.
as shown above, the Q76700 equals about 3 E6400's, costs about 4times as much, BUT taking into account you have to build 3 PC's (case, HD, memory, gxfcard, cdreader, etc) to get those E6400's running, you'll end up paying more then when aqcuiring a single QX6700 system...

The cost evaluation can't be done just by comparing CPU's alone...

but anyway, here is a short rough list on intel machines:
E4300 21.75mhz per €
E6300 21.14mhz per €
E6400 19.59mhz per €
E6600 16.01mhz per €
E6700 10.79mhz per €
QX6600 12.03mhz per €
QX6700 11.74mhz per €

nice job collecting the data ther m8.
I guess those prices are cpu per $ only right?
you should also get the times from the non overclocked mechines so it will be more accurate.

[sv]

"these machines cost £1400."

Ah man, please post some more details on those machines please!

Case : Xworks X1ri‐64 ‐ 1U ‐ Rack Chassis (Intel)
Mainboard : Genuine Intel S5000 Based Mainboard
Graphics Card(s) : Integrated ATI Graphics
Hard Drive (1) : Western Digital 80GB Serial‐ATA II
Hard Drive (2) : None
Hard Drive (3) : None
Hard Drive (4) : None
Optical Drive(s) : Integrated Slimline DVD‐ROM drive
Sound Card : No Integrated Audio
Network Card(s) : 2x Intel PRO/1000 Gigabit LAN
Floppy Drive : No Floppy Drive
CPU(s) : 2x Intel® Xeon® Processor E5320 (4x 1.86GHz / 1066FSB / 2x 4MB Cache) – 8 Physical Cores
Memory : 2GB DDR‐2 667MHz ‐ Fully Buffered ECC RAM (PC5300) (2x1GB)
Mouse / Keyboard : None
Operating System(s) : Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition (With Vista Coupon)
Monitor(s) : None

They are just rendering nodes.

[serge]

I know this isn't as fast as some of the QX6700's, but we've just got three N1 rack mounted render servers - the 2x quad Xeons, only running at 1.6GHz, but the time is respectable compared to our other 20 machines.

The main reason for the post - these machines cost £1400. The fact they are N1 (or U1 or whatever that size stat is), for the price to speed, i'd say they are a ruddy good bargain....

something strange with your time i just saw other 5320 configuration`in this thread
and i think you would have less than 2 mn for this benchmark ?

[sv]

not sure, they are different specs...... i can't see the Mhz reading on the other 5320 benchmark posted....
also i'm running max 8 and a 32bit version of Max 8?

[jacksc02]

sv- you should have those render nodes running xp64 it will make the world of difference.
Also we have some dual quad core xeons here and the 1 that only has 2gb is noticably slower than the others that have 4gb even though they are the same spec.

[Geertvdp]

nice job collecting the data ther m8.
I guess those prices are cpu per $ only right?
you should also get the times from the non overclocked mechines so it will be more accurate.

Obviously, you can already see the "great value for the money" an E4300 is.
Yet, there is something wrong about this type of thinking as not only you want it cheap, you also want it FAST. And that's where the low budget cpu's fail miserably, compared to the others.

Your personal optimum is determined by the amount of money you're prepared to spend on it and the desired speed you want.

For a renderfarm, you should try to aim for a comparable speed with different configurations:
Do you go with 1 dual xeon quadcore system, 2 QX6700 systems , or, let's say 6 E6400?
All of them will achieve more or less the same results in speed from a renderfarm perspective, but their overall price will differ greatly.

So, unless you can build a QX6700 system for less then half the price of a dual xeon quadcore, it is pointless trying to aim for the cheaper CPU's in the hope of making a profit.
The only thing that keeps ppl from buying the most powerful machine is the planned budget they have.

[Paul Oblomov]

Love new intel systems!
We got one of two qx6700 system delivered. Well, not as a rock solid BOXX beast
Living in Russia, and don't have any boxxxes outta here. I couldn't get ANY new xeons above 5140 for almost a week (for a reasonable price, of course ). So, only qx6700
I'm not sad or whatever, if you ask me

So, here's the specs

Intel "Core 2 Duo QX6700"
(2.66ГГц) Socket775 (Box)

ASUS "P5WDG2-WS Pro"
(i975X, 4xDDR II, U100, SATA II-RAID, SATA II, 2xPCI-E, PCI-X, SB, 2x1Gb LAN, IEEE1394a, USB2.0, ATX)

x4 DIMM 1Gb DDR II SDRAM SEC
(PC5300, 667МГц) original

x2 500Gb Hitachi "Deskstar T7K500 HDT725050VLA360"
7200rpm., 16МБ (SATA II)

256МБ Leadtek "WinFast PX7950 GT TDH"
(GeForce 7950 GT, DDR3, 2xDVI, TV)

Chieftec "DA-01BD" Black ATX 2.03
(500Вт, ATX12V 2.0) bigtower

Slightly below $3k
This PC goes to me and my old opteron 265 goes to our newcomer. Hope he'll enjoy the ride

P.S. Does anybody can tell me how much that stuff costs in their local stores ? Were always curious.

[meanadam]

CPU cost is the only real comparison we can do here without going crazy. Too many other factors to track, and we would never get any kind of "baseline".

It's not mhz per $ I am interested in, obviously the quad cores are most expensive, old dual core amd the least. It is the 'normalized' render time vs cpu $ that I am interested in now.

Please see my old chart at post #50 in this thread:
http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpB...hmark&start=50

If somebody will chart out these new results I can do the math again.

[Geertvdp]

Had some time to burn this morning while rendering, so here are some results from the tests so far:




first table lists according performance, second one lists according weighted cpuprice and last one sorted according renderfarm oppertunity...

a bit more detail on this :
- dual CPU setups require 2 cpu's and a more expensive mainboard
- the rest of the parts (2gb memory, HD, basic MB, case, video card) to make a working renderslave is estimated at 700€
- these prices are most certainly not the cheapest you can get, but they all come from the same vendor, so their relative value is kept intact...
- the "renderfarm value" takes into account the number of systems you would need to achieve the same performance as a dual xeon 5355. it uses the performance multiplier to calculate the rough investment needed.
f.e. you would need 9 P4 3.2ghz systems to equal a single dual xeon 5355 system...

first conclusion :
best buy for a renderfarm would be the low end xeon 5310 and 5320 quad cores or the QX6700 (and QX6600?) quad core.

Notes:
-The sorting on weighted CPU price (second pic) shows how dangerous it is to rely on the CPU alone to determine the best price performance, as that would suggest you to buy old P4's or old athlons...
-The calculated prices for complete systems seems to be on the low side as far as xeon systems goes. I know the price of my QX6700 is correct and matches the calculated values as close as 35€... not sure about the rest doh...if you have renderslave prices for any of the above machines, plz post them here...