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 4739894 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:04:11 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so3039491obb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:06:43 -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=d4Ez3IZvog+Ql8eWV716IzvU5jkUuPCz1nlhoXJWjDs=; b=mkHPH/4A1rfJr0ICgJgeihEQqkJk4/WEaQSxvNMezAYTsV9BiUdSNR4k0/IOb75VND Pl3WAKBkjIa739AHyYuFJWqQaQStwbZ6JMel+YAcR9bgyfvEwuwM0w19ENLBkoIj8bwZ iWaucbYVXDxww2br+MghcL1pS9/J0CwkwRowiUKksQIXFl/chQqIWAXTtyz05SXwayZQ Trhkp9h2nzpNymv70FFLNdVhaDmuz6x0VchwPbse6sQexnvJAMM0HDzDCxL7wFsdO8Co OTzV2vVFrl0I4eyiHQAuGAAw/mp1nQU+frJYAdPqAbuMTWzPaYJxEN4LwmCLaQHP6Gld z1PA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.207.98 with SMTP id lv2mr8462152obc.13.1339182403289; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.193.99 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:06:43 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f5024ea70019604c1fab339 --e89a8f5024ea70019604c1fab339 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 emails sent On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > ah that one's mine... different results than the one being discussed, ask > rendernyc for his project to compare on the chart. it's a robot scene. > > the render times on mine (which has glossy reflections and refraction) are > around 5 minutes, 42 seconds for the GTX 580, and just over 6 minutes for > the GTX 680, if you did want to try that scene > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Robert W. Walker wrote: > >> http://www.teddygage.com/AEBENCHCS6/ >> >> >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? >> > From: Steve Oakley >> > Date: Fri, June 08, 2012 2:32 pm >> > To: "After Effects Mail List" >> > >> > >> > 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 >> 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 >> 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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > danny princz >> > > >> > > exposedideas.com >> >> >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to >> > > > > -- > Animator & Editor > www.teddygage.com > Brooklyn > > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8f5024ea70019604c1fab339 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable emails sent

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:56 P= M, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
ah that one's mine... different results than the one being discussed, a= sk rendernyc for his project to compare on the chart. it's a robot scen= e.

the render times on mine (which has glossy reflections and refrac= tion) are around 5 minutes, 42 seconds for the GTX 580, and just over 6 min= utes for the GTX 680, if you did want to try that scene

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:3= 5 PM, Robert W. Walker <robertw@walkersound.com> wrote= :
http://w= ww.teddygage.com/AEBENCHCS6/


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
> From: Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com>= ;
> Date: Fri, June 08, 2012 2:32 pm
> To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
>
>
> 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 re= sults
> >
> > 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 o= f 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!<= br> > >
> > 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:<= br> > > 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 cores) oc'd to 3.7 gHZ
> >
> > render time 13 min 50 seconds =3D 830 seconds
> >
> >
> > So these results seem to imply there is a disk and / or CPU bottl= eneck 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 pro= ject, 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 an= d 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><= br> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Animator & Editor
> > www.teddyg= age.com
> > Brooklyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > danny princz
> >
> > exposedidea= s.com


+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--
Animator & Editor<= /span>
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn




--
= danny princz

exposedideas.com
--e89a8f5024ea70019604c1fab339--