My little Octane Benchmark
Forum rules
Please do not post any material that is copyrighted or restricted from public use in any way. OTOY NZ LTD and it's forum members are not liable for any copyright infringements on material in this forum. Please contact us if this is the case and we will remove the material in question.
Please do not post any material that is copyrighted or restricted from public use in any way. OTOY NZ LTD and it's forum members are not liable for any copyright infringements on material in this forum. Please contact us if this is the case and we will remove the material in question.
With one GTX 480 this may render for about 10 minutes, if you add 2 you'll see it for 5 min tops , add more till you get it for 5 seconds , and if you add MLT you get noise free render no time
Vista 64 , 2x Xeon 5440 - 24GB RAM, 1x GTX 260 & I7 3930 water cooled - 32GB RAM, 1 x GTX 480+ 1x8800 GTS 512
CGsociety gallery
My portfolio
My portfolio2 - under construction
Web site
Making of : pool scene - part1
CGsociety gallery
My portfolio
My portfolio2 - under construction
Web site
Making of : pool scene - part1
because I didn't get your exact parametersBut why so bright? And not the same DOF
I redo with yours and always 30m12s
I save the scene for licensed users :
http://gzavye.free.fr/octane/octaneBenchmark01.zip
win 7 64 | i7 2600 3.4Ghz | 8Go | GTX 580 | 3dsmax | Octane for MAx 3.01 |Driver 306.23 |CUDA Driver 5.00
Thanks gzavye
so...the 470 should do it in less than 20 minutes...not badandrian wrote:With one GTX 480 this may render for about 10 minutes, if you add 2 you'll see it for 5 min tops , add more till you get it for 5 seconds , and if you add MLT you get noise free render no time
Win 7 64 | 2 X MSI AERO GtX 1070| Intel I7-6850K| 32 GB DDR4 RAM | Asus X99 II-A
I think (hope) less Not only cuda core, but a new Fermi architecture.
I'm waiting some 470-480 test too.
Not only cuda core, but a new Fermi architecture. I'm waiting some 470-480 test too.
AUTHOR: ALTO
OS: Windows XP 64bit
Software: Octane v1.02 b2 - 64bit
MACHINE: BEAZTARD EE
PC RAM: 12 GB
CPU: Core i7 3,2 @ 3,8
CPU THREAD : 8
CPU TEMP (Core min/max) : 35°C / 50°C
--------
GPU: Nvidia 8800 GT - 512 MB RAM
Cores: 112
GPU CLOCK: 1600MHz
GPU TEMP : 75°C
RENDETIME: 56m 20sec
OS: Windows XP 64bit
Software: Octane v1.02 b2 - 64bit
MACHINE: BEAZTARD EE
PC RAM: 12 GB
CPU: Core i7 3,2 @ 3,8
CPU THREAD : 8
CPU TEMP (Core min/max) : 35°C / 50°C
--------
GPU: Nvidia 8800 GT - 512 MB RAM
Cores: 112
GPU CLOCK: 1600MHz
GPU TEMP : 75°C
RENDETIME: 56m 20sec
Hi cecofuli, thanks for posting this!
I work at a 3D architectural studio that uses Vray, and have been, well...nagging them, haha, about GPU rendering for a while. Octane looks very promising, and has caught their attention, but there are no direct comparisons between it and Vray for speed.
Any chance of a benchmark version that could be used for comparing the two? That would really be great, so I could show some hard numbers and facts
This is supposed to be so much faster, but I gotta prove it!
Thanks,
Studio2a.net
I work at a 3D architectural studio that uses Vray, and have been, well...nagging them, haha, about GPU rendering for a while. Octane looks very promising, and has caught their attention, but there are no direct comparisons between it and Vray for speed.
Any chance of a benchmark version that could be used for comparing the two? That would really be great, so I could show some hard numbers and facts
This is supposed to be so much faster, but I gotta prove it!Thanks,
Studio2a.net
You can't compare a biased CPU engine and an unbiased GPU engine
But they will dev VrayRT on GPU wich gonna be awesome
Its not a competitor of Octane since its gonna be biased
And its not node based, not standalone etc...
But they will dev VrayRT on GPU wich gonna be awesome
Its not a competitor of Octane since its gonna be biased
And its not node based, not standalone etc...
http://Kuto.ch - Samuel Zeller - Freelance 3D Generalist and Graphic designer from Switzerland
Sam- haha, yes, of course this is not really an exact comparison.
Maybe I should clarify- a benchmark to compare the time taken to get an image of equal quality and appearance from both.
Obviously there area billion and 1 factors that could fudge the numbers around, but if it's something like 10-20x, or even just 5-10x faster via Octane, with only basic calibration, then that's a solid ZOOM ZOOM number, no matter how either side is tweaked.
Currently making a simpler version to play around with on my GTS250 when I get home...
Maybe I should clarify- a benchmark to compare the time taken to get an image of equal quality and appearance from both.
Obviously there area billion and 1 factors that could fudge the numbers around, but if it's something like 10-20x, or even just 5-10x faster via Octane, with only basic calibration, then that's a solid ZOOM ZOOM number, no matter how either side is tweaked.
Currently making a simpler version to play around with on my GTS250 when I get home...
Oh, and it IS a competitor!
If we could get the same quality image, in less time, plus the huge advantage of a realtime viewport- this would save hours upon hours of work (and frustration). We use Vray RT, but it's not all that great, and Vray GPU seems to be slowww dev.
The issue is, the hours saved during render really DO need to be a lot, in order to compensate for the more complicated workflow. Hence, the need to compare speeds
If we could get the same quality image, in less time, plus the huge advantage of a realtime viewport- this would save hours upon hours of work (and frustration). We use Vray RT, but it's not all that great, and Vray GPU seems to be slowww dev.
The issue is, the hours saved during render really DO need to be a lot, in order to compensate for the more complicated workflow. Hence, the need to compare speeds