Page 132 of 134 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134 LastLast
Results 2,621 to 2,640 of 2680
  1. #2621
    Member Tame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    339
    Originally Posted by mib2berlin View Post
    Hi Tame, simply DL latest .zip from blender.org, unzip where you want, create desktop shortcut.
    You can use both in parallel or deinstall older.

    Cheers, mib
    Thanks, it turned out that the old free Xming didn't work with other Blender versions... After some trial and error, I discovered another X server software called MobaXterm, which works beautifully! Got the latest Blender 2.78-fd08570665 working
    cpu time: ~2:05
    Blender 2.78-fd08570665 linux on Ubuntu16.04 on Windows10.jpg
    Not huge difference to the Windows version, but got to do it just for the lols of running it "on Windows".



  2. #2622
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wroclaw, Poland
    Posts
    214
    Thanks Tame. That is some cool results with running in Linux Shell.
    Dell T5600 x2 Xeon X5-2687w + 32GB ECC + R9 Fury + R9 290x + SSD goodness



  3. #2623
    Member Tame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    339
    Originally Posted by Grzesiek View Post
    Thanks Tame. That is some cool results with running in Linux Shell.
    Thanks, yeah it's cool to be able to do this. It's also handy to be easily able to access all files on Windows.

    I did one more round of tests with Blender 2.78 5b873c8(c24):
    Linux - Ubuntu 16.04 WSL on Windows 10 cpu time: 2:01
    Linux - Ubuntu 16.04 in Virtualbox on Windows 10 cpu time: 2:26
    Windows (VS 2015) - Windows 10 cpu time: 2:13

    Blender 2.78 5b873c8c24 Bash on Ubuntu16 on Windows10.jpg
    Blender 2.78 5b873c8c24 Virtualbox Ubuntu16 on Windows10.jpg
    Blender 2.78 5b873c8 Windows10.jpg



  4. #2624
    anyone testing the AMD RX580? Just curios...Now that AMD OpenCL is on par and even better than CUDA with full support for all the Blender features, I even think of buying 2x RXVega, when it will be out (AMD have already confirmed that they will be releasing Vega graphics cards in the first half of 2017)...so, I hope that I can get something like 15s (2xVega) for 500,-Euro, that would be 3x better than 2x gtx1060...we will see... Anyway, I see OpenCL much better than the bottle-necked Cuda also because is not proprietary and it is developed by a huge amount of people...It is like Apple vs Windows-PC, Windows PC is much, much better, more flexible and cheaper...



  5. #2625
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bologna
    Posts
    4
    Fedora 25 kernel 4.10
    Blender 2.78c
    Nvidia 1060 driver 375.39

    Time: 1:23.59



  6. #2626
    Member Farmfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    H'sing Island
    Posts
    1,759
    Weirdness - or user error - but having migrated back to Linux, I get crappy GPU results and something is wrong because set at 480x270 (as I always have for GPU tests) Cycles renders all four tiles at once with a time around 2 minutes... I had <30 secs in Windows with my two GTX1070 and it rendered 2 tiles, then one, then the last...

    ^ forget about that. I won't even admit how immensely stupid I was, but be assured it was on an epic level. Epic!
    Last edited by Farmfield; 25-Apr-17 at 00:43.



  7. #2627
    I am getting 3.07 minutes using i7 6700K 4.2 Ghz . What is wrong? Can You help me? I looked at some of your result and it seems that 3 min for 6700K is something wrong.



  8. #2628
    Blender 2.78a
    Windows 10 x64
    MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 6GB, stock settings
    Tiles: 480 x 270

    1:22:26



  9. #2629
    Member Miss Tiacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Netburst microarcitecture
    Posts
    75
    wat, yeah I'm getting outrendered by waaaay weaker cards, something is wrong software wise on my end. Either that or my P4 is SOMEHOW bottlenecking my GPU, even though it's entirely being GPU rendered. ugh.

    Results:

    System:

    CPU: Intel Pentium 4 641 3.20Ghz
    RAM: 3.37GB DDR2 RAM
    GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    OS: Windows 8.1 64-Bit

    Render times:

    GPU: 01:29:75

    CPU: *stopped at 5%, which had the time of 05:58:45
    *Stretch* Oh, right- You are welcome to bother me at any time, let's be friends!
    Custom Netburst based PC build- | Intel Pentium 4 | 641 | Prescott 3.20Ghz | 3.37GB DDR2 RAM | Nvidia GTX 1080 8GB | 1280x1024 CRT 75Hz / 1920x1080 VIZIO Smart Television 60Hz



  10. #2630
    I7 4760K.

    16GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz

    1080TI MSI, Gaming x.

    CPU - 3 minutes 0.62 seconds (64*64)
    GPU - 42.83 seconds (480*256) I'm okay with this.



  11. #2631
    Member Farmfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    H'sing Island
    Posts
    1,759
    Absolutely your CPU, or rather chipset, bus standards, etc.. My dual GTX1070 was noticeably dragged down when I ran them on my former dual Xeon mainboard compared to my current x370/Ryzen 7 setup... Not that it made a huge difference in this particular case, but in most others. So there's absolutely a connection between slower GPU speeds on older generation mainbiard/CPU setups...



  12. #2632
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,555
    Just been testing the new denoise and simplify features in a custom build - they make a huge difference to render times. Using default settings on this build I get the following render times:

    GPU GTX 980ti (480x270 tiles) = 1min 1sec
    CPU Core i7-5930k @3.5ghz (32x32 tiles) = 2min 22sec

    I then re-rendered the BMW scene so as to try and get a clean render and stay as faithful to the original as possible (see image below). There are some very slight de-noise artifacts in the windscreen - and the headlight reflections are a little dimmer - but other than that the render is pretty close (a little cleaner actually due to the denoising doing it's job) and at less than 1/4 the time it took to render on default settings.

    GPU GTX 980ti (480x270 tiles) = ~14 seconds
    CPU Core i7-5930k @3.5ghz (32x32 tiles) = ~40 seconds

    I used the following settings:

    Denoise = on (default settings - radius = 8)
    Simplify = on (AO Bounces = 4)
    Samples = 100 (you can get away with 75 but the windscreen artifacts show up a bit more and you can get a passable preview render with 25 samples in around 7 seconds on GPU!)
    Square samples = off
    Sobol scrambling Distance = 0.25
    Light Sampling = 0.25
    Filter Glossy = 0.15

    BMW2.png
    Last edited by moony; 04-May-17 at 03:48.



  13. #2633
    Works iMac
    Intel core i7 3.5GHz with Nvidea GeForce GTX 780m
    CPU 3:55 GPU 3:47

    My set up.
    AMD FX 4300 quad around 3.8GHz with an MSI GeForce Gtx 1050Ti
    CPU 14:36.38 GPU 2:07.06 (cuda matata!!!!)



  14. #2634
    2x480gtx : 54 seconds (tiles:480x270) Blender 2.78c

    The release year of those cards is 2010. It seems that 7 years later, the gtx 1070/80 haven't got any big speed advantage..
    Last edited by tmz; 11-May-17 at 09:15.
    You can find my portfolio at: www.amatzakos.com



  15. #2635
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,488
    Originally Posted by tmz View Post
    2x480gtx : 54 seconds (tiles:480x270) Blender 2.78c

    The release year of those cards is 2010. It seems that 7 years later, the gtx 1070/80 haven't got any big speed advantage..
    What does that mean exactly?. How much vRAM does that card have?
    Obviously you can get cheap old cards, but for example with two GTX 1060 you would be getting around 40 seconds in this BMW benchmark, and the possibility of having 6GB of vRAM.

    Edit:
    Ok, seeing results of GTX 580, I'm a bit confused with your result of two GTX 480:
    https://blenderartists.org/forum/sho...=1#post3171464

    My calculations say that two GTX 580 would be giving almost the same time as your two GTX 480.
    Are you using new BMW27.blend scene (two cars) shared on the first page of this thread, right?
    Last edited by YAFU; 11-May-17 at 09:49.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  16. #2636
    Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    What does that mean exactly?. How much vRAM does that card have?
    Obviously you can get cheap old cards, but for example with two GTX 1060 you would be getting around 40 seconds in this BMW benchmark, and the possibility of having 6GB of vRAM.

    Edit:
    Ok, seeing results of GTX 580, I'm a bit confused with your result of two GTX 480:
    https://blenderartists.org/forum/sho...=1#post3171464

    My calculations say that two GTX 580 would be giving almost the same time as your two GTX 480.
    Are you using new BMW27.blend scene (two cars) shared on the first page of this thread, right?
    Hi Yafu, I wrote about speed, not about vram nor energy efficiency etc. I can bake a chicken in my pc case during rendering with my 2 480gtx..

    The speed increase is not that great for 6-7 years of development. In my place I can buy 2x1060 6Gb for around 500+ euros. In my opinion it doesn't worth spending this money for only that little speed difference. Also, 6Gb of vram are not enough for complex scenes either..
    Screenshot 480gtx.jpeg
    You can find my portfolio at: www.amatzakos.com



  17. #2637
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,488
    Ok, reading wikipedia. 400 and 500 series have the same architecture. So, good things started from 400 series then.

    About the subject, it is difficult to compare very old cards with something new considering the price. It's obvious that old cards (if you can get them) will be cheaper.
    And really, 1.5GB to 6GB makes a big difference for Cycles.
    Last edited by YAFU; 11-May-17 at 10:21.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  18. #2638
    Originally Posted by YAFU View Post
    Ok, reading wikipedia. 400 and 500 series have the same architecture. So, good things started from 400 series then.

    About the subject, it is difficult to compare very old cards with something new considering the price. It's obvious that old cards (if you can get them) will be cheaper.
    And really, 1.5GB to 6GB makes a big difference for Cycles.
    So in my case I will buy 4.5GB of vram for 500 euros? Nvidia is milking hard. ATI-AMD WHERE ARE YOU? (Sorry for the flamewar tone, I am just searching to upgrade my gpus..)
    You can find my portfolio at: www.amatzakos.com



  19. #2639
    Member YAFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,488
    Originally Posted by tmz View Post
    Nvidia is milking hard. ATI-AMD WHERE ARE YOU? (Sorry for the flamewar tone, I am just searching to upgrade my gpus..)
    Well, nothing to say here. I'm not nVidia fanboy, just user

    The only thing I can say is that if you compare old xx80 with new xx80, for GTX 1080 vs. GTX 480 you have almost twice better speed for Cycles in simple scenes like BMW scene (maybe a bit of better speed in favor of 1080 in more complex scenes), much more vRAM which is very important, and much better performance with OpenCL in Maxwell/Pascal compared to old architectures.
    Obviously you have a hard decision by already having those two GTX 480. But not many options for someone who has to buy new good cards.

    Edit:
    By the way, RX 480 users were reporting good render times out there.
    Last edited by YAFU; 11-May-17 at 10:55.
    Be patient, English is not my language.



  20. #2640
    I was going to ask if there are users with rx 480 or 580 to share their results with us.
    You can find my portfolio at: www.amatzakos.com



Posting Permissions

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