Attached Link: http://digitaldreams.bbay.com/cputest_p5.zip

I don't jknow how slow BBay's server is going to get if 500 people hit download at the same time, if anybody wants to co-host the Zip fine, just post your link here.

You want me to put it in the back room? Kev.

Sure, only what is the back room? ;-)

P4 2.8ghz -512mb ram -WinXPhome -253 secs......Steve

The Poser Backroom here at Rendie ;) (Link) Anyway, here's the link to the test file. :) Kev.

Thanks Kev, super!

How do you get the time? Does Poser give you the time to render?

Just time it with your watch :o)...Ctrl-R till the render finishes...Steve

AMD 2.4Ghz 768Mb RAM WinXPhome 264 sec.

Pentium 4 1.4 - 1GB RDRAM - WinXP - 160GB HD 396 seconds total P5 adding objects, preparing to render: 211 seconds actual render of picture: 185 seconds

250 seconds. Poser 5 SR3. Pentium 4 at 2,4 GHz. Win XP Pro. 1 Gb RAM, 61.4 GB free on the HD Poser is installed on (120 GB in total on this HD which is not my system HD). It took quite some time to open the pz3, though...

P4 3.0 GHz. 2Gb RAM . XPhome. 211 seconds

I got my new computer fired up just for this, here is the first tabulation, it heads the list so far, Gee!: P4 2.8Ghz (3.09) - 1GB Ram Win2K 209 Sec. Pentium 4 2.4 GHz. 1GB Ram Win XP Pro 250 Sec P4 2.8ghz -512mb ram -WinXPhome -253 secs AMD 2.4Ghz 768Mb RAM WinXPhome 264 sec AMD 1.4Ghz 1GB RAM, Win2K 355 seconds P4 1.4 - 1GB RDRAM - WinXP 396 seconds Looks like AMD's aren't going to run away with this one, like they did with the Poser 4 version. Oh, make sure you have service pack 3 installed too, I neglected to mention that, but it puts everybody on an equal footing. Let's see some Mac results too, they just got Poser 5, right?

AMD 1,67 Ghz - 256 Mb RAM - WinXP home - 600 sec (exactly 10 minuts!)

Yeah, it looks like we don't need a stopwatch with 1/10 seconds to keep track of the results, we could almost use a sundial!

P4 2.4 Ghz - 1 GHz Ram - Win XP Home - 236 Seconds

AMD-XP 1,8 GHz 512 Mb RAM Win2K-Pro 308 sec

Athlon XP 2.4ghz, 1gb DDR RAM, Win XP Home - 242 secs

Yes, Poser 5 just came out for the Mac... This Mac user has not bought Poser 5. I don't know that many have. You could try a crosspost to the Mac forum. :)

Pentium Xeon 2x2.66GHz 2GB Ram WinXP Pro - 209 seconds (Obviously, one of the processors was idle during the render) :)

p4 2.4 gh, 1.5 gb ddr ram, win xp home, 258 seconds

P4 2.53 win xp home 1 gig ram 237sec (259 with IE and aim open) btw bumping the bucket size up to 128 shaves it down to 212 seconds

Here's what I got: I rendered 3 times on each system. System 1: (desktop) AMD XP2800+, 1 GB PC3200 DDR Mem, Windows 2000 Pro. test 1: 192 sec, test 2: 187 sec, test 3: 195 sec. System 2: (Notebook) Intel Pentium IV 3.06 GHz, 1 GB PC2700 DDR Mem, Windows 2000 Pro. test 1: 211 sec, test 2: 217 sec, test 3: 214 sec. other variables may affect the scores: - I allocated 64 MB of the memory on the AMD to the onboard video. - The video on the notebook has it's own 64 MB of memory. - The HD on the desktop(AMD) is a ATA 133 7200 RPM drive - The HD on the notebook(intel) is a ATA 100 5400 RPM drive I hope this is helpful. JV :D

rendered 3 times averaged out at 199 seconds Intel Pentium 4 3Ghz,800Mhz Front Side Bus , 512K on-die L2 cache. 2GB dual channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz Windows XP professionnal

Pentium 4, 2.8Ghz, 1.5 Gb DDR-SDRAM, XP Home, 218 seconds

AMD 1.4 ghz, 1 GIG pc133 mem, win 2000 pro, 305 sec

P= Pentium NB= Notebook (time) = overclocked CPU speed, Poser 5 SR3 render times AMD XP2800+ 1 GB RAM Windows 2000 Pro 192 sec P4 3Ghz 2GB RAM WinXP Pro 199 Seconds P4 2.8Ghz (3.09) - 1GB Ram Win2K 209 Sec. P Xeon 2x2.66GHz 2GB Ram WinXP Pro - 209 seconds P4 NB 3.06 GHz 1 GB RAM Windows 2000 Pro 211 sec P4 2.8Ghz 1.5 Gb RAM XP Home 218 seconds AMD 1.4 ghz 1 gb win 2000 pro 234 sec P4 2.4 Ghz 1 GHz Ram Win XP Home 236 Seconds P4 2.53 Ghz 1 GB RAM win xp home 237sec Athlon XP 2.4ghz 1gb RAM Win XP Home 242 secs P4 2.4 GHz. 1GB Ram Win XP Pro 250 Sec P4 2.8ghz -512mb ram -WinXPhome -253 secs p4 2.4 gh, 1.5 gb ram win xp home 258 seconds AMD 2.4Ghz 768Mb RAM WinXPhome 264 sec AMD 1.4 ghz 1 GB Ram win 2000 pro 305 sec AMD-XP 1.8 GHz 512 Mb RAM Win2K-Pro 308 sec AMD 1.4Ghz 1GB RAM, Win2K 355 seconds P4 1.4 - 1GB RDRAM - WinXP 396 seconds AMD 1.67 Ghz 256 Mb RAM WinXP home 600 sec

Mac /G4 /1.4 GHz DP/1Gig RAM/OS10.2.6: 543 sec. Ouch! Thanks Jim, I was wondering how Mac P5 compared to the PC. Best; Dan

P4 2.20G 256 RAM WinXPHome 620 seconds

Rearranging the stats so far by processor and memory: AMD 1.4 ghz 1 gb win 2000 pro 234 sec AMD 1.4 ghz 1 GB Ram win 2000 pro 305 sec AMD 1.4Ghz 1GB RAM, Win2K 355 seconds AMD 1.67 Ghz 256 Mb RAM WinXP home 600 sec AMD-XP 1.8 GHz 512 Mb RAM Win2K-Pro 308 sec AMD 2.4Ghz 768Mb RAM WinXPhome 264 sec Athlon XP 2.4ghz 1gb RAM Win XP Home 242 secs AMD XP2800+ 1 GB RAM Windows 2000 Pro 192 sec [??] P4 1.4 - 1GB RDRAM - WinXP 396 seconds P4 2.20G 256 RAM WinXPHome 620 seconds P4 2.4 GHz. 1GB Ram Win XP Pro 250 Sec P4 2.4 Ghz 1 GHz Ram Win XP Home 236 Seconds p4 2.4 gh, 1.5 gb ram win xp home 258 seconds P4 2.53 Ghz 1 GB RAM win xp home 237sec P4 2.8ghz -512mb ram -WinXPhome -253 secs P4 2.8Ghz 1.5 Gb RAM XP Home 218 seconds P4 NB 3.06 GHz 1 GB RAM Windows 2000 Pro 211 sec P4 3Ghz 2GB RAM WinXP Pro 199 Seconds P4 2.8Ghz (3.09) - 1GB Ram Win2K 209 Sec. P Xeon 2x2.66GHz 2GB Ram WinXP Pro - 209 seconds Take a look at the P2.4 Ghz stats. Looks like there are some other contributing factors besides memory and processor speed. Interesting and very timely Jim. It will help me decide what P4 processor to buy. :)

I must be timing it wrong. I did not count the time for the setup, like loading texture maps, etc. I just timed it from when the image render box opened to when it closed. AMD 2.1g 1g ram (ddr) win2k sp4 193 seconds. If I include the time it takes to set it up, ie, the small render box that opens when you first hit ctr R, then its 266 seconds.

Oh, bloody hell. The rest of you think you have it bad?

AMD Athlon XP 2000+, 512MB RAM, Win98FE -- 865 seconds

That's it, I'm installing WinXP ...

... although increasing the bucket size to 128 brought my time down to 210 seconds. I never realized before, but that also speeds up shadow-map calculations. Which makes sense when I think about what that involves.

AMD XP 1800+(1.53ghz)/512meg Ram/WinXP Home---337seconds

Here's a real dog.... P3,733,512 ram,WIN98SE-1411 seconds (23 min 31 sec)ouch!!

Pentium 4 3.06GHz, 1 GB RAM, Windows 2000 Pro SP-4, 169 seconds This is an average done with 3 renderings.

AMD XP2000 512 Mb RAM, Win 2Kpro --- 259 secs

AMD 2.5 (Barton) 1gig Dual Channel nForce MB XP/Pro 241 sec

Possibly the lowest spec so far..... Pentium 3 500mhz 640mb ram Win2K 394 seconds Not bad really!

P4 1.9 Ghz 1.5 Gb Ram 310 Seconds.

So can someone explain bucket size to this computer layman. Maybe a new thread so as not to interfere with this one.

The time should be total, incidently, that is from when you click "Render" (or CTR-R) and until the "Rendering.." box goes away. Netherworks, is that how you did it? Your time seems pretty fast. ;-)

Jim, that's the time from hitting Ctrl-R to the end - I explicitly followed your instructions in the readme ;) Marks: Render 1- 9:11:00 to 9:13:44 - 164 seconds Render 2- 9:21:00 to 9:23:52 - 172 seconds Render 3- 9:25:00 to 9:27:50 - 170 seconds Average, rounding up: 169 seconds doing it one more time to be absolutely sure: Render started 10:52:00 (hit ctrl-R). At 10:52:52, it finished shadow map calculations and so forth and actually starting the rendering. At 10:54:52 render completed and the progress box disappeared. That's 172 seconds.

Attached Link: http://www.keindesign.de/stefan/poser/renderer.html

Using your second "Mohawk" version, I get a render time of 192secs. Shadow maps and adding objects takes approx the first 60 secs -- consistent with Netherworks' observations. Increasing the bucket size to 256 decreases the render time to 163secs. System specs -- P4 2.8Ghz 800Mhz FSB, 1Gb RAM, Abit IS-7 Motherboard, WinXP Pro, no overclock.

AMD 1.1GHz 1GB Ram Win2K 366 seconds (bucket size left at default) It's a 1GHz overclocked to 1.1, 100 bus overclocked to 133, SDRAM. There is clearly variation on AMD Win2K systems too. I'm one of those who's abandoned Loser5 due to its speed (across the baord not just rendering which I'd expected would be slow). I'd conjected that memory bus speeds might be significant, after all Poser hammers the memory subsystem something wild. Do those people with slower times than others with same CPU/amount of memory/OS also have slower memory? BTW, milamber has the right idea splitting AMD and P4 out separately. Intel P4 GHz'ises are weaklings compared with those of PIII and AMD. Matrox has done much analysis for their new digital video line, and rate a P4 1.8GHz as equvalent to a PIII 1GHz for pure CPU rendering times. So a 1 = 1.5 ratio of P4 to AMD GHz #'s seems reasonable (note that's AMD GHz not to be confused with their chip numbers - don't you love Prod Mktg guys ... ;-) lb

System: Dell Dimension XPS T600r CPU: PIII 850 RAM: 512 Meg Win98SE (all SPs) Time: 769 sec. No overclocking, nothing running in BG...well, an extrnal DVD player showing LOTR's Two Towers. we must go now, we must leave! we can hear my Precious calling! we have no friends here! Coming my Precioussss coming!!

P3 500mhz clocked to 933mhz, 512mb ram, XPHome - 480 sec. (8 minutes) Bucket size increased to 128 - 405 sec. (6 min. 45 sec.) Sad. ;)

AMD 1700+, its clock speed (no OC) is 1467 Mhz, 1 gig RAM, 278 sec with Opera and other tasks active.
When I have time I'll rerun it without other tasks active, no Zone Alarm, no internet connections and so on, and I'll repost my times (and I think we all have to do this).

Now some thoughts.

As far as I can see, the main speedup is the RAM, not the CPU (if you don't compare an AMD 1400 to a P4 3.06, obviusly...); from 2.0 Mhz up, rendertime with 1 or 2 gig RAM is consistent with minimal variations compared to the variations of the CPU speed.
Additionally, RDRAM isn't a greater speedup in respect to traditional DDR RAM, even if only one tester stated he had RDRAM (and he got one of the worst times in the 1.4 Mhz class...).
This means: if you can buy a P4 or a AMD 2.4 or 2.6 that costs 100 $, buy it against a P4 3.06 that costs 300+ $ (even 500 $ here, around 480 euro), you aren't going to lose so much speed in comparation to the much less money spent...same goes for RAM, don't buy the much more expensive RDRAM and chipset which support it, it's only a marketing issue :-)

And for the professionals who use highend 3D apps? Well, it's another story: 3DSMax and Lightwave, only to talk about these two, take great advantage from the fastest FSB of the new P4s, and if you can afford a dual CPU system go for it, according to what I've read these apps run almost 1.5-1.8 times faster than traditional single CPU systems...
Poser uses only 1 CPU though, so don't run to the next store if you are going to render a simple NVIATWAS :-DDD

The MACs, sorry to say that, are great for other jobs, but NEVER GOT A MAC FOR 3D RENDERING!!!
I have evidences that the biggest and powerful MAC is outraged by a simple 1.8 Mhz Intel CPU, you can see some threads at http://www.cgtalk.com (search for "Cinebench"): I'm speaking of triple or quadruple (and even greater) scores for a average Intel based CPU against a powerful MAC...check for yourself.
Apple is launching the next G5 generation of CPU, and the testers are stating it can outrun even the 3.06 P4; but the price tag is going to outrun the one of the highend P4 systems, too...
Please don't take this as a war flame Intel/MAC, I'm only reporting what I've read about.

Ciao, Luca

Ehr...my system is under Win2000 Pro :-) Ciao, Luca