[polynurb]

No secrets revealed ---- i7 920 | Vista Ultimate x64 | 12GB's |

@stock speed ???!!

[mashium123]

mashium, IMHO your temp(cpu,m/b) is somewhat high.

really? how much should it be, you think? and... you mean while idle or while full render?

Read 'em and weep.

And no, .. I don't understand the BM number at all, ...but this test was ran 3 separate times with a stopwatch plus MW's timer --- result = same.

No secrets revealed ---- i7 920 | Vista Ultimate x64 | 12GB's |

how's that??? it can't be stock speed for sure but... hey i'm running mine @3.8, so how high could the clock go to be almost 3min faster??
tell us...

[WillMartin]

-- Sorry to piggyback on this thread, but it is so close to what I am doing that thought it best not to start a new one.

I am building a machine much like the OP's: Core i7 920 (mine to be OC'd to either 3.66Ghz or 3.8Ghz), Asus P6T motherboard, OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 3x2GB (6GB not 12), etc. I too am on a tight budget, but where I want to "cheap out" compared to the OP is the graphics card (he's spending $155). I am currently planning on using this computer only for LightWave [8] work and Maxwell rendering, possibly a little more in the low-level video toying department: maybe some VirtualDub processing at standard DVD res down the road, but no game-playing, no heavy video editing with fancy real-time special effects playback, no BluRay video watching, etc.

I notice that some video cards have DDR3 ram. Should I make sure my video card for this machine has DDR3 since the motherboard seems to like that sort of ram for itself, or does this not matter much?

Summing up, what's are some decent cheaper graphics cards for this set-up and purpose? What are some quickly-listed specfics I should look for with this new generation (Core i7) proc/mobo, and what should I avoid?

Thanks for listening

-Will

[Eric Lagman]

mashium, IMHO your temp(cpu,m/b) is somewhat high.

really? how much should it be, you think? and... you mean while idle or while full render?

Read 'em and weep.

And no, .. I don't understand the BM number at all, ...but this test was ran 3 separate times with a stopwatch plus MW's timer --- result = same.

No secrets revealed ---- i7 920 | Vista Ultimate x64 | 12GB's |

how's that??? it can't be stock speed for sure but... hey i'm running mine @3.8, so how high could the clock go to be almost 3min faster??
tell us...

Your temps are fine. Anything around 70c is normal for that overclock. Even up to mid 70s and close to 80 is ok. Mine hovers around 65c at load running maxwell clocked to 3.6ghz. Under prime 95 stress testing it goes up to about 72c

The reason Ivox number is so low on the timer is because he is using the test in demo mode. Drop your license file in and the number will be different.

[mashium123]

thx eric.

yep, look at his resolution... made a smaller render...

[KurtS]

fast computer?

[Bubbaloo]

fast computer?

32 bit and 2 Gb RAM per node...

[ivox3]

The reason Ivox number is so low on the timer is because he is using the test in demo mode. Drop your license file in and the number will be different.

hey Eric .... how would that affect anything, ... it still rendered in that time.

Question: What is the actual resolution of the test scene ? --- that IS the size it rendered out of the gate .... I never touched it. That definitely would account for the time.

[KurtS]

I think in previous versions of Maxwell Render there was a rendering size limitation when running in demo mode. Looks like this is gone now?

[Eric Lagman]

The reason Ivox number is so low on the timer is because he is using the test in demo mode. Drop your license file in and the number will be different.

hey Eric .... how would that affect anything, ... it still rendered in that time.

Question: What is the actual resolution of the test scene ? --- that IS the size it rendered out of the gate .... I never touched it. That definitely would account for the time.

I think the size is limited in demo mode. Not 100% sure on that though. If you click on the download button on the benchwell site it says this "Important: Only use the full version of Maxwell Render (no Demo)"

I was getting crazy fast results on my i7 when i reinstalled maxwell after a new build, then I remembered something about not running the test in demo and as soon as I put my license file in and ran the test it was more in line with the rest of the results. I didnt dig any further to find out why. I was bummed though. I got really excited at the time to finish when I first ran it in demo mode. I thought wow I must have got a super chip or something

[mashium123]

...
Question: What is the actual resolution of the test scene ?...

Answer: 960*768

[Bubbaloo]

...
Question: What is the actual resolution of the test scene ?...

Answer: 960*768

I think the max resolution of the demo is 800 x 600. That would account for the faster time.

[ivox3]

......had no idea about the demo resolution limit! That's it ....lol. Still, ....to think that a 920 can top a $5K Xeon Clovertown 8-core is amazing. Of course it's not so amazing if your the idiot who paid that 5K...


I guess here's the next build:

In production later this year, the Nehalem-EX processor will feature up to eight cores inside a single chip supporting 16 threads and 24MB of cache. Its performance increase will be dramatic, posting the highest-ever jump from a previous generation processor.

[KurtS]

ahhhh cheater!!

[numerobis]

it would be helpful if there where a closed benchmark that renders under the same conditions every time no matter if you own a license or not - like cinebench or frybench. best thing would be if the result could be written into a file including all necessary information like cpu type, speed, RAM and OS.