Return-Path: Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4740159 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:13:00 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.22] (71-13-195-18.static.eucl.wi.charter.com [71.13.195.18]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MarRq-1SN5z61qtm-00Khn2; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:15:32 -0400 From: Steve Oakley Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DD20F0EF-6681-41EF-B99C-2AF102A5D337" Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? - Same config, way different results Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:15:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:rW2weuYuW5VrKVPdLJCh9WbsngtiOfNJmLGBkTW+65s FhEg6n/cG59O87ohhCraZXNvOtUMPV0dSfEY3nTMntIjcMvC57 qjihpNdZaXXW5USaHDygGgiGd5/PYuto/C6ONHVTIZAgiUiE5a DwNQsteeSGhJVNHyQd3oknDV0MOm5orzOjZkKZozWnJuFaekYG CQvW/AppVYma6UibGb6NSPbOtspvk09pExvioKOoWmuxEM7VCX I2XdjGEeUo6RCetrVEdlKN9qvNUYAySy34l7ZFi2wHWma0FrI9 UQwKbo+vUz3AUo3Z2XCVI3EZsVa9monWVFLAxjZu8UYafq8MhG 9LhWHYMnAJxt14t223/RDW4HYw2dhYptRm7sQakPG3aE4zxaRl f7ds5kGriMAGA== --Apple-Mail=_DD20F0EF-6681-41EF-B99C-2AF102A5D337 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I just rendered on a 3.1 mac with QFX 4800 and Q4000. my time was 43:10 seems like maybe the 4800 was being used, or perhaps bogging things = down. is there a GPU activity meter like GPU-Z on PC ? S On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, rendernyc wrote: > 17:23 for the robot on a mac w single q4000? > did you render more than once? >=20 > 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? >=20 > Robert W. Walker > Los Angeles >=20 >=20 > > -------- 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 = 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 < > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >=20 >=20 > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > danny princz >=20 > exposedideas.com --Apple-Mail=_DD20F0EF-6681-41EF-B99C-2AF102A5D337 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 I just rendered on a 3.1 mac with QFX 4800 and Q4000. my time was 43:10

seems like maybe the 4800 was being used, or perhaps bogging things down. is there a GPU activity meter like GPU-Z on PC ?

S

On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, rendernyc wrote:

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 <robertw@walkersound.com> 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 <rendernyc@gmail.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
> 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 <teddygage@gmail.com> 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 <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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> danny princz
>
> exposedideas.com


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



--
danny princz

exposedideas.com

--Apple-Mail=_DD20F0EF-6681-41EF-B99C-2AF102A5D337--