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 4740011 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:01:29 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so3106007obb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:04:01 -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=G0yjYYKesFKmiM3KiB5gwhRGaQRhKgSz8Gu4pV0fZ70=; b=N6epZbvfizEz110zBwRaqtGQHbRV5LQ2Aa/7MAcghX9qMF6RkbBYr7cEZBq7aS47K+ BdWhdPBvb4HCba2nUtBj9901O4cEGMuAtpMJB2AsdoUjIfvKDfRqnETU7BVWFe2JG5F8 qsP1Kwttz+OKna5Yq/GkSEomXv0bHamfoRamBRk4BDWAStJrGSArJfokM8sGJeaZZADc uF++vKObfhh9H9aaOl20PRNg1BaVwEqhm44QUiqfjNJp6tu4rfMDLwjNarX28GfvzgN2 KYdYf2iw1wpwRTKWxN5gjkMoQDJ3Y3SdTR2gwLfzA/3uVb1alShJNiib8bOQw+PzJH/x TvKQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.1.165 with SMTP id 5mr8315564oen.36.1339185840866; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.193.99 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:04:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:04:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f0765545f804c1fb8093 --e89a8fb1f0765545f804c1fb8093 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 thanks steve that seems to make more sense 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 --e89a8fb1f0765545f804c1fb8093 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable thanks steve

that seems to make more sense


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
--e89a8fb1f0765545f804c1fb8093--