Cinebench

[mattwalter85]

yeah its most definately cpu clock dependent

[Speedway]

I finally got around to posting this. you'll see to the left its at 4ghz and right 2.66ghz stock. notice anything? yeah almost 20+ fps lol.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I'm confussed as to the point. I mean I don't care what the app is, whether benchmark or actual gaming, a 50%+ overclock on the cpu is usually going to deliver some serious increases. Especially when you are talking about a 2.66GHz to 4GHz jump! I mean the GFLOPS go up that much and that is going to translate into real world improvement in ANY app! So I think it obvious that this kind of OC is going to produce some big gains, in most anything.

Edited July 31, 2010 by SpeedwayNative

[Nyt]

I would like to see a 480 in here for an added comparison, maybe Nyt will grace us with his presence

 

I will grace this thread with my presence ,lol, better late than never . I am on dial up so downloads are very slow so I should hopefully be able to get some scores this afternoon.

[ir_cow]

I guess what people may have missed something, unlike 3dmark or heaven benchmark this is what CINEMA 4D uses in real world for its 3d work and rendering. There are benchmarks to test the true power of your gpu in 3d modeling apps, the biggest being SPECapc (firegl and quadros are kings!). I think the whole start of the thread was to show off the gpu power via FPS but it turns out this benchmark is heavily physics based. this in turn makes it a pointless GPU benchmark but still a good marker on how powerful the CPU is for rendering out graphical work.

 

 

anyone lost still? i guess clarify a little more.

Edited July 31, 2010 by hornybluecow

[IVIYTH0S]

I guess what people may have missed something, unlike 3dmark or heaven benchmark this is what CINEMA 4D uses in real world for its 3d work and rendering. There are benchmarks to test the true power of your gpu in 3d modeling apps, the biggest being SPECapc (firegl and quadros are kings!). I think the whole start of the thread was to show off the gpu power via FPS but it turns out this benchmark is heavily physics based. this in turn makes it a pointless GPU benchmark but still a good marker on how powerful the CPU is for rendering out graphical work.

 

 

anyone lost still? i guess clarify a little more.

Nah that makes sense

[Speedway]

I guess what people may have missed something, unlike 3dmark or heaven benchmark this is what CINEMA 4D uses in real world for its 3d work and rendering. There are benchmarks to test the true power of your gpu in 3d modeling apps, the biggest being SPECapc (firegl and quadros are kings!). I think the whole start of the thread was to show off the gpu power via FPS but it turns out this benchmark is heavily physics based. this in turn makes it a pointless GPU benchmark but still a good marker on how powerful the CPU is for rendering out graphical work.

 

 

anyone lost still? i guess clarify a little more.

 

 

So just curious, since I am running ATI and not Nvidia, how does that compute with the PhysX, since ATI doesn't have it?

[ir_cow]

i think physX is strictly for games but i think you are about about CUDA and since ATi doesnt have it how does it still work?. In this case for Cinebench its using the CPU for the work not the gpu (hence overclocks have huge impact) but say a program is using the "powers" of CUDA aka Adobe CS5. Right now ATi cards are out of luck but will run fine just not the extra "real-time" acceleration that say Adobe uses in After Effects and Photoshop and Autodesk uses "cough" nothing yet "cough". what they both have in common is DirectCompute which is still being finalized (which should take over as a generic PhysX so to speak).

 

So you may ask why would i pay $3000 for a Quadro card when the consumer $200 can do the same stuff? well it's simple 1) you get 24hour tech support and they will make custom drivers over night for you if you snag a program. 2) once you are in the program it will run in 3d mode with high AA (most consumer cards get stuck in 2d mode unless a games running) 3). if you ever used Maya or 3ds Max you can turn on "High Quality" in the view window but you can do anything because it like stop motion (1-2fps). Quadro or FireGl cards would get maybe 15fps (depends which card). 4) if you ever have any sorts of problems in a 3d modeling program you are completely out of luck until a new set of drivers fix it or you have to wait for the next version to come out.

 

i gotta go but i'll write more later if people still have questions.

[Nyt]

My CPU score is 5.77 . But when I try run the GPU test it says my gpu doesnt meet the requirements ?! Is it because im using beta drivers or what ?

[IVIYTH0S]

My CPU score is 5.77 . But when I try run the GPU test it says my gpu doesnt meet the requirements ?! Is it because im using beta drivers or what ?

That's odd, I guess try with the next newest drivers?? Unless you are using Beta drivers, perhaps the software can't recognize your hardware

[Nyt]

Yeah , I will try with some WHQL drivers.

[OwinC]

That is odd indeed. I am running the latest Beta drivers and I have no problems.

Maybe the Beta or WHQL drivers never installed correctly. Have you tried to reinstall the same drivers again.

I am still running the 258.69 beta drivers and see no problems.

[ir_cow]

it may be the beta drivers, my laptop wont either (same error). i noticed it only got 40% correct of the reference image, it could be anything i guess.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2010 by hornybluecow