Ok, I've posted a new link in the backroom with a file you can download and try out for benchmarking. Post here with results. -Kix

Intel Pentium M 2.00 Gig with 1 Gig of RAM, C5Pro, 42 minutes, 36 seconds.

Athlon 64x2 4800+, 2Gb ram, C5Pro - 20 minutes 7 seconds

Intel P3-1000MHz 1GB PC133 RAM, Carrara Pro 5, 01:43:48.

C5Pro, 2 Intel Dual core 830s (3.0 GHz) network render: 00:18:26 (wanted to see if 2 of these could match 1 Athlon 4800+ X2s).

Message edited on: 01/28/2006 22:48

Why the huge render for benchmarking?

Dual Opteron 275 @ 2442 MHz, 4 GB, C5Pro - 00:13:13.

Attached Link: http://renderfred.free.fr/benchmarks.html

By the way Kixum, I am going to create a new page for C5Pro in the benchmarks section of my site (see link above). I intended to do my own benchmark, but since you have already created one, why not use it ? Do you mind if I use your benchmark for this purpose (you will be credited of course) ? If you agree, I will use it but with a 800x600 resolution. I can host the file on my site too for everyone to download, and do a database like I did for CineBench 2003 and Vue benchmarks. And I can also run this on a renderfarm.

What do you think ?

Dual Xeon 3.2 MHz, 2GB, C5Pro 0:24:10

Actually the scene is a good one for benchmarking, as the objects/lighting exercise the CPUs FPU nicely. Huge? My typical final scene renders are 3000x2000 Pix.

Here's my results: P4 2.0 Ghz, 1Gb PC2100 RAM, C5Pro - 1:19:41 PIII Dual 600Mhz, 1Gb PC100 RAM, C5Pro - 1:44:41 Anyone knw if the speed of the RAM makes any difference to render times? Regards Tony

Memory bandwidth should have minimal effects on rendering speed as memory bus I/O is not great during a render. Also (to a point -- depending on actual .car file size), anything beyond 1 - 2 Gbyte of RAM will not help render speed. Tomshardware.com did an evaluation of memory vs render speed recently.

I have no problem if you want to use this benchmark somewhere else. The reason it's so large is to make it take a while for a machine to beat on it. I have full expectations of Carrara and hardware to get faster and I wanted this benchmark to last for a while. I also would expect that someday, screen resolutions would also get bigger and in that sense, it will also last longer. In essence, I have hopes that what I built would last for several years. That's why the resolution is so big but the scene is relatively simple. Feel free to distribute and share. Thanks for asking! -Kix

Hey LC where is that article...couldn't find it on site.

Here it is: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ram_do_you_really_need/

Actually I mislead you on that one a bit! The article was about having 2 GByte of RAM, vs. 512, or 1 GByte. The test for rendering was only part of the article.

3DS Max 7.0 rendering at 1600x1200:

2 GB : 142 sec
512 MB: 143 sec

There were no benefits from extra memory in this scenario.

Kixum,

I understand your reasons. However, the popularity of a benchmark is also measured by its ease of use and - unfortunately - the patience of its users :) A lot of people won't run the bench if it takes too long, and won't contribute results (which is the point for any benchmark). The fact that we, hardcore users, render images in much higher resolution is irrelevant : most people don't. That's why I will use it in 800x600, which is by the way a reasonable compromise, as it is close to video resolution used for non-HD animations.

And as for it's longevity, in my experience nothing really lasts that long in the software world :) When Carrara 6 goes out in maybe a year, the renderer will have changed, and the results probably won't be comparable to C5Pro results. So even if C6 read scenes from C5, we would have to rebuild a new database with C6 results. If, at this time, we feel that the render times are too fast (I really doubt that :), we can always increase the resolution.

Thanks. LC...will check it out. Interesting to see if a larger render would make a difference.That's pretty large unless your doing posters. Food for thought.

Hi here's my results of this 1280x1024 render. Athlon 64x2 4400+, 4Gb ram in dual channal , C5Pro5.03 - xp pro 20 minutes 58 seconds

OH yeh almost completly forgot the Athlon 64x2 4400+ is running at 2264 mhz

and one more thing xp pro 32 not 64 that's it really. I'm pretty sure that covers it.

Mac dual 1.8 G5, Mac OSX 10.4.4 C5Pro 48:31

Intel P4-2.26GHz 1GB 333 DDR RAM, Carrara Pro 5.05, 01:10:34.

Dual processors seem the way to go.

Athlon 64 3500+ / 2,2Ghz / 1GB /  Carrara Std / 42 Min 45 sec

Pentium 2.8 dual core, 2 gigs ddr2, GeForce 6800 PCI x, Carrara 5 Pro, XP Pro

34 min. 13 sec.

Pentium 2.8 dual core, 2 gigs ddr2, GeForce 6800 PCI x, Carrara  Pro 5.1, XP Pro

33 min. 29 sec.

Saw a 41 sec gain from 5.0 to 5.1

AMD 4600 Dual Core, 4 gigs ddr, GeForce 7950 GX2, Carrara Pro 5.1, XP Pro

19 min. 40 sec.

Network render of P2.8 x2 + AMD 4600 x2

13 min. 45 sec.

AMD 4800+ x2, 2GB, ATI 1900 XTX, winXP 64, C5 std. no OC, 19:35

Thought I would see how slow my notebook computer really was.
Dell Inspiron 600M Pentium M 1.4GH, 512 ram, ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 - 32MB: 
1:04:52

has anyone tried on a pentium D?:) specifically 2.8ghz?

just curious, thinking to buy 5 new nodes

Thought I'd give the Linux-CrossOver-Car 5 Std set-up a try:

AMD XP 2200 , 512Mb RAM , Gf3 Ti200, Car 5 Std running under Fedora 5, Crossover Office Std (trial)

01:02:18

I got 22:38 on a dual proc Opteron 248 2.2Ghz, 2Ghz RAM. I also have a lot of things running in the background so I could most likely tweek my machine to get better times.

I have 2 other machines that I use for testing net rendering but I have some other things to do right now. I'll post the results later today or tomorrow.

Those machines are:

Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4Ghz

Opteron 148 2.2Ghz

Both have 1Gb RAM and 1mb L2 but the 4000+ costs about $100 less. My testing shows that tey are comparable in their render times. No real advantage to using an Opteron in a single proc system.

2.1 GHz PowerPC G5, 1.5 GB of RAM, C5Pro, 55 minutes, 50 seconds.

2.0 ghz dual core Macbook Pro (running Windows) Carrara 5.1 Pro 2 gig of RAM

22 min 43.33 seconds

PowerBook G4 1.67 MHz, 1.5 GB DDR4200, Carrara 5.1 Pro, 1h17m36s

Now that C6 is out I'll bump this thread.

Intel Core Duo 1.86Ghz
2GB PC5300 RAM
Toshiba Laptop

Carrara 5 Pro - 29 min 45 sec
Carrara 6 Pro - 23 min 7 sec

Intel Quad Core 2.7GHz - 2GB RAM
00:12:20

Quote - Intel Quad Core 2.7GHz - 2GB RAM
00:12:20

Was that 5 or 6?

Quote - > Quote - Intel Quad Core 2.7GHz - 2GB RAM

00:12:20

Was that 5 or 6?

 
5

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Intel Quad Core 2.7GHz - 2GB RAM

00:12:20

Was that 5 or 6?

 
5

 
00:15:00 for C6 
that's an 18% increase in render time between the two

It was rendered using C5 on a  1.7 ghz Mobile Centrino labtop with 512 mb of memory hooked up to a .060 khz USB Aurora Paper Shredder.

I checked the Full raytracing and Light through Trans. Without those on it did the job in 55 minute and 30 seconds.

I'll do this again when my big giant adult computer comes back from the hospital.

Mac Pro 2 x 2.66ghz dual core intel xeon 4Gb ram C5pro Time: 13 min 24 seconds (Full raytracing / light through trasparency) David :)

AMD X2 5200 - 3Gb ram - C6 std

15:15 rendered as supplied, while playing WoW

Ran the benchmark on my laptop with C8.

Intel dual core 2.1 Gz (T6500)

38 minutes, 52 seconds (I would have thought this would have been much better with this considering that C8 boasts of improvements in rendering for transparencies.

This is also a file I will post in the free section.

Windows 7 64 bit
Intel i7 920
12GB of RAM

Ran as-is using C8 Pro 64 bit - 10 minutes, 20 seconds
This seemed very slow

Ran again as-is using C7 Pro (32 bit) - 4 minutes, 48 seconds

I am very surprised at the bog down when C8 was rendering the transparencies.

Guess I will load the 32 bit version of C8 Pro and see if there's any improvement.

Thanks for posting the benchmark file.

Out of curiosity I ran this on my current noobie renderfarm.

Carrara 6 Pro v6.2.1

3 x Intel Pentium 4 HT CPU @ 3.00Ghz / 512MB RAM
1 x Intel Pentium Dual CPU T2370 @ 1.73 Ghz / 2GB RAM
1 x Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.20 Ghz / 2GB RAM

Render Time: 7 Minutes, 28 Seconds.

Its funny a single i7 Processor can render in less time.

I figured I would also try network rendering using one additional PC.

Same setup as before (i7 / 12GB RAM) plus a
Windows XP Pro
AMD 2.99 Ghz / 2GB RAM

C7 Pro (32 bit) - 3 minutes, 58 seconds
Networking provided 2 additional threads

C8 Pro (64 bit) on the i7 PC and 32 bit render node on the AMD  PC - 10 minutes 24 seconds
Networking provided no additional threads.  Although the 2nd PC was showing as available it never changed to working,  I uninstalled / reinstalled the render node software twice with the same results.

I still need to load the 32 bit version of the C8 Pro application on the i7 PC to see if it's a 64 bit problem.

 Intel i7 860 @2.80GHz
8GB Ram
Win 7 Pro 64

In Carrara 8 Pro (64 bit) it took 11 mins 13 secs

In Carrara 7 Pro (32 bit) it took 5 mins 4 secs

Yep, something weird going on here.

Quad Core [Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @  2.50 GHZ]
8 GB RAM
Win 7 Pro 64 bit

Carrara 7 Pro (32 bit) took 8 minutes 10 seconds.

I loaded the benchmark file and rendered without making any changes other than verifying that C7 Pro checked the box for multi-threading/multi-processor.

I am definitely not going to upgrade to Carrara 8 Pro as DAZ seems to have kicked it out too early.  Also, I have not really used my version of Carrara 7 Pro enough to justify blindly upgrading.  

Ran the benchmark on my new computer.

17 min, 42 seconds.

All 8 "processes" show up!

Probably should include a little more information.

ASUS Laptop, I7-740 Quad Core CPU Hyperthreaded.  Windows 7 Home.  6 Gigs RAM.

I also had the time wrong, it/s 17 min, 14 secdonds.  When I first put this benchmark up for people to use, some people complained that it would take too long.  Turns out, it looks like it's just right.  With the faster machines and the additional heads that are coming available, this benchmark isn't tough enough!

Oh yeah, also forgot.  C8 Pro 64 bit.