[mashium123]

I would keep this run of the benchmark as the thing that makes a benchmark is its longevity. To constantly change the test so that it generates a different set of responses too often leaves little for comparison against previous marks.

Think of the '100 meter dash' its the same no matter what olympic after olympic.

This is definitely a hard issue to ponder.

Quoted for agreement.

[Cadhorn]

partially quoting adrian:

> Interesting idea. Do you think it would be used though? I have to
> correct a lot of entries because frankly the users seem swamped
> with the basic details already. Of course those who overclock
> know what they're running, but i think many cg artists don't have
> the time to dive into these matters.
<snip>

I would use it! But that's just me. I guess I imagine a lot of people are looking at these benchmarks and thinking "time to upgrade!" but then when you try to figure out what you want to upgrade to... there's not much to go on: processor, memory, OS. Which is a good start, but given all the other variables that go into putting together a smoking fast maxwell render box (specific motherboards for overclocking, memory speed, hard drive arrays, etc.)... well, I definitely want to know more about the systems that are getting the highest marks (fastest renders).
I completely agree that providing this information should be optional. There's nothing more annoying than forms that require you to provide a bunch of info that you don't feel like supplying. No doubt the hardcore system builders will want to tell you everything about their box and others might just say "i got a dell xpsiron9400ht" or whatever.

> ● A field for external links, so you can specify your hardware
> more accurately - alternatively a plain textbox on the benchwell
> site, where you can add additional specs or notes about your system.
<snip>

That could work. A simple plain text field for people to list whatever extra info they feel like would be fine.

> As i said before i want to stick to the no-account system. There
> was very little abuse so far (thanks Razz ) and it's more inviting
> this way. After all the person benchmarking is doing the favor here
> by adding content.
> A price/performance column has been suggested several times,
> but since there's no free database to access current hardware
> prices, this isn't gonna work.

Price/performance info would be interesting but ... i'm guessing that would be a huge pain-in-the-ass to add to benchwell. Prices of components are so volatile that I'm not sure the information would be of much use for more than a week or so.

[WestCAD]

My first experience with 64 OS .....going by the results posted looks like I think I made the right choice.
my benchmark should have a 4 in front of the 9
very happy with my new quad core considering it cost less than half what my conroe cost less than 15 months ago.
had issues with AutoCAD Architecture which are now resolved
Cheers maxwell

[P@]

Why runs Maxwell so much faster on Windows? Why is that?

[KurtS]

5m 49s!! ... ouch!

[Bubbaloo]

5m 49s!! ... ouch!

So this monster computer is a quad quad core?
Oh my!

[KurtS]

I think it must look like this:

[-Adrian]

pfff wtf

So this monster computer is a quad quad core?
Oh my!

Indeed, i got to see a verifying screenshot btw, so this is valid. Maxwell animation will be affordable one day

[sandykoufax]

5m 49s!! ... ouch!

So this monster computer is a quad quad core?
Oh my!

16cores and 32G ram.

really impressive!!!

[Eric Lagman]

Im confused its a quad core and you can fit 4 in one box with these now?

[Bubbaloo]

I'm thinking it may be cheaper to buy 4 quad core computers than to buy 1 16 core computer!

[ivox3]

Adrian, ....... its kind of late, but having a category that would of let us know whether a machine is networked or on a single motherboard would of been helpful. I'm not sure if manufacturers are already producing 4-proc seat boards ?? At any rate, ..this last entry with 16cores is a bit confusing, but way cool.

[numerobis]

http://www.hpcsystems.com/IntelXeon_E2406.htm#Features
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... s-tigerton



...take a look at the prices at the end of the inquirer article

[-Adrian]

I excluded network renders in general. I think this would add too much confusion as many farm setups are wildly mixed systems. I'm pretty sure the quad-quad is a single system.
I didn't forget about adding optional e-mail (private of course) and specs/comment fields btw, but it's always tedious to get back into scripting if you're not doing it too frequently.

[sandykoufax]

http://www.dell.com/content/products/pr ... l=en&s=bsd