OCTANE BENCHMARK: Submit performance scores for your rig!

[suvakas]

I get about 1.93 with my gtx 560TI and about 2.27 with my gtx 660 TI MSI.

What render mode are you using?
I get similar results as you with path tracing.
When using PT my gtx 560 scores 1.63.

Suv

[Refracty]

maybe they used an older version 2.58 wich was faster

[cfrank78]

What render mode are you using?
I get similar results as you with path tracing.
When using PT my gtx 560 scores 1.63.

Suv

I used Pathtracing with the optiones i should use, told in the first post. Alphashadows disabled and so on. But i thing the guys in the other threads used pathtracing too right?

maybe they used an older version 2.58 wich was faster

Refracty you tell me 2.58 was faster than the final release? did i understand you right? Why is this? Thats strange!

Kind regards Chris!

[Refracty]

Hi Chris,
to embed instancing functionality the new releases are a little bit slower then 2.58 release.
So there is a difference of speed results depending on what release was used for the benchmark.

[cfrank78]

Hi Chris,
to embed instancing functionality the new releases are a little bit slower then 2.58 release.
So there is a difference of speed results depending on what release was used for the benchmark.

Hi Refracty!

Thank you very much. Everythings clear now. Was a bit shocked, cause of my low MS/S. On last Question to you, cause as i saw you had the highest Results so far here. I will build a new Computer in January. Dual Xeon 6 Core for rendering in Vray and also 4 GPU´s. What do you think would be best for Octane Refracty? 4 580 from Ebay? 4 680 (4gig) from store. i know 690 or 590 would be best but i cant´t effort them. What would you buy? Be honest please - whats the best i can built in today for about 2000 Euro just for Graphics Card?

Kind regards Chris!

[Refracty]

4 * 580s 3GB or 4 * 680 4GB are both good choices. If you don't want to water cool (what will raise the costs) I would go with the 680s. They consume less energy and doesn't heat up so quick.
580s are 10 % faster but the 680s will give you a bit more textures and VRam.

So If I would choose a system today I would go with 4 * 680s in an air cooled case.

[cfrank78]

4 * 580s 3GB or 4 * 680 4GB are both good choices. If you don't want to water cool (what will raise the costs) I would go with the 680s. They consume less energy and doesn't heat up so quick.
580s are 10 % faster but the 680s will give you a bit more textures and VRam.

So If I would choose a system today I would go with 4 * 680s in an air cooled case.

Thank you very much - i think i will get the 680. I think that Kepler will be faster in the future - when new updates will come. Fermi is hard to get and new customers wanna have speed too They will have to push kepler, not fermi hehe! Thank you very much for your tipp!

[sternbach]

1x Gigabyte Gtx 670 Oc 4Gb, Octane Render 1.0, PathTracing, AlphaShadows set to false.

GPU Core Clock while rendering: 1149.7 MHz
GPU Memory Clock: 1502,3 MHz
GPU Temp ~ 55 °C
GPU Load 99%

Leads to 2.91Ms/sec.

Environment:
Windows 8 Enterprise, 64bit
ForceWare 306.97
I7 2600k
Asus P8Z68-V Pro
16Gb

[igen]

I forgot the detail .... 2 zotac gtx 690 ~ 44Ms/sec use pathtracing

Are You sure? =) Any printscreen to base Your performance claim?..

Sorry for my mistake not with patchtrahing but 46 Ms/sec with direct lighting.

[fovito]

1 x GTX 660TI (Asus, 2GB)
OctaneRender 1.0 Final

= 2.23 Ms/sec.

Pathtracing / AlphaShadows disabled