Acer Aspire 5742g, Windows 7 x64, 4Gb RAM
Build: 747_cycles-win64-r36820-cuda
i5-460M (2,53GHz) --> 10:26.07
GT 540M --> 3:17.44
Hi, own cuda build:
Zotac GTX 260 --> 3:01.30
Cheer, mib
00:45.44 ubuntu… self built cycles… GTX 560 ti
06:37:99
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 635 (4 x 2.9 GHz)
Os: Ubuntu 9.10 84 Bit
Cycles rev. 38255, self compiled, no Cuda
not the worst, i can do better! intel core 2 duo p8400 at 2.24 and 4gb ram and nvidia geforce gt9600m(because im on a laptop) 512ram ddr2 on win seven 64bit
CPU 17min51sec with dynamic BVH and 16min34sec with static BVH
GPU 10min01sec with static BVH and in debug option i had to set tile size to 256 otherwise my graphic driver crash, i found out that 450/500(in tile size) is the limit to dont crash my driver, doesnt matter if the render is at 800600 or 20001000 and 200 lights, with a lower value of tile size i can render with my graphic card
build n. 36820 win64 sse2 CUDA
any hint? or particular settings in the nvidia panel?
i’ve rendered with no other things in the background…
tried with linux 32bit on the same machine and i get same results with a difference of couple of seconds
WINDOWS XP 32BT
the spec of the computer im using is…
pentium D 3.2ghz
gpu: intel 82852/82855 gm/gme with 224mb ram,
cycles build from GRAPHICALL.org vs 2.59.4 revision unkown…
image with 10 path samples… 02.53.70=TIME
NOTE THIS IS A WORKSTATION
Revision: Help -> Splash Screen, at the top right below the version number.
how many samples have to be the render? when i open the scene it has 10 samples as default, obviously something is wrong …
2.59.4 revision unkown…
Revision: Help -> Splash Screen, at the top right below the version number.
It’s an issue with self-complied Windows builds, where in the splash screen, under the “2.59.4”, it will say rUnknown".
Cycles rev. 38255, self compiled, no Cuda
And did you just say “38255”? Blender is more than 2,500 revisions ahead.
40.56 sec
Strangely, DOF is turned off, at 0.03 to match the official render, adds only one fifth of a second to the time.
Intel Core2 Duo vPro, 2.33 Ghz, 8 GB RAM, no GPU.
Self complied, r40991
Ubuntu 64 bit V11.04
Why are people getting several minutes render time with far more powerful computers?
Ah, I see, didn’t know that, thanks.
And did you just say “38255”? Blender is more than 2,500 revisions ahead.
I did say that, but not "just, look at the post date. 
I’m on r40985.
I did say that, but not "just, look at the post date.
I’m on r40985.
Oh, didn’t realize that this is one of those resurfacing threads.
To make it useful, here’s a time comparison, although I can’t really believe it. Can that be, or am I doing something wrong?
r38255 - 06:37.99
r40985 - 00:18.67
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 635 (4 x 2.9 GHz)
Os: Ubuntu 9.10 84 Bit
self compiled, no Cuda
Edit (also for Agus3D): I’m doing something wrong. The passes get reset to 10 by newer builds, have to set them manually to 200 as it was before. Time will follow.
Here it is, nice little speedup. 
r40985 - 06:02.09
4:53 ->200 samples-> i5 2500k at 4.7ghz
0:42-> GTX470
cycles 40969
r40985 - 06:02.09
wow, that’s like an 8% speedup…probably due to background programs. Can’t test now, made the upgrade to Ubuntu 11.10, and having used my new OS for only four months or so, I did not realize that this would be a six to eight hour ordeal, and counting. Honestly, I installed it in under a hour, and it takes eight times that just to update by six hundredths(o.o6) of a release?) Or that my internet averages around 60 kbps. (And yet speedtest.net says I have 20Mbps.)
CPU-> 6:20.51 -> AMD Athlon™ II X4 640 Processor 3.0Ghz
No GPU
Hi,
I know it is kind of an old thread but I’d like to compare the results it to my hardware, too, but the file got deleted. Could someone please reupload the render test file?
Thanks in advance,
Gador