Return-Path: Received: from [69.56.162.7] (HELO gateway16.websitewelcome.com) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4740201 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:15:12 +0200 Received: by gateway16.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id E5E567ADF41F1; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:17:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ham03.websitewelcome.com (ham.websitewelcome.com [173.192.100.229]) by gateway16.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A3E7ADF41C4 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:17:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ham03.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 666) id D9EF632501730; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:17:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on ham03.websitewelcome.com X-Spam-Flag2999: NO X-Spam-Level2999: X-Spam-Status2999: "No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from alpina.websitewelcome.com (alpina.websitewelcome.com [74.54.176.2]) by ham03.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229FD325015E9 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:17:44 -0500 (CDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=crishdesign.com; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-BWhitelist:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir:X-Source-Sender:X-Source-Auth:X-Email-Count:X-Source-Cap; b=p4jlaa1eucXm3kArh3ygP/EQzLpzo3elFG2Pw+OwdW1y6UUS308XLcWcUOeTnyaMCEA1LE6Sgcp9ye5P6C0HLslvE6j08cYL5OaB8fSDMJAoHyGFf8rzVJk0gP7vL/Te; Received: from [199.21.106.95] (port=59243 helo=[192.168.0.7]) by alpina.websitewelcome.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sd8R5-0000wh-8h for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:17:43 -0500 From: Chris Meyer Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7FCD4EA1-15EB-4814-9251-2DBA0AE6BBE6" Subject: Re: [AE] Why a raytraced renderer? - Same config, way different results Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:17:41 -0600 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - alpina.websitewelcome.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - media-motion.tv X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crishdesign.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.0.7]) [199.21.106.95]:59243 X-Source-Auth: chris@crishdesign.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: Y3Jpc2h3ZWI7Y3Jpc2h3ZWI7YWxwaW5hLndlYnNpdGV3ZWxjb21lLmNvbQ== --Apple-Mail=_7FCD4EA1-15EB-4814-9251-2DBA0AE6BBE6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 When I had both inside my computer, AE used the 4800 for OpenGL and the = 4000 for CUDA. Forget which one I had the monitor plugged into (which = might affect which one gets used for OpenGL); I suspect it was the 4800. As the two cards run different versions of CUDA, they will not be ganged = together and used as one fast card for ray tracing. - Chris On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > I just rendered on a 3.1 mac with QFX 4800 and Q4000. my time was = 43:10 >=20 > seems like maybe the 4800 was being used, or perhaps bogging things = down. is there a GPU activity meter like GPU-Z on PC ? >=20 > S >=20 > On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, rendernyc wrote: >=20 >> 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 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_7FCD4EA1-15EB-4814-9251-2DBA0AE6BBE6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 When = I had both inside my computer, AE used the 4800 for OpenGL and the 4000 = for CUDA. Forget which one I had the monitor plugged into (which might = affect which one gets used for OpenGL); I suspect it was the = 4800.

As the two cards run different versions of = CUDA, they will not be ganged together and used as one fast card for ray = tracing.

 - = Chris


On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:15 PM, = Steve Oakley wrote:

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 =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


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



--
danny = princz

exposedideas.com
=


= --Apple-Mail=_7FCD4EA1-15EB-4814-9251-2DBA0AE6BBE6--