Page 3 of 139 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 2763
  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    1,234
    My results.

    blender 2.61
    cpu:i7 2600
    gpu: geforce gtx 560 ti
    os: windows 7
    TIme CPU 5 min 10 sec
    Time GPU 55 sec

    blender 2.61
    cpu:i7 2600
    gpu: geforce gtx 560 ti
    os: ubuntu 11.04
    TIme CPU 3 min 30 sec
    Time GPU 44 sec



  2. #42
    it would be good if you included the threads number in the form.



  3. #43
    CPU: Intel Core i5 750 @2.8GHz
    GPU: Nvidia Quadro FX 4600
    OS: Ubuntu Linux 11.10
    BLENDER: 2.60.1 r41560
    CPU-time: 4 min 5 sec
    GPU: 5 min 49 seconds
    GPU-opencl didn't work

    (sidenote: quadro fx 580 performed ~3-4-times slower than fx4600 if anyone was interested, didn't tested it on this test-scene though)

    Aww crap.. now I know why not to give a da*n for Nvidia Quadro... good it wasn't new (&expensive) when I bought it..
    GTX 460 and up seem waaaay better... wondering if they perform better too in complex scenes in wireframe-viewports, (anyone tested it somehow?)



  4. #44
    CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k @3.3GHz
    GPU: Nvidia Geforce Gtx 580
    OS: Windows 7
    Blender 2.60.7 r42494

    CPU Time: 05.49.82
    GPU Time: 00.39.39
    OpenCl Time: 00.39.38



  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    63
    CPU : Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.66Ghz
    OS : Windows 7 64bit
    GPU : Nvidia GTX 570
    Time (GPU-CUDA) : 43.59 seconds



  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,263
    Originally Posted by ODDied View Post
    Aww crap.. now I know why not to give a da*n for Nvidia Quadro... good it wasn't new (&expensive) when I bought it..
    GTX 460 and up seem waaaay better... wondering if they perform better too in complex scenes in wireframe-viewports, (anyone tested it somehow?)
    Quadro has some benefits, but yes, when it comes to computing, the Geforce is just as fast, for a fraction of the price.



  7. #47
    Member Ray Tungsteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the emitter plane
    Posts
    160
    I hope this isn't too far off topic, but as an aside... I was curious to see how Cycles and BI compared in look and speed on this file, so I quickly setup the file with BI materials, optimised for a fast render, and two lights, area on top, spot on side. Render time was neck and neck, 3min 30sec Cycles on my 6 core 3.2Ghz CPU, slightly less at 3min 24sec in BI. For what it's worth... Now back to the fun!




  8. #48
    Member Hunkadoodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    251
    Mike, in looking at the spreadsheet, I see that there are more columns of data than were originally asked for, so for my results, may I add these updates and corrections:

    CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz
    GPU: Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT
    OS: Ubuntu 10.10 x64
    Blender Build: r42615
    Time: 14 min 19 seconds (GPU - CUDA)
    Time: Error: CUDA device supported only with shader model 1.3 or up, found 1.1. (GPU - OpenCL)
    Time: 8 min 14 sec (CPU)
    Nvidia Driver Version: 290.10
    Critique my WIP! I dare you!



  9. #49
    Member rebogey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    fair to middleing
    Posts
    700
    Here are mine with 2.61:-
    GTX 550 TI
    AMD Phenom X3 8400
    4096 DDR2
    32 Bit XP sp3
    CPU - 18.56.87 ouch
    GPU Cuda - 02.00.37 phew
    GPU OpenCL - 03.02.66 der, double checked
    My own compile SSE2 GPU Cuda - 01.57.40 here :- http://www.graphicall.org/408
    Wierd that on my system OpenCL is 50% slower than Cuda. Everyone elses seems the same. Any thaughts.
    I believe, there's a reason for everything.
    http://s189.beta.photobucket.com/use...allange?page=1



  10. #50
    What is stranger is the massive differences in CPU time, it seems there is a very big difference in speed between Linux and Windows.



  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    2,263
    Ray, that's a nice conversion. It actually doesn't look that bad. Did you add any real lights?

    Daniel, i noticed the discrepency too. It seems Mac and Linux are about the same speed, but Windows on the same hardware is slower by a pretty large amount. Strange...



  12. #52
    Member JamesNZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    388
    CPU: AMD Turion X2
    GPU: N/A
    OS: Windows 7 64bit
    Blender Build: 2.61 stable
    Rendertime (CPU): 31.38.27

    I need an upgrade
    "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?"
    - Jesus



  13. #53
    CPU: Intel Quad Core i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz (8 threads)
    GPU: GeForce GTX 570 w/1280MB, nvidia driver 290.10
    OS: Ubuntu 11.10 x86_64
    Blender Build: release 2.61 build rev 42615
    CPU Time: 3 min 29 seconds
    GPU Time (CUDA): 0 min 41 seconds
    GPU Time (OpenCL): 0 min 51 seconds
    Last edited by paraponera; 15-Dec-11 at 23:08.



  14. #54
    Member Ray Tungsteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the emitter plane
    Posts
    160
    Originally Posted by mpan3 View Post
    Ray, that's a nice conversion. It actually doesn't look that bad. Did you add any real lights?
    I added an area light on top and a spot to the side. I worked on it some more afterward and posted an improved final version on my blog if you're interested to see it. That rendered in 3min 22sec.



  15. #55
    Member Syziph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blenderia
    Posts
    764
    Originally Posted by Ray Tungsteen View Post
    I hope this isn't too far off topic, but as an aside... I was curious to see how Cycles and BI compared in look and speed on this file, so I quickly setup the file with BI materials, optimised for a fast render, and two lights, area on top, spot on side. Render time was neck and neck, 3min 30sec Cycles on my 6 core 3.2Ghz CPU, slightly less at 3min 24sec in BI. For what it's worth... Now back to the fun!

    How close can be the transiton and similarity between Cycles and BI rendering, assuming you have a lot of materials with all Nodes enabled?
    I think that the lack of compatibility between the two Renderers is a drawback.



  16. #56
    Member Andreu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Catalonia
    Posts
    438
    Originally Posted by Ray Tungsteen View Post
    I hope this isn't too far off topic, but as an aside... I was curious to see how Cycles and BI compared in look and speed on this file, so I quickly setup the file with BI materials, optimised for a fast render, and two lights, area on top, spot on side. Render time was neck and neck, 3min 30sec Cycles on my 6 core 3.2Ghz CPU, slightly less at 3min 24sec in BI. For what it's worth... Now back to the fun!
    Basically, I think that BI's render, even with all the extra cheats, is still inferior. The shadows are flat and lifeless. The lack of natural bounce lighting is very noticeable.
    "You can't handle the tris!"
    My blog: Everything 3D
    My Blender e-book: Creating Diamonds in Blender



  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    cph
    Posts
    838
    Originally Posted by Daniel8488 View Post
    What is stranger is the massive differences in CPU time, it seems there is a very big difference in speed between Linux and Windows.
    Daniel, i noticed the discrepency too. It seems Mac and Linux are about the same speed, but Windows on the same hardware is slower by a pretty large amount. Strange...
    Is it really that strange? It has been known for a decade now that Linux/*nix is more efficient than Windows, and one of the reasons Linux is used on renderfarms and workstations (Weta/ILM/DNeg/etc. could afford Windows licenses if that system was the better performer).

    Not trying to troll, just a little confused over your reactions.



  18. #58
    Member Ray Tungsteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the emitter plane
    Posts
    160
    Originally Posted by Andreu View Post
    Basically, I think that BI's render, even with all the extra cheats, is still inferior. The shadows are flat and lifeless. The lack of natural bounce lighting is very noticeable.
    I'm not sure about lack of GI being noticeable in a scene such as this, not when compared with photos. I actually find it more natural versus the overexposed GI that seems to be in fashion. But it doesn't really matter, the renderers are just different paths to the same goal. I can create caustics and GI with nodes in Blender Internal, and I can tone down GI in Cycles too. Ultimately it all amounts to the same thing.

    I would add that if you're happy with the default, easy to obtain output of Cycles, it's clear you're going to benefit from a 2-5 times speed up with a top GPU.



  19. #59
    Member Andreu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Catalonia
    Posts
    438
    Originally Posted by Ray Tungsteen View Post
    I would add that if you're happy with the default, easy to obtain output of Cycles, it's clear you're going to benefit from a 2-5 times speed up with a top GPU.
    Yeah, that's a good point. However, the fact that good results in Cycles are easy to obtain does not retract from their worth. If you add to that some layer compositing and render post-processing control, you have a killer combination.
    "You can't handle the tris!"
    My blog: Everything 3D
    My Blender e-book: Creating Diamonds in Blender



  20. #60
    Member RossBlenderArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,949
    I did this out of curiosity and got some pretty bad results (comparing to you guys)!
    I don't know if it makes a difference but I was online and watching youtube videos while it was rendering.

    Computer: Mac OSX v10.5
    Blender build: 2.61 (from blender.org)
    Render Time: 58:33, yes 58 minutes.



Page 3 of 139 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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