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 4740083 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:37:46 +0200 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so3216119obb.28 for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:40:18 -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=UQSOSjVpM5fvBJr/5uzpA8fueuFQ4pIQLmcM3ICdweI=; b=WFgEAGXpXDV/jsxaIQVeXq2RhaYuoUvNj5BJ9AmvBurkoAj5Wh0LGZkDpR0YUKWWGB AW2XbQfG3xNxt651KQpvMMVnAY5eokkzp/7GUNg48TCRecmyd776yqqA5EIGwH7hvcJx w9MoUixl0qBIZxshg5aDRRDfr3CMu+oO26TE4lnLHidW9DA9QjxrfjQt7vjSIWs2E8C+ 7QAjjATTc4CleDvYIXDI3uRrLzQGc/axc0qP8GJTif0mAPCBgZ2JmlrHIURgcAWj5S1S cJrdhDaUBxhjo5z3bn1ptQQBatVHRm5ioMaNNPkhZB2UTGkQ3Q+gZUuVYW1F0uXLyWin PQwQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.2.138 with SMTP id 10mr8676984oeu.58.1339191618419; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.193.99 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:40:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? - Same config, way different results From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83ac25b3bd9004c1fcd822 --e89a8f83ac25b3bd9004c1fcd822 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 17:23 for the robot on a mac w single q4000? did you render more than once? On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Robert W. Walker wrote: > Interesting: our MacPro 3,1 (2.8ghz) running AE 11.01 on OS 10.7.4, > 32gb RAM with a Quadro 4000 just rendered the scene in 17:23. That same > configuration on your machine took 45:23 according to the results > spreadsheet? > > Robert W. Walker > Los Angeles > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? > > From: rendernyc > > Date: Fri, June 08, 2012 1:12 pm > > To: "After Effects Mail List" > > > > > > Im not sure what you mean by explicity testing the GPU. > > I didnt build this for benchmarking purposes but rather had it laying > > around so just started testing some cards > > > > The comp is extruded shape layers with some lights, shadows, reflections, > > motion blur and DoF being raytraced. > > Its not relying on any outside footage or really doing anything else > other > > than rendering the 3d objects > > its heavier than just some text, but if thats all that "you" will be > using > > the raytracer for than that would be a better benchmark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > > > > > 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 > 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 > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Wow. Alright, thanks! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ////Greg Balint > > >>> ///Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > > >>> delRAZOR.com/ > > >>> > > >>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:30 PM, rendernyc 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 > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> CPU based render? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Greg Balint > 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 > 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 < > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > danny princz > > > > exposedideas.com > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --e89a8f83ac25b3bd9004c1fcd822 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 17:23 for the robot on a mac w single q4000?
did you render more than o= nce?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Robe= rt W. Walker <robertw@walkersound.com> wrote:
Interesting: =A0our MacPro 3,1 (2.8ghz) runn= ing AE 11.01 on OS 10.7.4,
32gb RAM with a Quadro 4000 just rendered the scene in 17:23. =A0That same<= br> configuration on your machine took 45:23 according to the results
spreadsheet?

Robert W. Walker
Los Angeles


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer?
> From: rendernyc <rendernyc@g= mail.com>
> Date: Fri, June 08, 2012 1:12 pm
> To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>
>
>
> Im not sure what you mean by explicity testing the GPU.
> I didnt build this for benchmarking purposes but rather had it laying<= br> > around so just started testing some cards
>
> The comp is extruded shape layers with some lights, shadows, reflectio= ns,
> motion blur and DoF being raytraced.
> Its not relying on any outside footage or really doing anything else o= ther
> than rendering the 3d objects
> its heavier than just some text, but if thats all that "you"= will be using
> the raytracer for than that would be a better benchmark.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ah, just to clarify, the robot project took 48 min vs 13 - the AE= BENCHCS6
> > 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 abo= ve benchmark
> >> project took 48 minutes vs. 13 minutes with GPU on, on a high= ly overclocked
> >> core i7 3930K @ 4.7 ghz
> >>
> >> One thing is clear, the CS6 engine is optimized solely for GP= Us. 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 w= ith 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 ab= out 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 pro= ject file with the
> >>>>> 580 turned off? Just to see how much the Nvidia c= ards 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 &l= t;aembury@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Fantastic!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you ever so much for doing this. This i= s 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 &l= t;rendernyc@gmail.com>wrote:<= br> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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, renderny= c <rendernyc@gmail.com>wro= te:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> we had the 580 at 15:07
> >>>>>>>> so 480 was about 8% slower
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Andr= ew 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 1= 6:21
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 = AM, Andrew Embury <aembury@gmail.co= m
> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What about the 480? Did t= hat not score between the 580 and 680?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd be very intereste= d to see that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Andrew
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11= :28 AM, rendernyc <rendernyc@gmai= l.com>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thats why we need mor= e results...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the 680 tested in a z= 800 rendered in 17:34
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a 580 in an 2008 mac = pro was 15:07
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 a= t 11:20 AM, Teddy Gage <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GTX 680 - 2 GB VR= AM - 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 VR= AM - clock speed 866 MHZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> core i7 940 (4 co= res) oc'd to 3.7 gHZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> render time 13 mi= n 50 seconds =3D 830 seconds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So these results = seem to imply there is a disk and / or CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bottleneck in you= r 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 th= e faster machine. Interesting...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 20= 12 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 r= unning 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 &qu= ot;officially" talk about is the currently shipping q4000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +---End o= f message---+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubs= cribe send any message to <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> danny princz<= br> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposedideas.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Animator & Ed= itor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> exp= osedideas.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Animator & Editor
> >> www.te= ddygage.com
> >> Brooklyn
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Animator & Editor
> > www.teddyg= age.com
> > Brooklyn
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> danny princz
>
> exposedideas.com=


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



--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--e89a8f83ac25b3bd9004c1fcd822--