One thing you’ll notice when you use applications with multiple components is a tendency for some functionality to include optimizations for threading and other pieces do not.
Our custom LightWave 3D Modeler test, which renders a 1+ million polygon version of the Tom’s Hardware logo, gains nothing from the additional compute muscle afforded by 24 threads available concurrently. The same holds true for the OpenGL-based fly-through of the logo in LightWave Layout. In fact, in both cases (as we've seen previously), the more complex architectures sacrifice performance compared to simpler and less-expensive setups.
|2 x Xeon X5680||2 x Xeon W5580||1 x Core i7-980X Extreme|
|Render, Frame 8||6 min., 7 sec.||7 min., 30 sec.||9 min., 35 sec|
|Render, Frame 41||6 min., 29 sec.||7 min., 49 sec.||10 min., 6 sec.|
|Render, Frame 500||7 min., 8 sec.||8 min., 35 sec.||11 min., 12 sec.|
|Render, Frame 600||5 min., 20 sec.||6 min., 12 sec.||8 min.|
Start rendering individual frames from the Layout-based logo file, however, and those CPU cores suddenly kick into gear. While two Xeon X5680s can’t quite halve the rendering time of a single Core i7-980X, they come close enough to make the addition of a second processor worthwhile for professionals who do a lot of rendering in LightWave.
Just remember—not every component of NewTek’s software benefits equally from a multi-socket configuration.
- Introducing Intel's Xeon X5680
- Meet The Xeon 5600 Family
- Building A Better Workstation
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Sandra 2010
- Benchmark Results: SPECviewperf 11 And SPECapc LightWave 9.6
- Benchmark Results: CS4 And Introducing Adobe’s CS5 Suite
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding And Cinebench
- Benchmark Results: MatchMover 2011, Vue 8 PLE, And Euler3D
- Benchmark Results: LightWave 3D 9.6
- Benchmark Results: Power Consumption And Efficiency