You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.

Blender and Intel Benchmark


You may recall an article last November about Blender being used for the Intel Core I7 rollout.

Now there is some benchmarking by Intel using Blender 2.47

From the Intel site: "Blender* workload consists of a ~6.9 MB character model of a flying squirrel."

(The flying squirrel better watch out for Boris and Natasha lurking around. ;-)  )

Go to the Intel site and click on " Create cool 3D images for animations and games" to see the graph.


  1. Somehow I think I'd rather have a slower AMD than a hotter Intel. I remember my Prescott to this day. Once bitten, twice shy. Or "burned"...

  2. vidrazor, Intel's been doing extremely well in the TDP department lately. A 45nm Core 2 Duad barely breaks a sweat at 3Ghz, I only wish I can say the same thing for Phenom.

  3. I got an AMD Athlon64x2 5000+ 2.6 ghz processor. 780G chipset motherboard may upgrade to the new Phenom II when the prices go down in a few months.

    How many Intel users are going to upgrade their Core 2 to Core i7 without buying a new motherboard?

  4. I looked at their specs (I recently bought an i7/920) but I'm a Linux guy. Still I looked at what OS Intel is using. They are using 32 bit vista on a 64 bit processor, which looks rather odd. I also don't know how Blender is supposed to use Microsoft DirectX 10, since Blender is more of an OpenGL type of application. The video card will of course have both OpenGL and DirectX support, but if they are going to use Blender as some kind of benchmark, then the flavor of OpenGL might be nice to see. In all though, its great to see Blender showing up as a benchmark. The number of threads in use would be good to see too, although the blender render benchmark suggests strongly that if your system can use 8, then set Blender to use 8.

  5. @ Bobster - As a new user of this system your point of view may be affected by the need to prove the correctness of the hardware decision you made, but in my previous comment I adressed the real performance difference between Q6600 and i7. And this is not such great distance that I expected from the new line of processors.

  6. Found this on their site regarding the scene.

    λ Blender* workload consists of a ~6.9 MB character model of a flying squirrel

  7. @RNS: are you nuts?? For you it's funny, isn't it??
    AMD will fire 9% more employees, Sony has 90% less earnings, Intel has the lowest earnings since 7 years!!
    And it will be worse!

  8. Somehow I think I'd rather have a slower AMD than a hotter Intel. I remember my Prescott to this day. Once bitten, twice shy. Or "burned"…

    AMD was my processor of choice for years, so I completely know what you mean. The P4 series was truly awful, in retrospect. Nonetheless, Intel's processors over the last couple of years (since the introduction of the Core architecture) have been nothing short of fantastic. I have a Q6600 Core 2 Quad processor, and it runs very fast and very cool.

    With any fortune, AMD will get its act together again, so that I will be able to consider them the next time I wish to build a computer.

  9. when companies get tooo greedy and pay their lazy CEO big outrages bonus,sure some one is to pay the price.
    any financial institution is abuse by mean of insecurity and corruption - yes, this is the path that lead to no world whats the problems of having a little reality?

  10. Ivan Paulos Tomé on

    I have tested a bunch of platforms, Intel, AMD , and Power. AMD is far better for long cycles of heavy processing. Intel sometimes, even when it´s not hot ( newer processors ) Kills the motherboard or then freezes.
    Just put and Intel to work for 2 weeks without stop. Adios Machine ! ( Unless a Xeon or a MAC ).
    Put an AMD well cooled to work. A Month rendering without stop...

  11. @Felix and Ivan:
    I have an Intel Core 2 Duo (getting old now I know), the processor performs smooth but I too have noticed the occasional freeze when left for long periods of time. However, I'm running Linux and I have noticed that different kernels have a big effect on this. My current kernel seems to run pretty smoothly except I have to disable ACPI to stop the sound from skipping every second or so. (not so in some of the older kernels) Some kernels are really pretty poor though. I think a lot of the problems with different processors goes down to the kernel hacks in use and the version you are using...

    I use Mandriva here, and I remember for a fact that one of the best kernels ever was the one that came out just after (or it might have been with) Mandriva 2008.1. That one I kept going and going for ages and I don't think it froze or crashed once, neither did anything else happen out of the ordinary. (i.e. if you leave your PC on for a long time, sometimes something will get unstable or some device will start playing up if the kernel is bad) The whole system worked really well actually.

    Just don't forget that different processors are slightly different from a software side too, and while the basic architecture is almost the same, there may also be added kernel hacks that make use of extensions which are maker specific.

  12. Just to clarify: The same applies for windows too. Just that you can't pick and choose your kernel so it's even more restrictive if something isn't quite up to par.

Leave A Reply

To add a profile picture to your message, register your email address with To protect your email address, create an account on BlenderNation and log in when posting a message.