Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4739663 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:03:59 +0200 Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so822053wgb.22 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:06:31 -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=RHfVyr2s4oIOhnyBgQ/H8HDHoWNn85m1meMgALJ8Rj8=; b=xF9NACWcYyo+oPrnyALy/TdD2b2P8xr0Ur9159SqlnGB1q0TK5hFia1qm2XH7cU7Dl NLI6Bq7DBg7LcwUUzsseNc30vgtTufv3gl+rlcZk/gD2bJWCrlT9pgJcxoyLNMS67owm w3XpA45KBMsZULUgST6f355H5tfamHVGpD7tKrMXDM0EHoOmv/XzDvwKxdEuGcr62CWg suALd3PmiaKIYqsS9pW3fkxkIc5xf7+pADQLAD2MWMtlPbYjdy1CXPJvhNHdJDH1pE+q +2nW0PmzS8B3Ygt20Sj7ADVTU5zBmVboRJ/WPsIf5bKfYtiefwfeiJh7zaRdvEBQbPhE UxiA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.88.194 with SMTP id bi2mr1633579wib.20.1339171591625; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.216.76 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:06:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: Andrew Embury To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04430408031d8f04c1f82f83 --f46d04430408031d8f04c1f82f83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Fantastic! Thank you ever so much for doing this. This is truly phenomenal of the user group to come together to make this all possible. Cheers. - Andrew On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM, rendernyc wrote: > 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 > --f46d04430408031d8f04c1f82f83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fantastic!

Thank you ever so much for doing this. This is truly phen= omenal of the user group to come together to make this all possible.
Cheers.

- Andrew

On Fri, Jun 8, 2= 012 at 11:59 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
The 480 uses more power than the 5XX
im = expecting the 570 to be about the same speed as the 480 while using less po= wer

waiting for some tests on that one


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, rende= rnyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
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


--
danny princz

exposedideas.com
--f46d04430408031d8f04c1f82f83--