Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4739851 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:29:45 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.22] (71-13-195-18.static.eucl.wi.charter.com [71.13.195.18]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LiD4F-1S8BGm16yR-00nLvc; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:32:16 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EC14C01-E90B-4126-B42F-186D41B0EED9" Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:32:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: <6DD2F0ED-F457-481A-9C8C-103D676ED00C@practicali.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:W53oMNTwYXG5CYhhERZ2HDkqOmVT1jQwdzjSU0KROeF KHeuYrZYqIEeRXF5M90GjrxVIVyK9F5sffh88hCXFZ+BaIosln MiI5lx2HJoxJOlthPfD4tTGnRnIbLKEbj8LY9MsaOefEvM18jV wKZdHjXtv/wNzLArO3wXA59KXs06IKIZKiVGIdwfsIsYOH3eDu 00dXfn8+gvjmijSHvDC7Za2QOzKVyF5sZEmb2yvwQSxoIEWrKh g+YfchiqQ5rruBgvriBD5vyEINbzeTTjVgUTQF6rHVKlDL5zTP Y7dfACDJxLWLap9IEVgJUYWpg4I4y49QZ1xUc/JHZhiYY+rOGh RZZZyb6hKLQTMAwnvQ0GuGqpfz5M0fOQGPY6dEx/B3Vl6JD0cq UTO+ADoZB0CiA== --Apple-Mail=_2EC14C01-E90B-4126-B42F-186D41B0EED9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 can you send me a link to the project...=20 S On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:16 AM, 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 >=20 > danny >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Embury = wrote: > Fantastic! >=20 > Thank you ever so much for doing this. This is truly phenomenal of the = user group to come together to make this all possible. >=20 > Cheers. >=20 > - Andrew >=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 > waiting for some tests on that one >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, rendernyc = wrote: > we had the 580 at 15:07=20 > so 480 was about 8% slower >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Embury = wrote: > For the performance to cost ratio....WOW! That's phenomenal! >=20 > Now, the 580 is cutting that time by 3 minutes is that correct? >=20 > Cheers. >=20 > - Andrew >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, rendernyc = wrote: > 480 in a 12 core macpro was 16:21 >=20 >=20 > 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? >=20 > I'd be very interested to see that. >=20 > Cheers. >=20 > - Andrew >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, rendernyc = wrote: > interesting > thats why we need more results... >=20 > the 680 tested in a z800 rendered in 17:34 > a 580 in an 2008 mac pro was 15:07 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Teddy Gage = wrote: > GTX 680 - 2 GB VRAM - clock speed 1096 MHZ >=20 > core i7 3930K (6 logical cores) overclocked to 4.7 gHZ >=20 > render time : 13 min 5 seconds =3D 780 seconds >=20 >=20 > GTX 580 - 3 GB VRAM - clock speed 866 MHZ >=20 > core i7 940 (4 cores) oc'd to 3.7 gHZ >=20 > render time 13 min 50 seconds =3D 830 seconds >=20 >=20 > 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... >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:07 AM, rendernyc = wrote: > email sent >=20 > thanks >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:41PM, rendernyc wrote: >=20 > > 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 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com --Apple-Mail=_2EC14C01-E90B-4126-B42F-186D41B0EED9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 can you send me a link to the project... 

S


On Jun 8, 2012, at 11:16 AM, 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 <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, 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 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.

- Andrew


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
480 in a 12 core macpro was 16:21


On 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.

- Andrew



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmail.com> 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 <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

--Apple-Mail=_2EC14C01-E90B-4126-B42F-186D41B0EED9--