Here is simple scene with lots of area light, glossy reflections, and dof
http://www.pasteall.org/blend/6555
I would like to see what people performance is, hopefully it will help some in buying new cpu/gpu.
cpu: amd x3 710
render time: 8min 50 sec
Some chart (felito, fx 560 seems to be off, was it 1hour or 1 min?), hopefull there will be more entries to compare and average:
Here 46.97 seconds, having a GTX460 1GB, actually I’m using only 50% on my “horsepower” cause I have installed another GTX460 so once Cycles support multi-gpu should be twice faster aprox.
OS: Fedora 14 64bit
04:00 with i7-920
01:08 with 550ti
ubuntu 11.04 x64
quad q6600 (3ghz) , 4go ram , GT240
GPU : 4.21 min
ps : Just for fun ,I’ve tweak the scene in order to match cycles result (glossy , dof etc etc ) , render with vray ( noise free ) 27.32 sec .
2:40:57
CPU, OSX10.6.7 blender 64bit, 2 nehalem xeon
The superiority of 16theads xeons is obvious, even running at 2.26GHz.
i7 are not xeons I mean.
I love this 46 sec! And the 01:08 with 550ti. The GPU build using a gt120 … lets forget it LOL
I’ll give this a try when i get home.
Be aware though, there is massive performance difference between builds ( at least on windows ). The ‘cpu_opt’ build from graphicall seems to be the fastest i’ve tried so far, rendering my test scene in literally half the time of one I compiled myself from trunk.
Have been trying to build a version for SSE4 with profile guided optimizations - should be possible, but is proving very tricky :(. If it works, that should be blazingly fast for CPU only
will try it on all my builds and post the results
Windows 7 64 bit
quad q6600 (2.4ghz) , 4GB ram , PNY GT240 512 MB GDDR5
CPU=9:35.37
GPU=2:36.22
Windows 7 64 bit
quad q6600 (2.4ghz) , 4GB ram , PNY GT240 512 MB GDDR5
CPU=9:35.37
GPU=2:36.22
:eek: …
I think there’s a problem somewhere … same computer , twice that time …
I’ll give win 7 a try .
Windows 7 64 bit, low graphics card for laptop so not going to try it to render.
i7 (2.67GHz)
CPU: 6:38.02
Had lots of other things running but they were low priority but could have effected the time.
which GT240 do you have?
I am literally ROFLYSST in my seat right now!
Intel Core 2 Duo T5670 @ 1.80GHz , 2GB RAM.
(I don’t have a graphics card…)
Wait for it…wait for it…wait for it…
A whole 15:41.02 Literally one of the worst results in human history ever.
1 month 'til bliss.
not bad per ghz, just as expected. do the math 
which GT240 do you have?
Twintech GT240 1GO DDR3
That just might show that the GDDR5 is better that DDR3 on this card platform when it comes to Cycles.
So GT240 cuda performs similar to 2 xeon nehalem CPU.
Just compare the price… lol
Just curious, what about a test using some heavy texture maps? Just saying.
Windows 7 x64
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz, 8gb ram, Asus GTX560 Ti DCII/2 1GB
CPU Render : 07:42.53
GPU Render : 00:42.00
I can do a test if you have something you want to compare. And that is in a Dell 530 that all I heard would have problems running this card.
Windows 7 x64
i7 920 @ 3.6Ghz HT/off, 12Gb ram
Blender Build: 554_cycles-win64-r36676-cuda
-Renders-
CPU: 5:37:81
EVGA GTX285 2GB: 1:38:47
ZOTAC 9600GT 512MB: 4:42:20
I use multiple cards for a 4 monitor setup, interestingly the Nvidia Control Panel lets you choose what video cards are available for CUDA use, but doesn’t work. I had to disable the GTX285 in device manager to benchmark the 9600GT 
I7 930 @2.9
00.55.79
quadro fx 580
1.06.89
:mad:
Gpu always lost in my renders
00:55:79 @ 2.9Ghz? That doesn’t make any sense.