Benchmark Results: MatchMover 2011, Vue 8 PLE, And Euler3D

Per Wikipedia: “In cinematography, match moving is a visual-effects technique that allows the insertion of computer graphics into live-action footage with correct position, scale, orientation, and motion relative to the photographed objects in the shot. The term is used loosely to refer to several different ways of extracting motion information from a motion picture, particularly camera movement. Match moving is related to rotoscoping and photogrammetry. It is sometimes referred to as motion tracking.”
The first step in match moving is identifying and tracking features—and that’s what our MatchMover 2011 benchmark does, using custom footage taken by Jon Carroll on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame.
The threading here seems light, if existent at all. Naturally, the Xeon X5680s have a small clock rate advantage over the W5580s, but it’s a little more difficult to explain both dual-socket configurations’ lead on the Core i7-980X. At the very least, we can say it’s probably not worth upgrading to a dual-socket arrangement just for this app.

On the other hand, Vue does show a definite proclivity for more potent processors. For the unfamiliar, Vue is used to create, animate, and render 3D environments, so it’s not surprising that this professional app appears well-optimized for multi-core, multi-threaded workstations.
Our test scene finishes in less than 10 minutes using a pair of Xeon X5680s. The same task takes more than 18 minutes on a single Core i7-980X. The scaling here is superb.

Based on the STARS Euler3D computational fluid dynamics production code, Euler3D’s workload is described as follows:
“The benchmark testcase is the AGARD 445.6 aeroelastic test wing. The wing uses a NACA 65A004 airfoil section and has a panel aspect ratio of 1.65, a taper ratio of 0.66, and a 45 degree quarter-chord sweep angle. This AGARD wing was tested at the NASA Langley Research Center in the 16-foot Transonic Dynamics Tunnel and is a standard aeroelastic test case used for validation of unsteady, compressible CFD codes…The benchmark CFD grid contains 1.23 million tetrahedral elements and 223 thousand nodes. The benchmark executable advances the Mach 0.50 AGARD flow solution. Our benchmark score is reported as a CFD cycle frequency in Hertz.”
This one is deliberately optimized for threading (another version of the test is available to test in a single-threaded environment). Naturally, then, the dual-socket Xeon X5680 platform scores a first-place win. The Xeon W5580 takes second, though it’s held back somewhat by its slower clock rate.
- 1 / 4
- Next
-
Latest CPU News
- 05/24 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 05/23 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 05/22 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 05/22 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 05/20 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 05/24 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 05/22 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 05/18 – Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- 05/15 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 05/14 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
-
Latest Intel News
- Intel Picks UK for Research Institute on Sustainable Cities
- Specs for Dell's Windows 8 Clover Trail Tablet Leaked
- Thunderbolt Will Become Key Motherboard Spec in 2H 2012
- AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- Intel Hopes New Batteries Can Reduce Ultrabook Cost
-
Latest Intel reviews
- Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility

Or 24 Logical cores, not really Processors.
24 threads, 12 cores.
A+ Excellent Review.
Or 24 Logical CPUs, not really Processors.
Misleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.
I was expecting an even better performance from these CPUs.The performance is still limited by the software you use.
Misleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.
they could have gone 4x 6 core cpus without HT too.
Misleading title. I was excited because I assumed intel had finally come out with 12-core server CPUs.
The Xeon 5600-series tops out with 6 cores and 12 threads, yielding 24 logical processors between two sockets. =)
i have a feeling you dont understand what the word "workstation" means.
Hyper threading was kind of cool back in the P4 days, but now I don't see the point. Virtually nothing that >people actually use< has any benefit to see from it.. It just makes for cool screenshots imo..
I guess what this review says is that, if you want performance for stuff you do at home you should pretty much just get a Nehalem i7 6c with some fast ram. The xeons seems to be behind on everything multimedia, much as expected.
The Xeon 5600-series tops out with 6 cores and 12 threads, yielding 24 logical processors between two sockets. =)
You should have written "logical processors" or "logical cores" and no one would have argued.
Not true. Hyper threading makes it so if one app gets stuck in an endless loop it doesn't suck up all the cpu and freeze the computer.
The OS can do that even on a single core with no HT. Not to mention the case with many physical cores which non-HT CPUs have nowadays.
Not true. Hyper threading makes it so if one app gets stuck in an endless loop it doesn't suck up all the cpu and freeze the computer.
But why should it get stuck in an endless loop with all that computing power?
Since when do the chip makers get to choose not to have their chips tested? Is this a news magazine or isn't it? Test those G34 socket AMD Opterons!
And guys; chess is still one of the best applications to see the potential of a chip with all threads pegged. Crafty has a benchmark if the Fritz one is not using all the threads. Or you can do things more hands on; just see how much time it requires to get StockFish 1.8 to reach depth 30 in the start position. It is free and the #2 engine in the world.
Nice picture of a memory module. Unfortunately, it isn't a picture of the kingston KVR1333D3E9SK3/3G which has ECC, and hence 9 memory chips per side.
Nice picture of a memory module. Unfortunately, it isn't a picture of the kingston KVR1333D3E9SK3/3G which has ECC, and hence 9 memory chips per side.
Blargh. That's what I get for relying on Kingston's stock photography. Photo of one of my actual modules is in there now.
Since when do the chip makers get to choose not to have their chips tested? Is this a news magazine or isn't it? Test those G34 socket AMD Opterons! And guys; chess is still one of the best applications to see the potential of a chip with all threads pegged. Crafty has a benchmark if the Fritz one is not using all the threads. Or you can do things more hands on; just see how much time it requires to get StockFish 1.8 to reach depth 30 in the start position. It is free and the #2 engine in the world.
Hoping to get AMD in on the next round, for sure!
Enjoyed reading this ... thanks Chris.
It's interesting to see it unable to beat the i7-980X at times.
Just shows not everything is ready for operation more cores.
I'm still on dual core...
I'll bet Windows won't work with this many processors. The crap OS will probably BSOD. Even it boots, Windows is a virtual retard when it comes to thread management - it scales VERY poorly once you go above 4 cpu's. Linux or OSX on the other hand, would definitely benefit from such technology, since both of those have advanced thread management.
I was expecting an even better performance from these CPUs.The performance is still limited by the software you use.
Correct... if the software you use is Windows. Use a real OS that's based on UNIX and can actually scale properly when you give it serious hardware. Windows is a tinker toy in comparison.
Pretty epic review