test scene for Superfly speed.



  • @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.



  • @ghostship I tried turning on BPT, but the render results were significantly lower in quality. Very likely due to the specific settings I was using, but I don't really feel like playing around with BPT any more.



  • On my setup with GTX1080Ti and two GTX1080 test scene rendered in 458 seconds which is 7.63333,I would agree with @wimvdb I expected bit better times but still rendering with Pascal GPU is still faster than with older Maxwell(GTX9xx and Titan X) and regarding the Octane only tried benchmark and my score is 506.15 I think and single Ti will do 209.16

    Tried few tests with overclocked GPU and underclocked GPU and with OC cards(Ti is running 2113MHz at 1.075v,GTX1080 is running 2164MHz at 1.081v and other EVGA GTX1080 is running 2100MHz at 1.081v) my render time of above scene is 458 seconds or 7.63333 minutes and card underclocked and undervolted( Ti has run 1924MHz with 1.0v,GTX 1080 running 1911MHz and 1.0v and EVGA GTX1080 has running 1913MHz and 1.0v) and render time with underclocked and undervolted cards has been as follows 517 seconds or 8.6 mminutes

    Hope this helps

    Thanks,Jura



  • CPU Render Amd ryzen 1700 Bucket 32 (8cores 16T 3Ghz) : 3754s => 1:02:34
    With 64 Bucket and progressive off : 0:57:22

    GPU : 1 Geforce 1070 and Bucket 512, progressive on 1342s => 0:22:22



  • @lsauvage wow my Ryzen 1600x about the same as your Ryzen 1700.



  • Yes because your's works at 3.6Ghz and mine has a 3Ghz base clock
    Overclocked with ryzen master at 3.6ghz (easy and very safe overclocking with box cooler), : 2964s 49min24sec. I win :)