Page 1 of 2

which processor is best with Blender?

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:18 am
by finty
which processors perform best with Blender?
would an AMD Athlon 64 be better than a Pentium 4 and how much better would it be than a Celeron. I'm going to buy a laptop and I want blender to run as well as possible at a budget. here's 2 alternatives. which is the best to go for;

AMD Athlon 64 3000 / 512 ram / 64Mb ATi Mobility Radeon 9600 Graphics


Intel Celeron 2.8GHz / 512 ram / 128MbATi Radeon 345M Graphics Card

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:09 pm
by ideasman
Id go athlon over celeron.
Have found that hyperthreading slows down blender (blender can only use 50% of the cpu)

Also, tho ATI make a better cart- for DX at least, NVidia's seem to be faster fro blender.

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:07 pm
by IoN_PuLse
Hell, a Duron would be better than any of the newer Celerons. Celerons are reallly bad now, I would recommend Athlon myself just for the cost/performance ratio.

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:01 pm
by knoxer
One of the most important rules to folow when deciding between processors... Never, never, never buy a celeron.

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:24 am
by ideasman
About hyperthreading- You can tyrn it off on a P4 and I find its best to do so- This allows the 1 blender process tohog the cpu. :) (Increased rendertimes)

This wouldent be the case if blender was multithreaded.

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:40 am
by birras
I followed various threads with the same topic....
most user of 64bit processors are not to happy with their performance, in fact they are supposed to be slower with many tasks.

I optet myself for the best price/performance value there is at the moment and thats athlon....

I compared performance with an Intel-box much "faster" than mine and i won in a "speed-render contest"!

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:21 am
by mixxedstuff
Keep in mind that 64 bit processors are not too far along yet. Give it time.

I have tried both the AMD processors and Celeron- and Celeron is MUCH slower than its "equivelant" or "slower" counterparts. Avoid it at all costs.

So personally, I recommend your first option.

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:57 pm
by IoN_PuLse
mixxedstuff wrote:Keep in mind that 64 bit processors are not too far along yet. Give it time.
I'd say they're pretty darn good right now, running in 32-bit mode they beat the fastest P4 the majority of tests....

Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 8:55 pm
by mixxedstuff
Yeah. And wait till we see some 64-bit applications and OSs out. Then we can see the full potential.

Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 4:42 am
by birras
whats the difference in price?
athlon used to be cheaper over pentium, this changed with the 64bit processors

best bet is to go to the dealer with the programs you re going to use most and check them, bevor u buy...
if it is a good dealer he ll let u do it, if not he s not a good dealer and imagin what ll happen, once u´ve got a problem.

blender and ati is an issue and u should be sure it runs well on that machine.

on my notebook i ve an ati card and had to in.....(what was that called 3d acceleration!
otherwise it was impossible to use blender (non of the driver/older-newer would work)

if your plans r to use blender on that machine, make sure to check it bevor u get a sad surprise when u try it for the first time

Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:14 am
by ideasman
just get a 32 bit amd- athlon-xp, they are still very good.

Id be realy interested in performance of blender on amd's new line of processors (yes in 32 bit mode) - Any experiences?

Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:12 am
by finty
thanks for the good advice everyone. don't think I'll be going near a celeron now.
ideasman said:
just get a 32 bit amd- athlon-xp, they are still very good.
that might be the best idea. I've got an athlon xp processor on my pc and have no complaints with it at all running Blender. the laptop I had in mind was a PC world Advent 7039 laptop for £900 which has the athlon 64.

I'm not commited yet though

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:21 am
by birras
ust get a 32 bit amd- athlon-xp, they are still very good.
and they are still the cheapest

best money can buy performance/price

Hm 64 -bit versus 32-bit

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:25 am
by bfvietnam
What matters is how the processor computes the instructions, if
it splits the 64-bit instructions into two 32 bit instructions you will notice a speed increase, but if it just means more data throughput and the clock speed is the same, it means you video applications will increase in speed, but the floating point instructions may just get more precise. You can put four motorola 68000's together and make a 64 bit processor, as the cpu's were designed to work in parallel.. In fact Intel is just going to make a CPU
that is bigger now that is only two CPUs on the same chip.. ITs old technology implemented a different way.. I wouldn't expect 64-bit to be better unless something new is being done that two 32-bit processors can't do better.

AMD is just taking advantage of the hype.. Intel will blow them away though, as Intel always does..

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:43 am
by IoN_PuLse
With all the recent recalls of extremely poor designs Intel has been coming up with? Not at all.

The entire P4 family is insulting to the PC industry, they were designed to run at a higher clockspeed without a proportional increase in performance...

AMD has had the only 64-bit x86-capable CPU for over a year now, and now servers and even higher-end servers are using them...

It isn't all just hype, the A64 is extremely fast compared to it's 32-bit counterparts running in 32-bit mode. I'm not saying that running everything in 64-bit mode will yield a gigantic performance increase but these chips that are available now do today's tasks faster than it's competitors.

AMD is also working on dual-core chips, not just intel. Plus A64 chips can use Cool N Quiet technology that lower voltages and multipliers based on system CPU utilization, we've seen CPU fans literally stop spinning at my workplace when systems are idling, it's extremely impressive!