More RAM could help, but absolute performance on AMD historically trails absolute performance on Intel. Performance/cost or performance/power might be a different story, though.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if CINEBENCH scales better over ever-more cores than Ae does -- I'd think there's often much more raw computation and less I/O or inter-process communication with CINEBENCH or most 3D renderers than Ae.
Walter Soyka
On Dec 8, 2012 2:19 PM, "Teddy Gage" < teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes it is a bit mysterious which is why I wanted him to try a real world AE project.
My overclocked sandy bridge i7 3930 K, with the same graphics card gets 55 FPS and a 12.74 CPU score in cinebench, and cost around $2,200... I feel like something is missing? It should be at least 2x faster, unless AMD has really fallen far behind.
Did you run the 64 bit version of cinebench? are all cores firing 100% if you open the task manager performance view? is it 16 physical cores or 32 physical?
Could be possible the cores are starved for RAM....
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Søren Christensen <soren@desilence.net> wrote:
That was a bit low cpu score for 32 cores,no? Maybe cinebench isn't scaling well with so many cores?
( My 4 core MBP from mid 2011 clocks in at OpenGL 42,61 fps and CPU 5.53 )
Cheers, Søren
|||| MOTION & INTERACTIVITY
|||| SOCIAL:
hi All,
just got my 32core in, and out of the box, I've tested cinebench 11.5.
I've got a Asus GTX680 DC2G 4GD5 (with 4Gb DDR5) in the machine, and have installed the NVidia 306.97 driver.
I'm running Win7 x64 ultimate.
The results are:
OpenGL: 32.61 fps CPU: 13.36 pts
I'll run other benchmarks after the weekend.
kind regards,
Marcel van Berk
Hoge Bomen/LSSLSS
info@lsslss.nl
www.lsslss.nl
--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn
|
