|
|
Wow. Alright, thanks! ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer did a little test with lloyd the other day that had some extuded text with a reflective floor. 2008 macpro CPU render was abotu 15mins. he turned on his 8800GT that is not supported and it rendered in about 7 mins. on a q4000 the same scene took 37 seconds
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
CPU based render? On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Greg Balint <greg@delrazor.com> wrote:
Danny, could you do a test for me on the same project file with the 580 turned off? Just to see how much the Nvidia cards are helping the situation?
////Greg Balint///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
if ANYONE has one of the cards tested already or a different one and wouldnt mind popping off a render please email me so we can get more results
danny On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
- AndrewOn Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
The 480 uses more power than the 5XXim 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 <rendernyc@gmail.com> 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 <aembury@gmail.com> 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.
- AndrewOn Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
480 in a 12 core macpro was 16:21On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.com> wrote:
What about the 480? Did that not score between the 580 and 680?
I'd be very interested to see that.
Cheers.
- AndrewOn Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
interestingthats 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 <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 = 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 <rendernyc@gmail.com> 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 <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
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
-- danny princz exposedideas.com
-- danny princz exposedideas.com
-- danny princz exposedideas.com
|
|
