Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4739645 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:55:02 +0200 Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10so1142261vcb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:57:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KHSVZsUDSkK+/WmwyxI4nICYGu0+3fOmkeCvQpdU5pI=; b=wFHcF7kY7LvPDYWj37Rf65AMuFG4b//WcnwTPAKsK6fi7OgicMbuQOinjeHAIvRlyd tcfWQkWDsBd0/hqufKv0MYfbzu152PdVh1P+0pqU39d05VOLoIh/+8obLC5s2ug2Uxs2 KEYOvDoxVEkT78PGlgcFGsWZVZfs6UaRBdj2xmewz3msG15bX3uBcb+z3N8MeYS4baAn hLAJ4EWuuDDHh4FZEDybseB71dfHVNu+9Seb09s9Pln9M/BaP5spzCmVzkDsLnOEOMQp jGjTiMGvLtkl0vWoTGvmDHP518R7AnehQSrT3dgyO0kwlT7xl7NAFIUBQkyN33QgGM11 4AlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.240.18 with SMTP id ky18mr1053788vcb.74.1339171053464; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.149.70 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:57:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:57:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cc961aef6d9504c1f80e19 --14dae9cc961aef6d9504c1f80e19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 we had the 580 at 15:07 so 480 was about 8% slower On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Embury wrote: > For the performance to cost ratio....WOW! That's phenomenal! > > Now, the 580 is cutting that time by 3 minutes is that correct? > > Cheers. > > - Andrew > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, rendernyc wrote: > >> 480 in a 12 core macpro was 16:21 >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Embury wrote: >> >>> What about the 480? Did that not score between the 580 and 680? >>> >>> I'd be very interested to see that. >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> - Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, rendernyc wrote: >>> >>>> interesting >>>> thats why we need more results... >>>> >>>> the 680 tested in a z800 rendered in 17:34 >>>> a 580 in an 2008 mac pro was 15:07 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Teddy Gage wrote: >>>> >>>>> GTX 680 - 2 GB VRAM - clock speed 1096 MHZ >>>>> >>>>> core i7 3930K (6 logical cores) overclocked to 4.7 gHZ >>>>> >>>>> render time : 13 min 5 seconds = 780 seconds >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GTX 580 - 3 GB VRAM - clock speed 866 MHZ >>>>> >>>>> core i7 940 (4 cores) oc'd to 3.7 gHZ >>>>> >>>>> render time 13 min 50 seconds = 830 seconds >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So these results seem to imply there is a disk and / or CPU bottleneck >>>>> in your benchmark project, or there is something else going on. Maybe RAM >>>>> plays a factor. Because in my own benchmark tests with a different project, >>>>> I get different results, where the GTX 580 is faster, not the 680 in the >>>>> faster machine. Interesting... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM, rendernyc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> email sent >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Dave Bittner >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm running a flashed 470 from eBay. I'll run the test and send you >>>>>>> the results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:41PM, rendernyc wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > yup, been testing lots of diff cards with the raytracer. >>>>>>> > want to run a test on your 570 for the chart? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > have the 285, 480, 580, 680, q4000 and q4800 so far >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > was just saying that the only card someone from adobe could >>>>>>> "officially" talk about is the currently shipping q4000 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +---End of message---+ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send any message to >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> danny princz >>>>>> >>>>>> exposedideas.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Animator & Editor >>>>> www.teddygage.com >>>>> Brooklyn >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> danny princz >>>> >>>> exposedideas.com >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> danny princz >> >> exposedideas.com >> > > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --14dae9cc961aef6d9504c1f80e19 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable we had the 580 at 15:07=A0
so 480 was about 8% slower



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM,= Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
For the performance to cost ratio....WOW! Th= at's phenomenal!

Now, the 580 is cutting that time by 3 minutes = is that correct?

Cheers.

- Andrew<= /font>


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, rendernyc &= lt;rendernyc@gmail= .com> wrote:
480 in a 12 core macpro was 16:21
<= br>
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Andrew E= mbury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
What about the 480? Did that not score betwe= en the 580 and 680?

I'd be very interested to see that.

Cheers.

- Andrew



= On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:
interesting
thats why we need more resul= ts...

the 680 tested in a z800 rendered in 17:34 a 580 in an 2008 mac pro was 15:07


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
GTX 680 - 2 GB VRAM - clock speed 1096 MHZ
core i7 3930K (6 logical cores) overclocked to 4.7 gHZ

render = time : 13 min 5 seconds =3D 780 seconds


GTX 580 - 3 GB VRAM - clock speed 866 MHZ

core i7 940 (4 cor= es) oc'd to 3.7 gHZ

render time 13 min 50 seconds =3D 830 seconds


So these=20 results seem to imply there is a disk and / or CPU bottleneck in your=20 benchmark project, or there is something else going on. Maybe RAM plays a factor. Because in my own benchmark tests with a different project, I=20 get different results, where the GTX 580 is faster, not the 680 in the=20 faster machine. Interesting...


= On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:
email sent

thanks


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Dave = Bittner <dave@pixelworkshop.com> wrote:
I'm running a flashed 470 from eBay. I&#= 39;ll run the test and send you the results.

On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:41PM, rendernyc wrote:

> yup, been testing lots of diff cards with the raytracer.
> want to run a test on your 570 for the chart?
>
> have the 285, 480, 580, 680, q4000 and q4800 so far
>
> was just saying that the only card someone from adobe could "offi= cially" talk about is the currently shipping q4000


+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



<= font color=3D"#888888">--
danny princz

exposedideas.com



=
--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.= com
Brooklyn




--
danny princz

exposedideas.com




<= /div>--
danny princz

exposedideas.com




--
= danny princz

exposedideas.com
--14dae9cc961aef6d9504c1f80e19--