Yes, it's faster in PMC. The reference 980 results come from a regular clocked 980, but using a manual fan curve with EVGA Precision to keep the GPU cooler in trade of more noise. I used this fan curve:nuno1980 wrote:GTX 980 is faster than my videocard at PMC kernel!?????? But wrong because attention: GTX 980 has non-reference speeds...
OctaneBench
Forum rules
For new users: this forum is moderated. Your first post will appear only after it has been reviewed by a moderator, so it will not show up immediately.
This is necessary to avoid this forum being flooded by spam.
For new users: this forum is moderated. Your first post will appear only after it has been reviewed by a moderator, so it will not show up immediately.
This is necessary to avoid this forum being flooded by spam.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Ok. Weird because...abstrax wrote:Yes, it's faster in PMC. The reference 980 results come from a regular clocked 980, but using a manual fan curve with EVGA Precision to keep the GPU cooler in trade of more noise.
--> octane benchmark v1.0 at PMC kernel running OR 2.17 demo:
My GTX 780 Ti Classified - 5.05 MS/s
GTX 980 ("DayDreamer" user) - 3.5~3.6 MS/s
My card is faster than GTX 980. But...
--> New octanebench, My card is a bit slower than GTX 980 - wtf!?
NOTE: I'm sorry for bad english due to mute 
i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3
SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3

SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

I get higher Ms with the old scene (what were your kernel settings?).nuno1980 wrote:Ok. Weird because...abstrax wrote:Yes, it's faster in PMC. The reference 980 results come from a regular clocked 980, but using a manual fan curve with EVGA Precision to keep the GPU cooler in trade of more noise.
--> octane benchmark v1.0 at PMC kernel running OR 2.17 demo:
My GTX 780 Ti Classified - 5.05 MS/s
GTX 980 ("DayDreamer" user) - 3.5~3.6 MS/s
My card is faster than GTX 980. But...
--> New octanebench, My card is a bit slower than GTX 980 - wtf!?
Anyway, the old trench scene was never really well suited for benchmarking because it was super simple compared to any normal scene (only one mesh of a few thousand triangles and one material...). Even the benchmark scenes used by OctaneBench are still very simple compared to actual production scenes.
-> With OctaneBench we hope to have things a bit more comparable to real scenes.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Click a node "RenderTarget PMC" as default settings.abstrax wrote:I get higher Ms with the old scene (what were your kernel settings?).

Ok.Anyway, the old trench scene was never really well suited for benchmarking because it was super simple compared to any normal scene (only one mesh of a few thousand triangles and one material...). Even the benchmark scenes used by OctaneBench are still very simple compared to actual production scenes.
-> With OctaneBench we hope to have things a bit more comparable to real scenes.

NOTE: I'm sorry for bad english due to mute 
i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3
SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3

SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

I assume you were using the trench scenes of the 1.20 demo scenes. There I get 4.02 Ms/s with alpha shadows enabled and 4.62 Ms/s with alpha shadows disabled on a GTX 980 in the 2.17 demo.nuno1980 wrote:Click a node "RenderTarget PMC" as default settings.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Ok, I have scenes demo v1.20.abstrax wrote:I assume you were using the trench scenes of the 1.20 demo scenes. There I get 4.02 Ms/s with alpha shadows enabled and 4.62 Ms/s with alpha shadows disabled on a GTX 980 in the 2.17 demo.
I got:
alpha shadows enabled 5.05 MS/s
alpha shadows disabled 5.81 MS/s

Has your GTX 980 reference or OC edition? Do you use stock or do overclock for GPU?
NOTE: I'm sorry for bad english due to mute 
i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3
SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3

SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
CRT 19" Samtron 19"

It's a reference build from EVGA I think with stock clock. We never overclock here in the office.nuno1980 wrote:Ok, I have scenes demo v1.20.
I got:
alpha shadows enabled 5.05 MS/s
alpha shadows disabled 5.81 MS/s
Has your GTX 980 reference or OC edition? Do you use stock or do overclock for GPU?
All that proves is how useless the old benchmark scene is.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Yes it is improved. Getting rid of the pagination helps a lot. And now the "single GPU only" preference persists between filtering modes. Thank you. I'm sure the Titan Z thing will take a bit more time to settle and implement.abstrax wrote:Tim fixed a bunch of issues with the results page. Could you have a look and tell us if that's better now?
Currently, we don't want to change it, because it's always not 100% clear to the user what "1x Titan Z" means. Octane internally deals with GPUs and doesn't care if they are on the same board or not. So, a user who works with Octane and sees "1x Titan Z", will still scratch his/her head and wonder if that means that it's the result of a Titan Z video card or Titan Z GPU.riggles wrote:Yes it is improved. Getting rid of the pagination helps a lot. And now the "single GPU only" preference persists between filtering modes. Thank you. I'm sure the Titan Z thing will take a bit more time to settle and implement.abstrax wrote:Tim fixed a bunch of issues with the results page. Could you have a look and tell us if that's better now?
What we've done is explicitly mentioning multi-GPU video cards in the text above the result list.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Marcus,
Could you please add for dual gpu cards a simple explanation in the form
4x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (2 cards) 1 result
3x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (1.5 card) 1 result
2x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (1 card) 1 result
1x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (0.5 card) 1 result
This would be very handy.
Could you please add for dual gpu cards a simple explanation in the form
4x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (2 cards) 1 result
3x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (1.5 card) 1 result
2x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (1 card) 1 result
1x GeForce GTX TITAN Z (0.5 card) 1 result
This would be very handy.
3090, Titan, Quadro, Xeon Scalable Supermicro, 768GB RAM; Sketchup Pro, Classical Architecture.
Custom alloy powder coated laser cut cases, Autodesk metal-sheet 3D modelling.
build-log http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42540
Custom alloy powder coated laser cut cases, Autodesk metal-sheet 3D modelling.
build-log http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42540