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 4740005 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:00:36 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so3105067obb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:03:08 -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=gMTc+ZPYRaqYdbjSsH98yQ3CTvdYTUTku5B56lxQNs4=; b=UIve6SxiJCMY+QsksX0f+00v1aqgCx+5HJUj5+x5yEyTJuCaV2wtvWglonPokKL64s OR6/2v3+yVrl9b36fme9uM4oWXwKNVJ1OLt+3UqVN+5MP+UTF2fKVKmemuKGJAhOsp8f UJn650WnYTjwZMlDVuJyMIg2HrXkyiz8DDJxXSJA6CbtFo8hMMRq18uO5xqfmTMEdCET 13tKitJChUIzzL+MCLxCQEfprTE10FPtF+BqxnzM+ghZragekSnv/qC11CLHZcpHPHe0 5GjtgXg4ESgGsLe/llaPBem0OEwjCbDTLHrtNfX3YJSLSEvQkIkcFoTRp6pXtBln/bH8 CIMA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.145.40 with SMTP id sr8mr8527008obb.42.1339185788044; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.193.99 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:03:07 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044632322f469404c1fb7d68 --f46d044632322f469404c1fb7d68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 its still in the beginning and then very little movement... also mostly in focus 2nd half has MB and moves out of focus last few frames he is large so it has the most MB and DoF On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > AEbenchCS6 : the original output module didn't work on my machine, so I > rendered TGA sequence, no compression to a 10K drive : 7min 5sec > > however, with rays set to 5, this isn't much of a test. you need to set it > to 12 or 16 to really start seeing the difference. > > Robot4JS, QT animation ( needed to install QT onto machine, DUH! ) : 19 > min 25 sec > > ran test 2nd time after clearing cache: 19:16 > > seemed like when I got 1/2way into this, the render got a lot slower. the > first 1/2 it ran right through. GPU loads were averaging 65-75% > > Config : Win 7 Z800 12c (24VC) @2.67ghz Q4000 + C2075 > > S > > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:35 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 > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --f46d044632322f469404c1fb7d68 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable its still in the beginning and then very little movement... also mostly in = focus

2nd half has MB and moves out of focus
<= br>
last few frames he is large so it has the most MB and DoF

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Steve Oakley= <steveo@practicali.com> wrote:
AEbenchCS6 : the original output module didn't work on my machine, so I= rendered TGA sequence, no compression to a 10K drive : 7min 5sec

however, with rays set to 5, this isn't much of a test. you need to set= it to 12 or 16 to really start seeing the difference.

Robot4JS, QT animation ( needed to install QT onto machine, DUH! ) : 19 min= 25 sec

ran test 2nd time after clearing cache: 19:16

seemed like when I got 1/2way into this, the render got a lot slower. the f= irst 1/2 it ran right through. GPU loads were averaging 65-75%

Config : Win 7 Z800 12c (24VC) @2.67ghz Q4000 + C2075

S


On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Robert W. Walker wrote:

> htt= p://www.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 li= nk 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 o= ne 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 phenomena= l 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 whi= le 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 phenomena= l!
>>>
>>> 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 =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 bo= ttleneck in your benchmark project, or there is something else going on. Ma= ybe 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 coul= d "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
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Animator & Editor
>>> www.ted= dygage.com
>>> Brooklyn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> danny princz
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> danny princz
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> danny princz
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> danny princz
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> danny princz
>>>
>>> exposedi= deas.com
>
>
> +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>


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



--
= danny princz

exposedideas.com
--f46d044632322f469404c1fb7d68--