| ||||||||||
| Teddy, I tried your AEP and my render time is 6min 6sec. I'm on an i7-3820 @3.60 GHz - 32GB RAM GTX680. BTW, folks should be mindful that AE will use cached frames if they are appropriate for the final render. So, if your Timeline has been cached, your final renders will be ridiculously fast. Cheers - Roland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teddy Gage" <teddygage@gmail.com> To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv> Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 1:00:01 AM Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? ah, just to clarify, the robot project took 48 min vs 13 - the AEBENCHCS6 is closer to 5 minutes on a gtx 580; I have to look up the exact times if anyone's interested On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Teddy Gage < teddygage@gmail.com > wrote: 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 < greg@delrazor.com > wrote: Wow. Alright, thanks! ////Greg Balint ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer delRAZOR.com/ On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:30 PM, rendernyc < rendernyc@gmail.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 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 delRAZOR.com/ On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:16 PM, rendernyc < rendernyc@gmail.com > 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 -- danny princz exposedideas.com -- danny princz exposedideas.com -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn |
