Return-Path: Received: from mail-vb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.212.41] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4739653 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:57:15 +0200 Received: by vbkv13 with SMTP id v13so391126vbk.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:59:46 -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=dhWetiuy1WNXbxX4ZJm/JXUR4lL0FRcoVyWgtdM8SpQ=; b=AAi1G74/jBRqHZrdmTeeeGpTG5Hve075FeBNsj7NFbpc14C0bEFOFh2I856x2DLamu ZuPB0Yw1Tid+s2Oz7OBAUwomjZSMwW4j5duXqd8HrYAq5nRYWcpkk4rmD2fl4Ane4x2I VH7isB3VYsORSdX3fINXNYmN+pPceBwxb/r4DCmhVYUvhjmFqzwDBOQPGeWhyJ/sm8dE zJCTq1BlbzXBiJXKq2fcM4F+fpzzI2wSr7hgUATrEoc8/3/WCVr4sbN6QIHWwEHhCKtp Xk52X9m6/IgiKEjOWa3tHl8NMgzm6VN5hY9G+ABWYk5wGMRROcZ8I32xomEVvUToJStD WE/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.17.207 with SMTP id q15mr5854775vdd.49.1339171186493; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.149.70 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:59:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:59:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5040a4cdd48e104c1f81610 --bcaec5040a4cdd48e104c1f81610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The 480 uses more power than the 5XX im expecting the 570 to be about the same speed as the 480 while using less power waiting for some tests on that one On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, rendernyc wrote: > 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 < >>>>>>> dave@pixelworkshop.com> 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 > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --bcaec5040a4cdd48e104c1f81610 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The 480 uses more power than the 5XX
im expecting the 570 to be about t= he same speed as the 480 while using less power

wa= iting for some tests on that one

On Fri, = Jun 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> w= rote:
we had the 580 at 15:07=A0
so 480 was ab= out 8% slower



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.com><= /span> 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


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, r= endernyc <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




<= /div>--
danny princz
=
exposedideas.com<= /a>


--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--bcaec5040a4cdd48e104c1f81610--