Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4739904 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:05:47 +0200 Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so1521120ggm.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:08:19 -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=HhjXLx1X9r0olwKskPESn9mJmSl8GOqhZ42Gq+yD19c=; b=OOgsY8pgR7W0/JcSxJManSSsnSqlNlHa+aH7IiGgvLXLCNPhRd6AdqLPo+DFor8ieX UXsyE367piYrZ4GQ1ilpl1YULEOP9pCqEo4FvajQSmuXi2PxCSBfaWYTnSoboqr8m0nu gAADml9I6UUzXxcbB5Oz/RLq9i64f5zx3u+4m9MK5lU4pUKhTiCg/OBhvc3VEDBBW/gI bKdJjfCp3psvPFurHJ+8DEjA6n9oOGSFroHs1FNH67pYRDVxzmBmSKD3Qv2TrvBNymdO k/t5DqG55xdqZQ0oh+Ucv6DvB+zLfdxM4WDywry8LaM9hT3MQe8zaDCFuo7uWKw1YB8S J7SA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.23.193 with SMTP id o1mr8277979oef.7.1339182499496; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.193.99 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:08:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:08:19 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f2d42c01fc04c1fab97d --e89a8fb1f2d42c01fc04c1fab97d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 logged in remotely to my machine at home w cs6 and running your test. not sure if that affects it but its over 16mins on macpro3,1 8 core q4000 On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM, rendernyc wrote: > 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 < >>> 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 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > 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 > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8fb1f2d42c01fc04c1fab97d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable logged in remotely to my machine at home w cs6 and running your test. not s= ure if that affects it but its over 16mins on macpro3,1 8 core q4000
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM, rendernyc <r= endernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
emails sent


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM, = 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 2:35 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
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn




<= /div>--
danny princz
=
exposedideas.com<= /a>



-- danny princz

exposedideas.com<= /a>
--e89a8fb1f2d42c01fc04c1fab97d--