3D Modeling & Rendering Benchmarks

Imaging is one thing, 3D modeling and rendering another. Rendering is the process of generating an image from a model, by means of computer programs. The model is a description of three dimensional objects in a strictly defined language or data structure. It would contain geometry, viewpoint, texture and lighting information. The image is a digital image or raster graphics image. Rendering is also used to describe the process of calculating effects in a video editing file to produce final video output. These kinds of programs and applications are very popular these days and quite extensively used in the movie and games industry.

ScienceMark 2.0

ScienceMark 2.0 is an attempt to put the truth behind benchmarking. In an attempt to model real world demands and performance, it is a suite of high performance benchmarks that realistically stress system performance without architectural bias. Synthetic benchmarks are useful, and can tell the user valuable performance characteristics about their system's performance, but they should not be used in entirety to measure system performance; this role is reserved in greater part to real applications performing real tasks. ScienceMark 2.0 is comprised of several benchmarks, each of which measures a different aspect of real world system performance.

ScienceMark Results - Intel - 2GB RAM - Multi Core
	Core 2 Duo E6300	SM Score
Molecular	2.66GHz (380x7)	1296
Primordia	2.66GHz (380x7)	1362
Cryptography	2.66GHz (380x7)	1259
Stream	2.66GHz (380x7)	1881
Blas/Flops	2.66GHz (380x7)	2084
Overall	2.66GHz (380x7)	1597
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	SM Score
Molecular	2.66GHz (266x10)	1303
Primordia	2.66GHz (266x10)	1305
Cryptography	2.66GHz (266x10)	1253
Stream	2.66GHz (266x10)	1477
Blas/Flops	2.66GHz (266x10)	2061
Overall	2.66GHz (266x10)	1502
Results Interpretation: Higher index values are better.

To start off the analysis of the results, we would like to point out that ScienceMark 2.0 is already a bit outdated although it will detect how much processors or cores are available on the certain system. Now having used ScienceMark for our benchmarks on both the Intel Core 2 Duo and Extreme we find ourselves a bit disappointed. Does it really make a difference? In this case it doesn't really. And the main aspect would be since the program doesn't use all cores, and that the E6300 is somehow in favor mainly due to the high memory bus speed. You can't deny that 1520MHz is a big increase over the default 1066MHz available to the memory to communicate to the CPU at hand. When both had only the default settings the quad core would come out slightly on top. But then again it proves our point that the multi-core support is really lacking on this benchmark program.

Maxon CineBench 9.5

CineBench is the free benchmarking tool for Windows and Mac OS based on the powerful 3D software Cinema 4D. Consequently, the results of tests conducted using CineBench 9.5 carry significant weight when analyzing a computer's performance in everyday use. Especially a system's CPU and the OpenGL capabilities of its graphics card are put through their paces, even multi-processor systems with up to 16 dedicated CPU's or processor cores. During the testing procedure, all relevant data is ascertained with which the performance of different computers can subsequently be compared, regardless of operating system. CineBench includes render tasks that test the performance of up to 16 multi-processors on the same computer as well as software-only shading tests and OpenGL shading tests on huge numbers of animated polygons that will push any computer to its limits.

CineBench Results - Intel - 2GB RAM - Multi Core
	Core 2 Duo E6300	CB Score
Rendering (1 CPU)	2.66GHz (380x7)	445
Rendering (x CPU)	2.66GHz (380x7)	828
C4D Shading	2.66GHz (380x7)	527
OpenGL (SWL)	2.66GHz (380x7)	1922
OpenGL (HWL)	2.66GHz (380x7)	4096
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	CB Score
Rendering (1 CPU)	2.66GHz (266x10)	437
Rendering (x CPU)	2.66GHz (266x10)	1412
C4D Shading	2.66GHz (266x10)	531
OpenGL (SWL)	2.66GHz (266x10)	1958
OpenGL (HWL)	2.66GHz (266x10)	4173
Results Interpretation: Higher index values are better.

CineBench is one of the few benchmark suites that supports multi-core CPU's and can take full advantage of these. We can easily compare the results between both Intel processors, but also on the single and multi-core performance. Looking at the single CPU rendering figures both processors are going head to head with no real winner at hand. Although, when the multi-core feature kicks in the dual core needs to lay back and let the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 take all the credit. Optimizing and using all available cores are essential to value the benefit of the quad core processor, and the future will certainly show that is becoming more and more important. It does proof once again that after a successful launch of the Core 2 Duo series that Intel has gone one step further than the competition and already have the quad core technology to serve our needs.