Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

robcat2075

CPU Render Benchmark

Recommended Posts

i wasn´t arguing, just asking ;)

 

i often heard that argument regarding freedom, and i never understood what in particular was meant, so i asked.

 

for me it´s all about how well a machine works for my purposes and how it feels when i´m working with it. i guess it´s just a matter of taste and the way of thinking.

 

i often notice that when it comes to this argument, people make somewhat false statements... maybe not false, but exaggerated.

 

sure you don´t have to reboot your windows pc several times a day, but maybe more often than a mac. i reboot my macs more often than every few weeks, because the get slower, too (if you do a lot of video editing for instance). on the other hand i do have a lot of old AND new software, and i´m not on the latest OS. so you´re exaggerating, too... ;)

 

most programmers and gamers are pro windows, most designers pro mac... guess why... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone that has used both and supported both, both have their pros and cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone that has used both and supported both, both have their pros and cons.

 

Absolutely right.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tablet Microsoft Surface Pro

Windows 8 64 bits

A:M v18 beta 1

render time = 3'15"

 

pretty fast for my eyes...

surface.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AM V18 Significantly slower at renders than 17 in my tests.

V17.jpg

V18.jpg

V17.PNG

V18.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1:35

Who is faster :P

 

i7-4770

32gb memory

gtx660

 

V18 alpha3 (but the speed hit is coming from the cpu , not from the version , with V17g nearly the same time)

screen.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1:35

Who is faster :P

 

i7-4770

32gb memory

gtx660

 

V18 alpha3 (but the speed hit is coming from the cpu , not from the version , with V17g nearly the same time)

screen.jpg

 

Very impressive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tablet Microsoft Surface Pro

Windows 8 64 bits

A:M v18 beta 1

render time = 3'15"

 

pretty fast for my eyes...

 

Tablet - Microsoft Surface Pro 2 (128gb - 4gb RAM) (Note the 256gb version and above have 8gb RAM)

Windows 8.1 64 bits

A:M v17g

render time = 3' 47"

 

I wonder if the v18 beta renders faster or your tablet has more RAM? I do find it interesting that it renders 30" quicker than my 18" i7 Qosmio Laptop.....

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add my system into the mix:

 

A:M v17g 32bit

Render time: 4:33

Update: With most other programs turned off render time dropped to 4:05. :)

Intel Pentium CPU G2020@2.90GHZ

1 core

4GB memory (3.88 useable)

Win 8

 

 

With less than 4GB of memory I was surprised to see it render that fast.

As I don't consider this a fast computer I'm pleased with that result.

I had quite a number of other programs running while rendering so I suppose I should close all of those and try again with 64bit.

I need to update to Win8.1 too... and sure wish I had Steffen's 32GB of memory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add another Macs' info for comparison.

3:08

 

iMac Core i5 (Late 2012) 21.5"

2.7 GHz Intel

6 MB shared level 3 cache,

8 GB of 1600 MHz DDR3 SDRAM

NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M / 512 MB GDDR5 Mem

 

I followed RobCats' guidelines from the first post

and it does seem like a pretty good time.

teapots.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tablet - Microsoft Surface Pro 2 (128gb - 4gb RAM) (Note the 256gb version and above have 8gb RAM)

Windows 8.1 64 bits

A:M v17g

render time = 3' 47"

 

I'm impressed that a tablet is doing that well. Looks like a real computer there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You "giants" make me jaleaous!

<_>

 

16.0

26:47

Intel Grantsdale i915

3400Mh

1core

3Gb ram

WindowsXP SP3

bench2012.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my new MacBook Pro Laptop

 

v18

2:15

 

MacBook Pro

2.6 ghz Intel i7

RAM 16gb 1600mhz DDR3

OSX Maverick 10.9.1

NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2gb RAM

1Tb SSD

 

PS - I have Parallels and Win 8 also running on this MacBook - not sure how many resources OSX has access to with Parallels installed! Note that this test was not run in Windows but in OSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing somewhere (perhaps in a post from Martin himself) that AM works better on AMD cpus (would be interesting to know the technical reason for this, is there some enhanced instruction set AMD is using that Intel isn't?). What is the performance difference? If it is in the neighborhood of 15-20%, that; along with the much cheaper per core cost, might make it worth considering AMD cpus for a renderbox.

 

Anyway, if anyone knows, I'd be interested in getting a confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember hearing somewhere (perhaps in a post from Martin himself) that AM works better on AMD cpus (would be interesting to know the technical reason for this, is there some enhanced instruction set AMD is using that Intel isn't?). What is the performance difference? If it is in the neighborhood of 15-20%, that; along with the much cheaper per core cost, might make it worth considering AMD cpus for a renderbox.

 

Anyway, if anyone knows, I'd be interested in getting a confirmation.

 

I doubt that is true anymore. The CPUs are quite different now and A:M is coded to take advantage of them now.

 

 

 

On a straight comparison of equal CPU speeds the intels are doing better.

 

Making a cost/benefit comparison is a bit more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember hearing somewhere (perhaps in a post from Martin himself) that AM works better on AMD cpus (would be interesting to know the technical reason for this, is there some enhanced instruction set AMD is using that Intel isn't?). What is the performance difference? If it is in the neighborhood of 15-20%, that; along with the much cheaper per core cost, might make it worth considering AMD cpus for a renderbox.

 

Anyway, if anyone knows, I'd be interested in getting a confirmation.

I doubt that is true anymore. The CPUs are quite different now and A:M is coded to take advantage of them now.

 

On a straight comparison of equal CPU speeds the intels are doing better.

Making a cost/benefit comparison is a bit more complicated.

 

It would be interesting to see what AMD has with its new Trinity-APUs which seem to be quite fast (they were released today, so no good benchmarks are available for now) and it could be very interesting with the new huma-interface and stuff like that. Currently an AMD system cannot compete with the fastest Intel-Chips (which are much more expensive). The "AMD is faster than Intel for A:M" statement was true till about A:M v15/16 (keep in mind: if a Intel CPU is 15% faster than an AMD-CPU it was on par with AMDs performance). After that, Steffen used a new compiler which was specially optimised for Intel and the performance boost for AMD did go away, since the compiler is one from Intel.

 

Still you can get a very good system for MULTICORE applications OR netrenderer with AMDs FX CPUs for a quite low price, but the intels are faster if you are not looking at the money.

 

Currently it is more interesting to see what the APUs from AMD are doing. The APUs from AMD are much better (based on GPU-performance) than anything Intel has to offer at an equal or quite a bit more expensive level in the fake-APU-area, especially with the new APUs from AMD. CPU-based, AMDs APUs are not that good than Intel CPUs / GPUs-combinations (real APUs are a little different, but it is more or less the same for the customer) but the combined performance is better.

 

AMD's APUs are especially well suited for low- and mid-level-gaming-systems and are for instance used in the PS4 or Xbox One. For rendering we will see how they will do.

If A:M would someday in future receive a huMA optimation (enabling the computer to use GPU and CPU at the same time for any task needed), they very likely will outperform classical CPUs by far, but we will see what will happen there.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Asus T100 tablet. Dual core Atoms at 1.8 ghz each. 2 gig of ram. Integrated Graphics by intel.

 

Both renders set to defaults, although output size was changed. 57 seconds each. Default chor settings. Bitmap textures with normal maps.

robby_tooned0.jpg

Robby0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New Asus T100 tablet. Dual core Atoms at 1.8 ghz each. 2 gig of ram. Integrated Graphics by intel.

 

Have you tried the Benchmark project located here in the first post?

 

Then we would have a better understanding of your new computers performance relative to other computers, and versions of A:M

 

Cute character!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a new computer last week - afraid as I was windows xp not beeing supported any more - and installed the latest version of A.M. on it today.

 

 

Intel i7-4770k cpu 3.50 ghz.

16 gb. of ram

Windows 7 premium 64 bit

Geforce gtx 750 Ti 2 gb.

A.M. 18.0 64 bit

 

Result , 01:29 !

 

benchmark.jpg

 

Very impressive !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bought a new computer last week - afraid as I was windows xp not beeing supported any more - and installed the latest version of A.M. on it today.

 

 

Intel i7-4770k cpu 3.50 ghz.

16 gb. of ram

Windows 7 premium 64 bit

Geforce gtx 750 Ti 2 gb.

A.M. 18.0 64 bit

 

Result , 01:29 !

 

benchmark.jpg

 

Very impressive !

 

That is fabulous. When I started this benchmark the computer I had could manage it in 19 minutes, now mine can do it in about 4-5 minutes.

 

But 89 seconds... that is impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re editing text is not so easy as I thought . :) Sorry for double posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bought a new computer last week - afraid as I was windows xp not beeing supported any more - and installed the latest version of A.M. on it today.

 

 

Intel i7-4770k cpu 3.50 ghz.

16 gb. of ram

Windows 7 premium 64 bit

Geforce gtx 750 Ti 2 gb.

A.M. 18.0 64 bit

 

Result , 01:29 !

 

benchmark.jpg

 

Very impressive !

 

That is fabulous. When I started this benchmark the computer I had could manage it in 19 minutes, now mine can do it in about 4-5 minutes.

 

But 89 seconds... that is impressive.

 

Well the computer i used until one week ago did it also in 19 minutes and some seconds

I did not matter for me because i am patient and rendered frames overnight when I was a sleep.

In the morning frames were ready and I was as a child curious about santa's gifts to watch them.

I have replaced the old beloved one with a more expensive one and then its easy to get those results when you spend a lot of money. I spend it because it is the right moment - xp not beeing suported anymore- to go for some new hardware to replace my 8 year old computer.The fact that I am going to retire in 7 months and that I am goingl back to art shool and my devotion to A.M. speeded up my decision. And I am amazed about the results.

My first rendering I have made was in 1989. As far as I remember it was called "sculpt 3d". It was done on a Amiga 500. Complicated program, so I rendered a existing model from the library , a verry simple coffee cup.

The amiga needed more then 24 hours to render it !200 x 300 pixels , something like that. And yes , I was amazed !!!!

At that time there was a demo circulating, calling "the juggler movie" demonstrating amiga's capability's to do graphic work. I think I can make a remake of that in one hour. :) in A.M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My first rendering I have made was in 1989. As far as I remember it was called "sculpt 3d". It was done on a Amiga 500. Complicated program, so I rendered a existing model from the library , a verry simple coffee cup.

The amiga needed more then 24 hours to render it !200 x 300 pixels , something like that. And yes , I was amazed !!!!

At that time there was a demo circulating, calling "the juggler movie" demonstrating amiga's capability's to do graphic work. I think I can make a remake of that in one hour. :) in A.M.

 

Yup, Sculpt3D was my first 3D program, also on the AMIGA.

 

I recall rendering anything with shadows was painfully slow. You could watch the image form one line at a time and it was like it would snag and stop on every shadow.

 

After three years I had about 60 seconds of spinning things rendered and made this video out of them...

 

6IiUwVFV2lY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My first rendering I have made was in 1989. As far as I remember it was called "sculpt 3d". It was done on a Amiga 500. Complicated program, so I rendered a existing model from the library , a verry simple coffee cup.

The amiga needed more then 24 hours to render it !200 x 300 pixels , something like that. And yes , I was amazed !!!!

At that time there was a demo circulating, calling "the juggler movie" demonstrating amiga's capability's to do graphic work. I think I can make a remake of that in one hour. :) in A.M.

 

Yup, Sculpt3D was my first 3D program, also on the AMIGA.

 

I recall rendering anything with shadows was painfully slow. You could watch the image form one line at a time and it was like it would snag and stop on every shadow.

 

After three years I had about 60 seconds of spinning things rendered and made this video out of them...

 

6IiUwVFV2lY

 

three years ?! You are really patient and devoted ! Things that in filmmaking in animation are required. Have a long and healthy live !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great time.

 

Robert that was very impressive work for the time and machine and software. thank you for sharing.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CPU, ram and video card benchmarks charts:

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net

 

Thought this might be handy for anyone looking at new machines or are interested in how their systems compare.

 

Matter of fact.....not sure where to post this..been awhile since I've been active here but still pretty serious about my AM....finally broke down and became a lifetime member.Still have my playmation floppies!!!

Been looking at upgrading my machine and spent alot of time on that cpubenchmark website.It all looks pretty simple until you start digging deeper.AMD or INTEL???...me I'm an INTEL guy...then you get.....lga 1155...lga 1150....lga2011????...i7??? i5???....Xeon E5...E3???? then you look deeper and it's motherboards!!!! Do you need PCI Express 3.0 because your video card may play a major part in you rendering performance(saw an article from 1 of the PC forums online that said that???????)and then.....RAM!!!!Some of the new boards will run up to 64G....do I need that?????My 1st computer that I ran Playmation on had 4mg and some of the frames I rendered took 10 or 11 hours.Then if you go with the newer video cards be ready for a new minimum 600w power supply with 1 6 pin and 1 8 pin connector....oh...don't forget CPU water cooling if you overclock.....AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Anyhow just my thoughts about it......LOLbackbone_patching.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a market for a new form of 'wireless'. ;)

 

Translation: That is a lot of wires!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.AMD or INTEL???...me I'm an INTEL guy

 

Currently, I'm thinking an Intel i7-4770k is a good better-performance but not absurdly-expensive choice.

 

 

Do you need PCI Express 3.0 because your video card may play a major part in you rendering performance(saw an article from 1 of the PC forums online that said that???????)

 

A:M doesn't make huge video card demands. Most of the rendering is in the CPU although the ScreenSpace Ambient Occlusion(SSAO) effect added in V18 is done by the video card.

 

You DO want an AMD or NVidia video card and not the Intel graphics that are built into the CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well very disappointed.

 

I updated my computer with the new Mac pro 6 core xeon 12 with hyper threading 3.5GHZ

16GB ram

2 D500 AMD GPUs

500GB PCIE SSD Drive

 

Results

 

On osx version 18f 2:28

 

Windows 8.1

 

2:18 for the teapot bench test.

 

I was expecting more like 30 seconds.

PC205704-mac-pro-2013--820x420.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What size did you render at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1:35

Who is faster :P

 

i7-4770

32gb memory

gtx660

 

V18 alpha3 (but the speed hit is coming from the cpu , not from the version , with V17g nearly the same time)

attachicon.gifscreen.jpg

Your I7 beat my Xeon 3.5GHZ mac pro. I thought Xeons were much faster than any I7. Guess I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you using MacOS or Windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice of i7 v Xeon in Macs is not as obvious as it may seem sadly.
In numerous reviews it has been noted that for single core process a 4 core 3.5 GHz i7 is quicker than a 6 core 3.5GHz Xeon.

The Xeons that are in the current Mac Pros are based on an older architecture than the current i7 in a top end iMac. This is because the Xeons have a longer development/testing phase than i7's do so take longer to get to market. Xeons are considered processors suitable for mission critical systems and therefor need to be more reliable under heavy load in the long run.

I would try the test again but use Netrender and render out a minimum of 10 frames, the more the better and then compere new computer with old. This will get all your cores to work and is where your new Mac Pro should start to shine, doing long render sessions.

If you have a Windows partition on the new Mac, the Windows version of A:M should render quicker than the Mac version which is only a 32bit app still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had as much trouble with v18 but it does need some more work to get back to the v17 level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you using MacOS or Windows?

both. windows slightly faster at 2:18 mac 2:32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had as much trouble with v18 but it does need some more work to get back to the v17 level.

Yes V17 slightly faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's faster than mine, either way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surface Pro 3 : i7-4650 8gb RAM 512gb SSD

 

AM: 18.0h 64bit

 

2:03

 

Cheers

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome David! I was wondering when we would see one pop up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re ran the test after installing correct drivers 1:48

rendertest.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re ran the test after installing correct drivers 1:48

Very impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×