Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: 3ds Max 2010 And LightWave 9.6

AMD FirePro V9800 4 GB: Eyefinity Meets Professional Graphics
By

In addition to the SPECapc tests, we wanted to take 3ds Max and LightWave for a spin using real-world workloads. 

Whereas the SPEC tests take a variety of measurements and wrap them into composite scores, we simply timed two tests. One employs the default scanline renderer and the other uses the mental ray renderer.

Unfortunately, neither benefits from GPU-based acceleration, like the Arion light simulator (optimized for CUDA). The result is two very similar scores across both cards.

The OpenGL-based LightWave preview finishes just a tad quicker on the FirePro card, while the very CPU-dependent Modeler workload finishes in the same amount of time. 

From there, we rendered four individual frames from our Tom's Hardware logo test:

LightWave 9.6 Frame Render
AMD FirePro V9800
Nvidia Quadro 5000
Frame #8
9:45
9:44
Frame #41
10:11
10:11
Frame #500
11:20
11:19
Frame #600
8:08
8:07


Again, we're looking at a processor-bound scenario. It all goes to show that, even in a workstation environment, building with balance in mind is a smart decision. Want more proof? Check out the Xeon 5600-based benchmarks that demonstrate how well LightWave rendering scales with as many as 24 threads.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display 3 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , 18 November 2010 03:53
    Can you explain me why do have made renderings tests with this cards? They don't effect anything since this render engines have no CUDA or OPENCL.
    You could have put there an Intel crap and the results would be the same.
  • 0 Hide
    nitro912gr , 29 November 2010 19:54
    What a big mistake in testing with cpu based methods!
    I work in Vue a lot and when the scene starts to count billions of polygons my poor 4850 is getting down to it's knees, when I try to move something on the scene, or move the camera. This is where these cards can make the difference.

    This is where you have to test these cards not in cpu based final renderings. Only in specific CUDA enabled renderers we can see the gpu to get in final render progress and only nvidia ones.

    The right question is how these cards manage with the frame rate in 4 views with thousands of objects an billions of polygons.

    No offense, but next time give the testing review to someone who actually have some experience in 3D, because first of all some things are making a conflict with preview and well informed articles about pro cards and second if you work with 3D you know what you are wanting for these cards and what they promise to do!

    Again no offense, just pointing out the obvious.
  • 0 Hide
    nitro912gr , 1 December 2010 20:37
    What the hell is going on with all this spam? I have visited the article 3-4 times to check the new answers and all of them are spam spam spam...