Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best CPU for 3D Animation

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2004 12:31:31 PM

Hi, Im going to upgrade my computer to use programs like 3d Max and Maya. I know that intel CPU are better for those programs than AMD, but it also cost a lot more. So I have two questions.

1. Beetwen Intel Celeron 2.4 and Athlon XP 2500+ Barton, which one is better for 3d Max? and is there a great diffrence?

2. Is the CPU the most important part for 3d Max or is it the graphic card?

More about : cpu animation

April 2, 2004 12:59:11 PM

DO NOT buy the celeron. The XP2500+ will blow it away. HUGE difference.

I believe the CPU matters more for stuff like 3dS max, but I'm not sure. Not really my field. but don't buy a celeron.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
April 2, 2004 1:05:43 PM

what budget do you have? I guess a relatively low one, if you're looking at Celerons.

Post your budget and we can recommend stuff.

Do you ONLY want to do 3d animation stuff, or do you want to play the odd game etc.?

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
Related resources
April 2, 2004 1:26:17 PM

Maybe <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=7" target="_new"> this </A> can overcome your illusion a 2.6 GHz cpu would actually be anywhere near fast. Celeron is a DOG, there is no other way to put it, avoid it at all costs.

As for the Athlon XP, its fine in 3DS and Maya, if you use lightwave, a lowend Pentium 4B or C would probably be a better option if you can fit one into your budget.

but by all means, no celeron.. you'd better off getting a second hand Pentium 3 or whatever.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 2, 2004 1:28:34 PM

>2. Is the CPU the most important part for 3d Max or is it
>the graphic card?

Missed that one. The 3D card performance will be noticeable in the viewports while you are building your models/animation. A decent videocard can help here, but it doesnt matter at all while rendering or raytracing, this purely done by the cpu.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 2, 2004 1:35:41 PM

BTW, feel free to read the rest of the review as well. You'll notice a 2.6 GHz Celeron is typically more than *twice* as slow as a Barton 2500+. It would actually have a hard time beating a 800 MHz Barton if there where so a thing. Its a POS cpu beyond words

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 2, 2004 1:52:19 PM

My parents also use that computer so i whant to use it for internet, film, listen to music and small games aswell.

I allready have a Athlon 1800+ but i whant to know if it is worth upgrading my second computer (AMD K6 550Mhz).

Athlon XP 2500+ is the highest i will go but is the diffrence bettwen that and P4 Prescott2.4 much in 3d animation? (i read somewere that Prescott CPU didn't have Hyperthreading but the store i looked at said 'HT 1MB 533Mhz' isn't that Hyperthreading?)
April 3, 2004 3:58:58 AM

If you get a mobile, or xp-m 2500+ you should be able to use it at xp 3200+ settings. This should do maya quite well.
April 3, 2004 11:19:23 AM

>Athlon XP 2500+ is the highest i will go but is the
>diffrence bettwen that and P4 Prescott2.4 much in 3d
>animation?

Depends on what apps you use. In Maya and 3DS, the short answer is no. The 2500+ would be your best choice choice. For Lightwave, I'd consider a P4, but I am uncertain how non HT P4s perform, I do know the HT P4's here leave the AXP in the dust.

> (i read somewere that Prescott CPU didn't have
>Hyperthreading but the store i looked at said 'HT 1MB
>533Mhz' isn't that Hyperthreading?)

The 2.4 Prescott indeed does *not* have hyperthreading. At stock speed, its als not a great performer; what makes it desirable nevertheless is its excellent overclocking potential.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 3, 2004 5:39:21 PM

Thx for the help everyone.

I just have a few more questions.

1. P4E Prescott 2.4 were no good, but how about P4E Prescott 2.8 800Mhz is that a good CPU or is the Northwood 2.8 better? whats the diffrence? ( i probably won't buy one of them but just whant to know )

2. If I decide to buy an AMP 2600+ it will cost me the same as if i bought AXP 3000+ Barton, is it worth to take the AMP instead? And can i use it on a Socket A Motherboard?

3. Is the diffrence bettwen Barton and Thoroughbread much?

Thank you for helping me with this. =)
April 3, 2004 7:29:47 PM

>but how about P4E Prescott 2.8 800Mhz is that a good CPU or
>is the Northwood 2.8 better?

Overall Northwood is typically slightly faster, or equal, though the difference is small and can vary more widely depending on the app. Biggest difference/concern is that Prescott is very hot, which is the main reason to avoid it; its performance isnt all that bad, it typically just aint better than NW (per clock) either.

> If I decide to buy an AMP 2600+ it will cost me the same
>as if i bought AXP 3000+ Barton, is it worth to take the
>AMP instead?

Definately not. Athlon MP only makes sense for dual cpu systems. Its the exact same chip, with a slower FSB (higher clockfrequency for the same PR rating). the only real difference is that its validated for 2 way operation, and the AXP is not, and that its a lot more expensive. For a single CPU system, it makes no sense (unless you'd have an old 266 Mhz motherboard and want to max it out, but even then...)

>And can i use it on a Socket A Motherboard?

Yep, pretty much any socket A board should work with the MP's, but like I said, there is very little reason to do so.

>Is the diffrence bettwen Barton and Thoroughbread much?

Not really, depending how you look at it. Barton has twice the cache, but that is taken into account in its PR rating. So for equal PR rating, Barton clocks slower. So per clock Barton is better, per PR (and therefore, per $), it depends on the apps. Some apps love the extra cache, some just want clockfrequency, so depending what app you look at, a 2500+ (barton) could faster or slower than a 2600+ (tbred). Overall, the PR rating is pretty much accurate within the AXP range, but rendering mught benefit more from clock than cache, so maybe a tbred might be better for you. OTOH barton would probably overclock better, especially the 2500+. Either way, both the 2600+ tbred and 2500+ barton are dirt cheap and offer tons of performance for the $; you really can't go wrong either way. If you intend to overclock, I'd go for the 2500+, if you don't, I'd guess a 2600+ tbred would be a better bet.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 4, 2004 12:43:29 AM

Was prescott not slightly faster in workstation benchmarks like SpecViewPerf - 3DsMax?...

Even so, I still would recommend the 2.8C over the 2.8E, I think... It's slightly faster overall... And probably renders faster.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
April 4, 2004 1:25:31 AM

I'd say a 2.8c, last time i checked them they were 140ish a chip.

Although 2500+ system is nice only due to how much cheaper you can really make it, he could then spend more money on memory, or a video card. Then one day he could decide to invest 20 bucks in a somewhat nice hsf and oc it to 3200+ without a hitch.

When i built my 2500+ system it was around 600 dollars minus 9800pro. I'd say that is a great deal.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=277124623" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=277124623...;/A>
46,510 , movin on up. 48k new goal. Maybe not.. :/ 
April 5, 2004 8:55:07 PM

I have found an Athlon MP 2400+ (not Barton) that cost the same as Athlon XP 2500+ Barton (which i was going to buy). Should i go whit the MP instead since i both want to work whit 3d animation and try to oc.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Nod on 04/05/04 07:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 5, 2004 9:07:10 PM

AFAIK, there is no athlon MP 2500+. there is a 2400+ and a 2600+ though, but no 2500+. I would also be very surprised that the MP would be as cheap as the XP's for the same rating, but *if* they are (and *if* it exists), it could be worthwhile in your case. The MP's are are 266 Mhz FSB parts, but have a higher clockspeed than XPs to compensate and they should come with an unlocked mulitplier so nothing stops you from picking different FSB/Multiplier combinations. yeah, if I'm wrong and the thing exists and is as cheap as an XP, get one.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 30, 2010 1:06:07 PM

hi friend ...i would like to know what type of machine should i buy for archetectural works ...budget is not a problem...i need rendered outputs....once i tried to render a pic on 3dsmax on my home pc its shows memory is low program going to close ...what is the reason for that error is it graphics card or CPU...please tell me what type i should buy....my email is jobincherayil@gmail.com...thanks for your effort for reading this post,....
!