Boxx Technologies 3DBOXX 4860 Workstation

Benchmark Results: Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Cinebench, VUE, And MatchMover

This is the 3ds Max space scene (oddly, included in the SPECapc test for 3ds Max 9) that we include as a component of our processor reviews. While we don’t have another single-socket workstations to compare it to, there are multiple other reference points if you look through older CPU stories.

Maxon Cinebench r11.5

Cinebench is a two-part test that tests rendering and OpenGL performance as a standalone application, based on Maxon’s Cinema4D 3D animation software.

The OpenGL performance in CineBench comes in at 75% higher than the Z400--a respectable increase, but not the 100% or higher increase most of the other tests exposed. This is likely due to the smaller difference in graphics subsystem performance versus the more significant CPU disparity.

Cinebench rendering is a different story. It shows a 172% performance increase between the two systems. Once again, rendering takes full advantage of the additional processor cores (and threads via Hyper-Threading), while the OpenGL test is limited by the graphics card.

e-on VUE 8 PLE

This landscape render test throws a high-polygon landscape with procedurally-generated trees at the system. If the trees were not procedurally generated, the scene would likely overwhelm the system’s memory subsystem.

The Vue render shows a 132% improvement, consistent with the other render test results.

Autodesk MatchMover 2011

This test takes footage of a moving camera in 2D (a 720p clip of a brief walk on the Walk of Fame in Hollywood) and tracks the movement in 3D space. Even though the tests were done with the same software version, they were performed on different operating systems.

Since this test is also I/O heavy, it does not show the improvement the purely CPU-based tests (like rendering) do, and receives no additional benefit from the higher-performance graphics card. The 46% improvement is fairly close to the 56% difference in processor speed between the two systems, possibly indicating that the test is not well-optimized for threading, either.

  • one-shot
    Almost $8000 USD and not even a dual CPU workstation? Hmmm....
  • hardcore_gamer
    what a way to waste $8000
  • nebun
    what a cheap cpu cooler they have....really...for 8k they could have installed a better cooling system
  • razor512
    major ripoff, the system is worth at most 30% of that price
  • sudeshc
    Agreed waste of $$ ....
  • vaughn2k
  • utengineer
    mayankleoboy1though if i were to take each component separately and build our own system, it would be cheaper.You forget, the cost of a commercial PC includes service, support, and licensed certifications.
  • nforce4max
    I wouldn't purchase this workstation. First you can build a better base machine for the fraction of the cost. Second you can purchase on your own the software you require or pirate. Third there is a flaw, yes there is always the temptation of mounting the hard drives in that manor but isn't recommended due to the uneven wear on the spindle that can lead to early failure.
  • For this price, I'd go with a workstation from a major player (ex. HP or similar). You could easily build a dual socket workstation with similar (or better) overall performance; remember that many apps that require this level of hardware are optimized for Xeon instruction sets and 8+ threads. Additionally, you're software vendors would actually support their products on a system running within spec. Simply put, this is a toy not an enterprise class product
  • wiyosaya
    utengineerYou forget, the cost of a commercial PC includes service, support, and licensed certifications.Licensed certifications may be confidence inspiring to some, however, I think they are a waste of money. It is just a different form of branding that can be marketed at what is usually an expensive premium. Think THX certification. It was expensive in consumer audio and video, however, in my opinion, it has had it's 15-minutes of fame.