Page 130 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3080120128129130131132 ... LastLast
Results 2,581 to 2,600 of 2713
  1. #2581
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    9
    CPU: Intel i7 6850K @ 3.60GHz
    GPU1: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 OC
    GPU2: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080 OC

    OS1: Windows 10 Pro 64bit
    GPU Driver: 378.78
    Blender: 2.78c
    02:12.84 (CPU)
    00:28.84 (GPU)

    OS2: Linux Mint 18 64bit
    GPU Driver: 378.13
    Blender: 2.78c
    01:54.26 (CPU)
    00:29.06 (GPU)



  2. #2582
    CPU: Intel i7 5820K OC @ 4.30GHz
    GPU: ASUS GeForce R9 390X OC @ (1130Mhz/1600Mhz)

    OS1: Windows 10 Home 64bit
    GPU Driver: Crimson 17.3.1
    Blender: 2.78c
    01:54.56 (CPU)
    01:14.70 (GPU)

    Blender: Daily build - blender-2.78-96868a3-win64
    01:56.33 (CPU)
    01:10.82 (GPU)

    Edit: Tried Live USB Ubuntu Linux. I got 1m48s with the CPU.
    Last edited by bigbad; 11-Mar-17 at 17:22.



  3. #2583
    Member Grimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    457
    CPU: Intel i7 5820K OC @ 3.80GHz
    GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 980 stock clock

    OS: Linux Mint 18
    GPU Driver: Nvidia 375.26

    Blender: 2.78c
    01:52.46 (CPU) 32x32
    01:01:60 (GPU) 480x540
    Linux Mint 18 - I7 5820K 3.8 Ghz - 32 Gbytes
    GTX460(Display) - GTX980(Compute)



  4. #2584
    Member Farmfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    H'sing Island
    Posts
    1,759
    CPU: AMD Ryzen 1800x @ 3.80GHz (*)
    GPU1: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1070 (non OC)
    GPU2: ASUS ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1070 (non OC)

    OS: Windows 10 RS2 build 15048
    GPU Driver: Nvidia 378.78

    Blender: Daily build - blender-2.78-96868a3-win64
    01:31.26 (CPU) 16x16
    00:29:06 (GPU) 480x270

    (* mild OC at stock voltage as I have a crap cooler in this box right now - will test again at a 4Ghz+ OC this week)
    Last edited by Farmfield; 13-Mar-17 at 19:08.



  5. #2585
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,731
    Originally Posted by RevDr View Post
    Looking at those numbers I am not sure the render time issues have entirely gone away - but perhaps I just don't understand CUDA core scaling as it is not close to being linear as I assume.
    Yep - you are possibly correct.

    In past builds before the Ti speed issue reared it's head - I had always found 1 tile to render the quickest as your tests show.

    Render times are significantly better than they have been however - and almost as fast as I have ever seen (within a couple of seconds) - so even a small part of the issue does persist - it's not having a massive impact.

    edit: Just re-rendered using the nightly build 76015f9. Looks like further improvements have been made. Faster render times and 1 tile renders the fastest now. This is I believe, the best performance I have seen for any build so far.

    980x540 = 0:54.08
    480x270 = 0:55.62
    Last edited by moony; 12-Mar-17 at 07:44.



  6. #2586
    Member SpaNieLa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1
    Hello all. Just joined Blenderartists and decided to test my rig for starters.

    CPU: Intel I5-4690S @3.9GHz
    GPU1: Club3d Radeon HD 7950 @880/1250MHz
    GPU2: Intel HD Graphics 4600 (running second monitor, not parting on rendering)

    OS:Windows 10 Pro x64
    GPU Driver: Crimson 17.2.1
    Blender: 2.78b
    05:26:99 (CPU)
    02:33:51 (GPU) 240x180
    01:27:93 (GPU) 960x540 OC 1200/1850

    Clocked the pants out of that 5 year old card and shaved nicely over minute out of the default time
    Screamed like first timer though.



  7. #2587
    Member Serin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia, Earth
    Posts
    145
    Windows 10
    Tile size: 256x256
    Driver: 375.95
    Blender 2.78b
    Titan XM – 1:05
    1050ti – 2:27
    Titan + 1050ti – 0:47

    Driver: 378.78
    Titan XM – 1:05
    1050ti – 2:15
    Titan + 1050ti 0:44

    Blender build bot 2.74.4 (e8021f5)
    Titan XM – 1:05
    1050ti – 2:14
    Titan + 1050ti – 0:45
    Facebook.com/PrintedGalaxy/
    Artstation.com/artist/serinjameson
    5960x/TitanXM/1050Ti4gb/64gb



  8. #2588
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,639
    @Serin, I've never had two cards at the same time. Just curious about how to get an optimal setting of tiles size when you have two cards so different in performance. That is, I can imagine that when that happens, you would wish the last tile to render does not correspond to the slower card. But I would not really know how to calculate tile sizes so that the last tile corresponds to the faster GPU.
    How do you configure tile sizes? Have you tried with Progressive refine?
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  9. #2589
    Member Tame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    339
    With latest build: blender-2.78.0-git.e8021f5-windows64
    OS: Windows 10

    GPUs: 2x R9 290
    Drivers: 17.2.1
    Tile size 128x96:
    Factory setting (1040/1250): 0:42.74
    OC (1175/1625): 0:37.97

    CPU: I7 3970X @4,6 GHz
    Tile size 16x16: 2:17.12



  10. #2590
    Originally Posted by taxishop View Post
    Blender 2.78 - latest build - blender-2.78-3e460b6-win64

    CPU: Intel AMD FX-8320
    GPU: Nvidia Zotac GTX 960 Amp! 4GB
    RAM: 16GB
    OS: Windows 10 64bit

    Optimized for GPU - CUDA
    Tile size: 480x270

    Time: 1:54:53 (GPU - CUDA)

    That is my best time until now, with the "old" Blender 2.78 i got 2:17:xx, so, for me at least about 23seconds or 16% improvement, that is incredible...
    Originally Posted by SonicBlue View Post
    Not official though (I always use the latest builds), blender-2.78-9ea71bc-win64

    AMD A8-7600 @3.10GHz
    8GB DDR3 2133
    PNY GTX 1060 6GB (372.70)

    Tiles: 256x256
    Time: 1:23.13

    Tiles: 384x216
    Time: 1:19.30

    Tiles: 480x270
    Time: 1:19.83

    Tiles: 480x540
    Time: 1:21.06

    Tiles: 960x540
    Time: 1:35.40

    GTX 960 or GTX 1060?
    So its not worth it getting used gtx 960?



  11. #2591
    Originally Posted by poly2poly2 View Post
    GTX 960 or GTX 1060?
    So its not worth it getting used gtx 960?
    Hello, it depends on the price you pay, but consider also the price for the electricity, so, with 1060 you have a much better rendertime/watt ratio, besides the environmental issue...

    so, if you pay 100 euro more for 1060, depending on your render work, you can get this money back in 1 month, so, in 1 year i.e. you pay 1000,-euro for electricity with 960, compared to 500-600 with 1060. Another point is, you should consider a solar-panel-system if you render a lot, you can save a lot of money with it. I have a 500W Solar system for 1000,- hier, so i pay nothing for electricity, for me, this is not an issue. i still would buy one or even two 1060, just because of the time i save. 1060 renders 1:05 to 1:19, gtx960 renders 1:54s to 2:00.

    You can see this:
    Originally Posted by Riofranco View Post
    Wow !
    I get 25sec with my 2 GTX 1060 and 512x256px tiles !!!!
    so, in my opinion, te best price/time/watt is 2x1060. 25s is very nice. Consider also your lifetime



  12. #2592
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,639
    @poly2poly2, GTX 1060 is faster than GTX 960 and also GTX 1060 comes with 6GB vRAM version, which is very important for Cycles. So if you buy the GTX 1060, you verify that you are buying 6GB vRAM version (not 3GB version)
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  13. #2593
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,639
    @taxishop. Be very careful with that result, you read the entire page. 'Riofranco' used old scene, not new BMW27.blend.
    If with one GTX 1060 you get around 01:25.00. With two GTX 1060 you get about half of that time.
    Last edited by YAFU; 19-Mar-17 at 19:59.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  14. #2594

    @yafu

    Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    @taxishop. Be very careful with that result, you read the entire page. 'Riofranco' used old scene, not new BMW27.blend.
    If with one GTX 1060 you get around 01:25.00. With two GTX 1060 you get about half of that time.
    YAFU, there is no confirmation from Riofranco that this is the case, there are some suppositions in the thread, but ok, let's admit that, even around 35s (70s/2) is quite good for 2x250,- and 2x120watt. GTX1060 gets it rendered in around 1:10 (70s), not 1:25...



  15. #2595
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,639
    @taxishop. Actually, no confirmation is required for this. Believe me, there is something wrong with that result.
    Edit:
    Oh, I had forgotten that he put a video with the old scene. So there the confirmation
    ==
    Unfortunately 'Riofranco' did not correct the post, and this can cause confusions and bad investments to the users.
    Last edited by YAFU; 20-Mar-17 at 12:46.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  16. #2596
    Originally Posted by taxishop View Post
    Hello, it depends on the price you pay, but consider also the price for the electricity, so, with 1060 you have a much better rendertime/watt ratio, besides the environmental issue...

    so, if you pay 100 euro more for 1060, depending on your render work, you can get this money back in 1 month, so, in 1 year i.e. you pay 1000,-euro for electricity with 960, compared to 500-600€ with 1060.

    I would recommend not to look at the power usage too much. Assuming worse case scenario of the graphics cards taking 0.2kWh more than the lower wattage solution, how many days can you render non-stop to get 100€ more in bills:

    then 130_days*24_hours_a_day*0.2_kWh*0.16€ = 100€.

    In reality you won't get 20€ more a year in extra cost, even with the most power hungry solution.



  17. #2597
    Ok thanks guys. I will get 1060 6g. Its only 40% more expensive but its new not second hand.



  18. #2598
    Originally Posted by poly2poly2 View Post
    Ok thanks guys. I will get 1060 6g. Its only 40% more expensive but its new not second hand.
    Or wait for the 1070. It's just 100€ more right now than the 1060.



  19. #2599
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    29
    Looking for some sort of confirmation/reference here. I just bought a new laptop. Dell Inspiron 15 7000 Gaming 7567. Core i7-7700HQ quad core. 16 gb ddr4, GTX 1050Ti with 4GB GDDR5, upgraded to a Samsung 850 EVO - 500GB - M.2 SATA III Internal SSD. Running Blender 2.78c. trying the BMW 27_gpu blend. The best I can get is 13:40. Same for CPU too.

    Is this what I should expect? Is there something I can/should tweak?

    I wasn't expecting 1:30....but was hoping for like...5:00. Wishful thinking?

    Would just like to know. Either way, it's better than the rig I was developing on.

    Thanks

    emo



  20. #2600
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,639
    @emo10001, BMW 27_gpu.blend is not the scene used in this thread (that other is the official blender.org scene, and it is configured with more samples). You look in the first message of this thread and you download the new scene BMW27.blend. Use 480x270 tile size for GPU. 32x32 for CPU
    Last edited by YAFU; 22-Mar-17 at 14:03.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •