test scene for Superfly speed.

  • @ghostship said in test scene for Superfly speed.:

    Ok folks

    new computer is built. AMD Ryzen5 1600x air cooled no overclocking, 16GB ram, GTX970 and GTX980

    Test scene with 512 sized tiles: 921.31 seconds
    Test scene with 256 sized tiles: 979.85 seconds

    When running this test the 512 bucket size made my fans come on pretty strong but the 256 seemed like it wasn't that big a deal for the cards and only a little slower.


    Did you rendered only with GPUs or with CPU as well?

    512 bucket size with GPUs is probably best what I've tried, 256 bucket size I use only for test renders to check lighting and how shaders looks etc

    What is killing render times is transmapped hair or any hair where is trans map used, EZSkin can slow down render times as well,don't have right now too much time on my hands but will do few tests later on when times allow

    How long yours previous renders took with single or dual GPUs?

    I didn't tried that scene on my cards and not sure how yours renders compare but will do if time allows later on

    Hope this helps

    Thanks, Jura

  • @jura11 Render times are about half when running both cards. My original test on my old i5 2400 (CPU render) took 3 hours and I was only about halfway done when I stopped it. So 15 min is pretty good compared with 6+hours.

    the difference between running 256 pixel times and 512 is only 6% decrease in render time so not really a big deal to run with smaller tiles and keep my machine running cooler and happy.

  • Dell R610 Server:

    2 x Xeon X5670 Processors (24 total cores)
    64 GB of RAM (32 GB for each processor)
    2 x 250 GB SATA SSD in a Raid 1 Mirror set
    Windows 10 Pro
    Poser and all files are located on the SSD mirror set

    I had to turn the bucket size down as the processors were only being used at 30% with a bucket size of 512. I also turned off progressive rendering for similar reasons - processors were only be used at 80%.

    Render time at 64 bucket size was 49.517 minutes.

    I actually expected better than this. I am a little disappointed.

  • @mr_phoenyxx For CPU renders I would keep my bucket size to about 32 pixels. Yes, turn off progressive rendering in CPU mode, you will get better performance with it off.

  • @mr_phoenyxx sorry, was confused there a bit. 64 pixels for bucket size, not 32.

  • @mr_phoenyxx This is why I should read a post carefully before spouting off.LOL You HAD a bucket size of 64 already.

    The GPU rendering blows the doors off of CPU rendering. This is why I made sure my new computer had 2 GPU card slots. You can use two GPU's even if they don't match. I have a GTX 970 and a GTX 980 and they both work together.

  • @mr_phoenyxx Ok, running CPU test right now. will have results soon.

  • On CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600x (6 core/12 thread), 16GB ram: 58 min. bucket size 64 pixels.

  • @mr_phoenyxx

    CPU render on my Xeon X5680 system:

    MacPro 5.1

    2x Xeon X5680
    48 GB RAM (triple channel configuration)
    OS X 10.11

    Bucket size: 64K

    Render time: 37.98 minutes

  • @nagra_00_ is that MacPro one that is in the older form factor like the old G5's or in the newer "trash can," shape?

  • @ghostship It has the old G5 form factor. AFAIK at that time nobody put CPUs into a trash can ;)

  • @ghostship No worries about not reading everything in detail, I knew where you were headed. :)

    I agree that GPU certainly produces far more processing power for the $$ than CPU does, but I thought I'd read that certain features of SuperFly don't work with GPU rendering. Not just BPT, but I thought caustics or something didn't work with GPU rendering?

    I'm also playing around with different settings to see what happens, and which is more efficient. I agree that 64 seemed to be the best option, which is why I tried it first.

    I just finished one with a bucket of 128 and it took 53.43 minutes. So slightly slower even though it appeared to be going faster.

    A test at 256 bucket is running right now. I expect it to be slower, as it's only using about 85% of the processors.

  • Poser Ambassadors

    Just in case people want to know - test scene rendered in 9 min 4 sec on a dual 1080ti
    On my previous set (2 x original titan) it took 17 min.
    Not as much improvement as i expected
    Octane is significantly faster with the new cards, but they upgraded CUDA to version 8 which has better support for the new cards.

  • @wimvdb Very interesting!

  • @mr_phoenyxx you might be able to squeez some more speed out of it by turning on BPT (set all branches to 1) and then lower the number of samples (start by lowering it to 20) I think I might try this as well.

  • @ghostship If we are trying to get a good idea of comparative speeds though, then don't we all need to be rendering a similar number of samples?

  • @mr_phoenyxx a test to see how your system stacks up against others is one thing. This idea is to see if you can squeeze more speed out of what you have to work with. I'm guessing you don't have a GPU at this time. Would make sense to optimize your settings so as to not loose any quality and also get some extra speed.

  • @ghostship Fair enough. Render time was 69.85 minutes with a 256 bucket, so as expected. :)

  • Bucket size 32K rendered in 47.39 minutes. So slightly faster than bucket=64K which had been the fastest on my system so far. Likely this is simply due to fewer cores being idle at the end of the render.

  • Bucket size = 16K was still a little faster again @ 46.56 minutes. At least for this test scene, smaller buckets seem to work better on the server that I've purchased.