CPU Speed Tests for INTEL and AMD Cores
If you are considering purchasing a new computer you may want to check out these results on CPU speeds posted by Anandtech for both the INTEl and AMD chipsets. The results are based on Blender 2.48a.
3D Isometric | Cozy Art Studio
Are there macs with this processor ?
Because windows sucks.
Giorgio, you can use linux ;)
It really rocks
To bad that AMD isn’t doing better. More competition would lower prices and give us even better cpus. Where is the dual QX9775 benchmark?
And this is why I’m buying an i7 920.
They are using a AM2 motherboard…. they don’t take DDR3 so imo wait and see…
i bought an i7 920 just before christmas. looks like it was a good decision :)
Also… Did the overclock the CPUs?
Phenom II 940/920 are very clockable. Some say the 940 is able to be clocked to 4gHz just with the aircooling fan.
@Ikee:
I wouldn’t do that on just “Some say.” Seems like it’d be an expensive experiment if it failed :-?
Alex
Dont forget that the Phenom II is cheaper than the I7.
I am saving to put together an i7 with 12gb ddr3 and a quadro, in the next 3 to 5 months, specifically for modelling and rendering, with Blender.
A machine like that would fly with 3ds max or maya.
With Blender I will probably get warp drive.
Should produce some interesting benchmarks with that one.
Too bad they don’t list Xeons.
—
Kevin
I have a core i7 920 OC’d to 3.8ghz with air.
it certainly beats my old P4… from the OLD hyperthreading chips. Ha!
They completely ignore Intel Xeon processors…. That would have been interesting to see.
It is stupid to compare processor to processor, hardware must to be compared dollar to dollar.
If $225 Phenom II renders character just 15% slower then $999 Corei7 I’d better buy 3 Phenom II-based systems and set 2 of them to render continuously.
Bleh.. they should try Ubuntu 64bit for AMD 64 bit architecture – then.. bye bye Intel :)
I personally ask for a Blender benchmark in Anandtech website sometimes. I see finnaly something is getting better than before, they are considering Blender as a tool for Benchmark. It will be interesting when Intel give us the mamoth 12 core Xeon based in i7 architeture. Now I will ask for more threads for Blender (24 threads for dual Xeon 6-core HT).
Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora Core or Red Hat, of course.
WOW !
rich Boy is so right!
Its not fair to compare processor to processor, it doesnt make sense, unless you’re rich or something
and money is not an issue.
So, I quote:
If $225 Phenom II renders character just 15% slower then $999 Corei7 I’d better buy 3 Phenom II-based systems and set 2 of them to render continuously.
Nothing about 32 or 64 bit version used…
I’ve done a test with blender2.48_32bit vs blender2.48_64bit, both linux (debian) precompiled packages…
Blender32bit really sucks (+30% rendering time). I think it’s because of default optimizations that the 64bit package has.
The point is, imho: do not buy a mega-sonic-extra-cool-CPU. Have an almost nice one instead and optimize your favourite software!
Blender is so easily cpu-optimizable! (-» Wiki, Compiling Blender)
Think about it…
Otherwise… spend a lot of money for a superCPU and a little time to understand compiling, and will go faster than halo particles :) (almost fast as blender artists coding)
Cheers
@ JahMaica – I completely agree with you, cost efective Phenoms are far better than Intel, these 15% of better performance is given by the HT feature.
@cretox – Better codes are always a good thing, but even if you use the right software for your hardware, depending on the task, you will need a super machine.
An example:
Model a city !
Do you think 4Gb of ram or then 8 GB of ram is suficient even when you use super optimized meshes/textures ? Not always. When you model a city, you will work with so much elements that even 8GB may not be suficcient, then those super machines are the only choice. In the past, quad core machines was a dream for most of us, but today, they will push more and more cores, and those super CPUs will be more and more inexpensive to buy. (Until 32nm ). But the fact, sooner, we will have access to 32 core machines, with 128GB of ram not so far from our pockets. Increasing the number of threads now will prepare Blender for this near future. I guess 32 threads will be sufficient for 4~8 years.
Now if they only made a quad-chip MB for Phenoms…
So I have an intel Q9450, but when i was buying it, i had a choice between the 9450 and the 9400. i chose the 9450 because of its extra cache and smaller (die?), but now i see that the 9400 beats the 9450 at everything except excel and games. So my question is why is that a later model with extra stuff is being beat out by the i thought inferior model?
right now its not a big enough difference for me to care. but next time i go out and buy a processor id like to know what to look for.
the tests were only performed on single CPU (multiple core) systems… I believe that AMD still has a significant advantage in processor to processor communication. Intel are supposed to be bringing out something to compete with this but I don’t know wether it has hit the market….
I would also like to see performance per watt as opposed to raw performance…
Anandtech it’s paid by Intel, anybody know about that in the IT.
And more: as said, it’s not important the assolute power computation, but the better ratio power/cost: in this domain AMD really rocks.
I built a Corei7 920 system recently. I usually build new systems about every 6 or 7 years. The new system sure beats my 1.8 GHz P4. I also recently found a lot of software that really does much better with more threads. Building a linux kernel with make -j 16 bzimage goes much faster than just make bzimage. Video encoding too, and rendering with many threads in blender. Much faster. Faster memory doesn’t help much (according to many test sites on the net), Toms Hardware guide mentioned that when Phenom II’s are pushed hard, speedstep cranks up the power and they actually use more power than core i7’s do. The bad part is that speedstep really cuts power when a lot of power isn’t needed, and intels offering isn’t quite as good (75 watts more at idle or 175 watts for Phenom2 to 250 watts for core i7-920) and most people run idle 80% of the time. Modelling doesn’t require anywhere near as much power as rendering. Intel finally got decent ALU (Arithmetic logic unit) performance with the i7 (a good thing in Blender). As far as quickpath vs hypertransport is concerned, both are descendants of technology developed for the Alpha processor (Alpha was bought by DEC, then when DEC died, went to Compaq, and when they died, went to HP who sold most of the Alpha technology to Intel, except for hyper transport which they sold to AMD). I suppose it all depends on what you want. I debated long and hard on what to buy/build. Black edition Phenom 1’s were available widely just a few months ago. Phenom II was not here yet. Mostly it was the quick ALU that got me. As for no Xeons on the list, there are no Opterons on the list either. The Opteron comes with a crossbar switch build in that allows you to hook 8 of them up without support hardware (see router vs hub for what a crossbar switch is). Some peoples arguments are more emotional than logical, but interesting anyway. I was really undecided before building. I’m no real big fan of Intel, and power consumption was a factor. Something I also wanted was reliability. I bought better equipment because rendering for hours or days will put bigger strains on hardware (temperature) than gaming or typing a letter.
Just a few (somewhat long winded) thoughts.
I’m building a Core I7 920 system this very day! Just sittin’ here waiting for the parts to come. :D
Don’t forget
http://www.eofw.org/bench/
There is no Phenom II results yet, so maybe some lucky owners should do the test rendering.
There’s a Phenom II in 96th place, added on the 11th.
Typically I noticed that just after sending my reply…
Anyway, that Phenom II benchmark is for 920 only and overclocked.
AMD sucks! The Phenom has still lots of errors and is compared with i7 to slow!
Unfortunately there are no i7 dual-socket-boards!
So I stay with my 8-Core XEON-System !
AMD used to rock until intel decided to add a proper memory controller like AMDs :D
Now Intel again rock the box under my desk!
Intel it is the base in the processor technology , AMD does not invent much and Intel has the the base for producing new technology where AMD must after Intel gives his license to them.
Larrabee will crack down Nvidia ownage and make AMD/ATI go to dump zone.
But I think if AMD/ATI lowers their price then will be very big competition but Nvidia don`t think to make this decision soon.
I have and motherboard with Intel south and north bridge , and an Intel Core 2 and had no hardware problem.
I`ve had AMD based PC`s for years but every week I was forced to reinstall the OS or replace the broken hardware , and the AMD processors are cracking after 1-2 years of usage or have errors of processing in time giving some unexpected bugs and hdd error.
That`s why I recommend to use an Intel based PC for data safety and use an AMD for game based configurations.
:D
Well, I use AMD based systems and have not encountered any errors. Probably persons who are overclockers should be aware of probability of data loss. AMD is less power hungry, gives more for less money. Everyone should notice that in blender benchmark Phenoms II are in the same league as Q6600.
Core i7 systems are unfortunately not as powerful as I expected, especially when price/performance ratio is importanat.
Hey, anyone heard of 8-core xeons from intel? So, this is the link: http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/intelV8/consumption.php
Their power consumption is very high, and price either.
Cool, thanks a ton!
@Agile: I think you don’t understand the article on driverheaven!!! ;-(
The X5365 isn’t an 8core XEON! They tested a dual-socket Xeon-Quad-System (4core X2)!
But the X5365 is made from the old technology (65nm, 120W, 2x4MB cache)! It’s so fast because of 3GHz frequency!
The whole article is about old CPUs (check the models out!!).
But Intel want’s to bring an 8core-XEON on the market on 2010!!
Looks like my decision to get a Core i7 rig wasn’t a bad one…
OK! I thought that Intel is going to make faster progress, and release monolithic 8-cores.:)
In my research on technology, I’ve learned one thing. You balance power for the price. You find which model of CPU fits your bill and which will pump out the most for the price. All of AMD’s CPUs cost Less then all of Intels Top end models do. Yes the Intel Top ends Outperform AMDs top models but for the price tag on them they aren’t worth my budget. Infact Most of AMD’s prices fit my wallet and their performance ranges are just under that of Intels competitive CPU, which in turn, cost more usually by $100 more. The way I see things I can use that extra $100 to invest in a top end or higher end GPU which will increase work flow. That increase in work flow will save time which can then be transfer over to the renders. Either way, really the charts shown by the link mention only desktop CPUs which aren’t all that great to dedicate for renders. Since the ram they will communicate with aren’t ECC Registered they can bug out and cause a render to stall or crash all together as I have experienced with windows XP several times (Turning off all the graphical junk for XP fixes the ram errors). I rather have a separate machine for rendering or a machine with good enough power to do good renders but ultimately work on Great. My technical advise to you, is manage your budget before you start fan boying Intel or AMD. I love Technology, the are both breaking bounds and limits, one the way of the HyperTransport the other the way of the Higher Clock speeds. They both have great leaps the both work, they both do the job faster then the older chips, they both have their ups and downs.
Numarul7 where do you get this basis from? AMD Created 64 bit chips for desktops before Intel introduced their EMT64 which emulates 64bit. AMD created true Quad core CPUs which is why they suffer in performance since current Window OS doesn’t utilize them 100%. Bad on AMD’s part for pushing the limits not Windows fault. Good for Intel for taking working Dual cores and paring them up on one chip and selling them as Quads, got something that works and put them together. But in the end AMD creates as well as produces chips to compete with Intel not to copy and resell Intel Technology. Infact AMD uses Hypertrasport which pushes more data faster then Intels FSB which is limiting the CPUs capabilities. Doesn’t matter how much GHz Intel puts on their CPU’s FSB will never utilize them well. AMD has the right idea just they aren’t doing it for the OS most commonly used they are doing it for the push on Technology from my stand point. While Intel has had Years of experience on pushing Technology on Windows Based machines. Since Intel has had this standard set Linux can program around this standard while AMD still trying to push the limits change things around causing Linux programers to scramble for new codes to satisfy AMDs architecture. ATI is the best solution to AMD, now they own the Graphics market as well and have a chance to shoot past Intel with that merger. AMD’s Fusion is AMD’s Make it or break it solution. With the merging of Graphics and CPU on one chip they can save the transfer time from graphics port to CPU and introduce true real time interaction for games as well a Workstation chip that can increase work flow by improving massive data flow in real time. In the end this is all my opinion as an observer on how I’ve seen the market move on chips and read on the errors that people suffer with each new release of AMD and Intel chips. Which is why I ask you to research both before you become a standard fan boy and defend one end to the death without knowing what you’re defending.
If anyone has anything to correct me on and point me to more links I can do more research on please do so. I would love to see the new. Like how the Cell Broadband Chip are holding out in a world dominated by Windows.
for more details
http://www.divinesaints.com
This is the way things should be, get off what we are on now
ok, my take. for those touting the intel/amd x86-64, nothing new, both are slow in 64 bit, silicon graphics/MIPS developed a 64 bit processor(R4000) long ago in 1990. Dec,and sun have for years too, Intel tried before AMD ever did with the Merced architecture, it was beyond it’s time, and rather useless, just like when AMD touted their am64, hardly anything used the 64 bit extensions. every 64 bit OS ive ran the Intels fair better. It doesnt matter who did what first all in all, nor who copied off of who. All that matters is who utilizes it the best, that would be intel right now. But as amd is crying about 64 bit, IBM, and SUN are looking ahead to true full 128 bit architecture. so yeah ill look into that. 64 bit btw is useless without alot of ram.
Now onto the core i7. the lowest end core i7 whips the best phenom, and now with their lynnfield, and upcoming westmere core, amd really doesnt stand a chance. shanghai core was a utter disappointment. I dont expect much from istanbul either. Maybe amd should stick to gpus, and let someone else take on intel. Oh, and the k8 athlon was a disappointment too 2 ghz with 2gb ram couldnt keep pace with a POWERmac g4 at 800 mhz.(althon running linux) a 1ghz r-16000 would pulverize it. P4, and core did much better(here come the fanboys) I dont have a preference for intel or amd for any purpose other than performance, and for me amd always failed, intel always won(in the x86 arena). I side tho with a cpu with true muscle, POWER, Sparc(take a look at the Fujitsu Venus). I go where the UNIX is.
so now amd fanboys….save it. im not a intel fan boy, I just dont like amd, cant say i like intel all that much either, but Intel works where amd doesnt. so amd fanboys save your preaching, you wont covert me to the amd side, i gave them their 4 strikes out, they lost.