Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4739766 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:56:55 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so2888417obb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=2uriTozFanD1SkGxhfD0MYfpkY1o5jCU3qVDQeTDHzk=; b=0rcTnUluDk1GMEQB6woYyZob5zY4tfPYwfh62h2keXfebMSbhSCjOxsV8Giux0Bq6n LcMKYu3QpIHOhRa4j6iRUv/aQAuk+27pzdUHf0MBxqJypxrqDscQ1St83WN1W1bzhd7L ydM9wso2nyL8txCYJv48Emk3TLgDxG4ZsDKUg36Zzb4LzbXBaQO/NcTZ+Ejv770lyIAF fyApOh8tIbdWyaSU19apDsbL3nxh1KLEIzvWBX611OeIY4TX520uOgfC0C4m9zE1mkX6 UBzmUFyF7lydrIpOObbZQq6FDB+DHID4t9iUpTU7CJDQYv4/y5KkPgfnzk9NwSohKsYw T5aA== Received: by 10.182.2.233 with SMTP id 9mr7773420obx.59.1339174767081; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.80.167 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:58:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:58:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ea8148b88804c1f8ecd6 --f46d0444ea8148b88804c1f8ecd6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Danny, I'm not convinced your scene is explicitly testing the GPU, have you tried the benchmark file I posted a while ago? I'd be curious to see your results on it. I actually did a migration test and I got the exact same render times in two different machines with the same GPU. Not so with this robot project... http://www.teddygage.com/AEBENCHCS6/ And Greg (Balint), using the CPU engine for raytrace, the above benchmark project took 48 minutes vs. 13 minutes with GPU on, on a highly overclocked core i7 3930K @ 4.7 ghz One thing is clear, the CS6 engine is optimized solely for GPUs. This is significantly slower than any CPU renderer I use like mental ray or Vray, for a scene an order of magnitude less complicated. However with GPU on it is certainly comparable / possibly faster for some situations. On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Greg Balint wrote: > Wow. Alright, thanks! > > > ////Greg Balint > ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > delRAZOR.com/ > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:30 PM, rendernyc wrote: > > 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 wrote: > >> CPU based render? >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Greg Balint 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 >>> delRAZOR.com/ >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:16 PM, rendernyc wrote: >>> >>> 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 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. >>>> >>>> - 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 < >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --f46d0444ea8148b88804c1f8ecd6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Danny, I'm not convinced your scene is explicitly testing the GPU, have= you tried the benchmark file I posted a while ago? I'd be curious to s= ee your results on it. I actually did a migration test and I got the exact = same render times in two different machines with the same GPU. Not so with = this robot project...

http://www.teddygage.c= om/AEBENCHCS6/

And Greg (Balint), using the CPU engine for raytr= ace, the above benchmark project took 48 minutes vs. 13 minutes with GPU on= , on a highly overclocked core i7 3930K @ 4.7 ghz

One thing is clear, the CS6 engine is optimized solely for GPUs. This i= s significantly slower than any CPU renderer I use like mental ray or Vray,= for a scene an order of magnitude less complicated. However with GPU on it= is certainly comparable / possibly faster for some situations.



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Gre= g Balint <greg@delrazor.com> wrote:
Wow. Alright, thanks!

////Greg Balint
///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
<= /div>

On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:30 PM, renderny= c <rendernyc@gm= ail.com> wrote:

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 h= is 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> wro= te:
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 card= s are helping the situation?

////Greg Balint
///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
delRAZOR.com/

On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:16 PM, render= nyc <rendernyc@= gmail.com> wrote:

if ANYONE = has one of the cards tested already or a different one and wouldnt mind pop= ping off a render please email me so we can get more results

danny

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:06 P= M, 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.

- Andrew


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM, r= endernyc <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, rendernyc <rend= ernyc@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



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

exposedideas.com




--
= danny princz

e= xposedideas.com



--
danny princz

exposedideas.com



--
= danny princz

e= xposedideas.com



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

--f46d0444ea8148b88804c1f8ecd6--