test scene for Superfly speed.
@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.
mr_phoenyxx last edited by mr_phoenyxx
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.
nagra_00_ last edited by
CPU render on my Xeon X5680 system:
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?
nagra_00_ last edited by
@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.
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.