Buy the ARP T-Shirt! BIOS Optimization Guide Money Savers!

 30 November 2008
 Dr. Adrian Wong
 Discuss here !
Desktop Graphics Card Comparison Guide Rev. 33.0
Covering 628 desktop graphics cards, this comprehensive comparison allows you ... Read here
BIOS Option Of The Week - Virtualization Technology
Since 1999, we have been developing the BIOS Optimization Guide, affectionately known... Read here
Buy The BOG Book Subscribe To The BOG! Latest Money Savers!
Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.7
Digg! Reddit!Add to Reddit | Bookmark this article:


The MAXON CINEBENCH R10 is based on the MAXON CINEMA 4D software. Other than being famous for their prolific use of capital letters, MAXON is also famous for providing the useful CINEBENCH benchmark, now in its tenth release. It is fully-optimized for multi-core processing and is thus the favourite benchmark of processor companies.

CINEBENCH tests the speed of the processors in rendering a 3D scene with the option to render on a single processing core or all available processing cores. So, it's great for demonstrating the performance difference of single core processors vs. multi-core processors. We obtained the results in form of the render time in seconds. A shorter render time is always better.


Render Time

When running only with one core, the performance of all Core 2 processors scaled well with their clock speeds. The new dual-core E8600 processor was the fastest by far because of its high core and FSB clock speeds and large 6 MB L2 cache. Clock for clock, the latest E8000 series is faster than the E6000 series by 7.3%, thanks to their 50 % larger L2 cache.

However, when all available processing cores were used for rendering, the quad-core processors had an enormous performance advantage over their dual-core cousins. The slowest quad-core processor in this comparison, the Q6600 was 85.9% faster than the dual-core E6600 which ran at the same clock speed. It was also 24.4% faster than the E8600, which is the fastest dual-core Core 2 processor right now.

The fastest CPU in this comparison was the 45nm quad-core QX9650. It was 9% faster than the 65nm quad-core QX6850, just over 2X faster than the E8650 and over 3.2X faster than the slowest CPU in this comparison, the E6320.


Aggregated Results

To make it easier to compare the results, we colour-coded the chart.

In the following comparison, we colour-coded the results for easy comparison. Yellow would denote the rendering time of a single core . The colour orange would denote the rendering time when all cores were utilized (multi core). Shorter is faster.


Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support out work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The Performance Comparison

The Processors

Benchmark Details & Settings

The Testbed
Testing Methodology
Game Settings


Supreme Commander

Crysis CPU Test 2 (Ice)

3D Rendering


Media Encoding

x264 Benchmark

Math Calculations

Super PI Mod



<<< Crysis CPU Test 2 (Ice) : Previous Page   |   Next Page : x264 Benchmark >>>

Hard Disk Drive Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 5.7
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Processor Review
The ASUS Eee Box B204 & B206
ASUS ENGTX260 TOP GeForce GTX 260 Graphics Card Review
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT Graphics Card Review Rev. 2.0
Taskbar Shuffle Review
Syfer Laptop Alarm Review
PC Power Management Guide Rev. 2.0
Graphics Card Repair Guide Rev. 2.0
OCZ PC2-8000 Titanium Alpha VX2 DDR2 Memory Kit Review


Copyright © Tech All rights reserved.