Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 07 5:48 am)
Subject: let's go to BENCHMARK Poser 7 all of us !
- 1
- 2
i put a RAR version of the project here (17 Mb)
Then i just forgot to say that projet and benchmarl had been realized by http://renderfred.free.fr/
A new result (me again and for fun because my CPU have not 4 core, but i tried !!)
Render TIME | Nb of Core | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS
6m10s | 4 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits
About 2 minutes 10 seconds for me.
Intel QX6700 overclocked to 3GHz
8GB RAM
XP64
I should add, this is not a great scene to benchmark with; over half the time from start to finish was spent on loading textures, something that for animation, would only need to be done once. Only one light in the scene is casting shadows, 512x512 shadowmap. I think a more serious benchmark would include reflection/refraction and AO to exaggerate the differences between machines.
thanks all, so now we have :
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2m10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
3m | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
5m50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
8m26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
let'sq go on !
noone else ?
Render TIME | Nb of Thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS
5m 40 s | 4 | AMD X2 5200+ | 2 x 2.61 GHZ | 4GB | Vista 64 bits
I also found about 1/2 the time was taken by loading textures
The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of
it alive.
Robert A. Heinlein
11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-11900K @ 3.50GHz 3.50 GHz
64.0 GB (63.9 GB usable)
Geforce RTX 3060 12 GB
Windows 11 Pro
Now :
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2m10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
3m | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3m08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3m21s | 8 | 2x Opteron285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3m56s | 2 | E6400 | 2320ov | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
5m 40 s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5m50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6m31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
8m26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
Quote - About 2 minutes 10 seconds for me.
Intel QX6700 overclocked to 3GHz
8GB RAM
XP64I should add, this is not a great scene to benchmark with; over half the time from start to finish was spent on loading textures, something that for animation, would only need to be done once. Only one light in the scene is casting shadows, 512x512 shadowmap. I think a more serious benchmark would include reflection/refraction and AO to exaggerate the differences between machines.
Are you using the stock intel cpu fan that comes with the processor?
No, I have a Zalman CNPS9700:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118019
In addition to being an uber cooler, it is vewy vewy quiet, ideal for hunting wabbits. Typically the CPU fan is the biggest source of noise, and the included Intel cooling fan is noisy garbage.
Quote - How'd that guy set his threads to 8 ?
He didn't, OP inaccurately transcribed some of the information from Louguet's web page:
http://renderfred.free.fr/p7benchmark.html
So, here we are :
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | vista 64 | adom
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 8 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"56s | 2 | E6400 | 2320ov | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
8m26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
thanks again for continue ! don't hesitate to tell your friends !
You still have Louguet's benchmark transcribed wrong.
3"21s | 8 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
The Opteron is a 2-core processor, and at any rate Poser 7 can only work in 4 threads, not 8.
oups! thanks for the mistake noticed !
So, here we are :
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | vista 64 | adom
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"56s | 2 | E6400 | 2320ov | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
8m26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
People you know, i have the hight frequency cpu amongst this playlist (3.6 GHz), and i have the almost worst render time too !
This results are very meanfull for me ! i understand the L2 cache memory is more important than the frequency and (maybe) more important than the number of cores.
The little E6400 render more quickly than my D960 with less frequency, same core, but more L2cache memory.
Now i know, if i will have a Q6600 cpu, i will gain twice time in my works. Last august i bought my CPU 150€. Now the hightest cpu is, QX96500 and its cost is 830€. And i'm pretty sure with it, i won't gain 6x time (it is 6x more expansive than my cpu).
I really wonder what will be the results on XEON cpu...Does anybody know someone who could perform benchmark?
So, i really wonder how and when i could really perform Poser7 without waiting some long nights rendering...
You can see my first tries there http://www.dailymotion.com/mike_amiens_usa
All my video are full of little weaks but i 'm tired to re-render them : too long....
So...i hope another results will be come here!
ps : sorry for my expression syntaxe error, i 'm not english, even not american, just French.
Content Advisory! This message contains nudity
Quote - People you know, i have the hight frequency cpu amongst this playlist (3.6 GHz), and i have the almost worst render time too !
Well it's mainly cause the Pentium line is really old and Intel fixed most of it's mistakes with Core 2. Cache helps yes but the Core 2 was built from the ground up to be an AMD killer, which is also why the Q6600 is the best bang for the buck CPU you can buy (it was meant to kill AMD's Phenom) Xeons are great performers, but probably overkill for Poser.
Also you have to realize that it's not your CPU thats holding you back here, as much as firefly and poser's crappy way of handling textures. Like pjz99 said earlier, more then half the time in this scene is taken by poser loading textures, calculating shadow etc. The rendering itself takes like 30 sec on 4 threads.
To give you a comparison with what a good renderer can do, this also renders in under 3 mins (on mentalray):
That pic has a 100 apollos, all with SSS, GI, IBL, soft reflections etc. ie sometimes hardware is just not enough and you have to change your software as well.
cool
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"56s | 2 | E6400 | 2320ov | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
thanks all again.
now i'm pretty sur which CPU i need now !
I hope you're not leaning towards the QX6700; currently it is the worst deal in terms of price/performance ratio.
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz: $254US (best deal)
Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz: $540US (semi-bad deal)
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz: $985US **(worst deal!)
**Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.0GHz: $980US (bad deal)
etc... The reason I bought a QX6700 was when I purchased, about a year ago, it was the only choice for a quad core processor; today, the Q6600 is a tremendously better purchase in terms of price/performance.
IMO like pjz99 said, a true test of rendering speed should include something like a room with several basic objects in a cluster, all with AO, raytracing and using IBL, with production quality render settings.
most machines fly through simple renders, and a 1-2 minute difference is not as significant here. if so much time is being wasted just loading textures, simple factors like drive read speed or fragmentation could have more significant an impact on the render than the actual processing power.
with a hefty scene youll start seeing overheating, pagefile usage, out of memory errors, etc. this would be, IMO, a better indicator for people deciding on what computer to buy. judging by the machines and rendertimes i could probably render this scene on a 500mhz P3. you need a scene that brings more performance factors into play.
Blackhearted, i'm pretty sure you're right.
i just felt on this projet, with some already result. so i forward it here.
at least, it's a samll kind of reference for beginner project in poser.
i'd be glad if someone (what about you) could build a projet with standart objects of Poser 7 sr2.1 (no addon, no daz3d addon, .no renderosity addon), just what is in the poser7 package.
Content Advisory! This message contains nudity
Like pjz99, I built my machine 10 months ago and the only quad available was the QX6700. But
if I were going to built today, I'd go for the QX9650. Only because it's a 45nm architecture chip,
and the extreme chips are unlocked (better for overclocking). Now if money was an issue, I'd
wait for the regular quads to come out with the 45nm, these 65nm chips run hot, way HOT. But
all in all, I'm very happy with what I have now. Haven't been able to bring it to it's knees yet. And I
love loading up scenes. 8-)
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
I've been meaning to try this on my desktop and notebook for a while. Here are the results for my notebook (Dell D830) and i'll do my desktop in the next couple of days too. The results so far look interesting ...
4'43" - 2 threads (one HT) - Mobile Core 2 Duo T7700 - 2400Mhz - 4 Gig RAM - XP Pro 32-bit
6'03" - 1 thread - Mobile Core 2 Duo T7700 - 2400 Mhz - 4 Gig RAM XP Pro 32-bit
UA
64-bit operating system has little effect on render speed (possibly can make it a very small bit slower, on the order of 1-3% from what I remember of Louguet's info). Since Poser is currently only available in 32-bit versions, this is not a big benefit, but I've found it does improve memory usage problems. On the other hand if you use other apps that ARE written in 64-bit instructions, you basically never have an app crash because it ran out of memory. I have 8GB of memory, and I remember one instance in Cinema4D (64-bit) where I converted a complicated dynamic hair setup to polygons - many, many millions of polygons. And then I rendered it. The process took up 20gb of memory (RAM + virtual), but it did not crash. A couple of times Windows complained that it needed to enlarge the swap file, but the render just went right on and eventually completed normally. I was very impressed.
I use Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition and recommend it. Some people are very happy with Vista 64, but while I have heard many complaints of application compatibility under Vista 64 I have heard virtually none about XP Pro 64. All of my apps work VERY well.
I strongly recommend that you do not cut any corners on processor, motherboard, or video card, all three items are heavily used in 3D regardless of application. I think an 8xxx series Nvidia card is the safest and fastest option for video. Good luck!
There's a little caveat with XP Pro 64 bit. Driver support. I recently build another Q6600 system, and no matter what I tried, I couldn't get the mainboard at full functionality under XP Pro 64 bit, and Poser proved to be unstable in the XP 64 setup.
Switched to Vista 64 bit, and now the mainboard is fully functional and Poser is stable (in general).
My other Q6600 setup, which is a year older, runs stable on XP Pro 64 bit.
Funny thing is that there is quite a speed difference between the two systems, using the same CPU, not overclocked. The newer system is significantly faster.
It might have to do with the RAM (the older system runs at 667, the newer at 800), or with the chipset (both systems have a P965 chipset, but different southbridge chips). The disks in the "old" system should be faster than the disks in the "new" system.
I'm not taking OpenGL performance into account. The "old" system has a 7800GTX graphics card - no slouch, but not as fast as the 8800GT in the new system.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
BIOS and chipset have a huge impact on overall speed. Not knowing which chipsets or BIOS you have it's hard to say but you may want to investigate that. I can recall some cases where people updated their BIOS and saw a noticeable performance bump. There is also stuff like the PCI Express speed problems as Gareee posted about in this thread:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2734605
Quote - > Quote - People you know, i have the hight frequency cpu amongst this playlist (3.6 GHz), and i have the almost worst render time too !
Well it's mainly cause the Pentium line is really old and Intel fixed most of it's mistakes with Core 2. Cache helps yes but the Core 2 was built from the ground up to be an AMD killer, which is also why the Q6600 is the best bang for the buck CPU you can buy (it was meant to kill AMD's Phenom) Xeons are great performers, but probably overkill for Poser.
No Poser 7 here (oops), but I do agree w/ the above, and here's what happened: The Early Pentium series relied on a (IMHO crap) hardware architecture called NetBurst. Long/complex story short, Netburst introduced a shedload of internal latency in the CPU itself due to an excess of required stages that data had to sit through in there, which they tried to compensate against with insanely high clock speeds (they originally wanted to push things to 10GHz, but hit a brick wall w/ 4). Problem is, there still was enough lag that showed, especially against AMD chips coming out against it at the time. Intel decided they couldn't keep doing it w/ Netburst, so the went back to the philosophies of the late Pentium III line, and simplified things greatly with the Pentium M series (originally just their P4 laptop architecture - the "M" meaning "Mobile"). Pentium M put more emphasis on data-volume-per-cycle and in energy efficiency. The results of that are seen in the Core (and Viiv) series. Now at the time, AMD's Opteron was eating Intel's lunch. But Intel did do one thing that most corps are not normally willing to do - they stepped back, admitted their mistakes, and took a holistic approach towards not repeating them. When the Core line came out, it was pretty revolutionary. The emphasis was no longer on pumping up clock speeds, but a combination of two things: efficiency (in both power and data movement), and physically shrinking the distance that data has to travel. For instance, a 45nm process chip (45nm = 45 nanometer min. spacing between electrical traces on a chip) is half the size of a 90nm chip of the exact same design, so the data only has to travel (roughly) half as far in total, giving you some pretty amazing performance increases. Notice that it doesn't double the performance (for many reasons), but it contributes hugely towards increasing the speed at which a given instruction can be executed. The biggest reason Intel has been able to eat AMD's lunch recently has to do with the tech behind this shrinking tech. AMD is just now barely getting it on with 45nm chip fabrication (with troubles, as evidenced by the troubles in the Phenom line - the Opteron is 90nm still). Intel meanwhile has enjoyed selling 45nm tech for well over 18 months or so, and is just about to come out with 35nm tech. Of course, you can only shrink something so much, until electron leakage and existing fab tech hits a brick wall (let's face it 35 nanometers is barely enough room for some complex molecules). This is why multi-core application is getting so popular. And so it goes... :) HTH a little. /P (Disclaimer: I work in and around the semiconductor industry).
Ok, well here are the results from my desktop machine. They are quite a bit better than my notebook which isn't all that surprising even though my desktop has an older processor. I did find Poser very unstable when loading the test render PZ3 even though generally I have found it to be quite stable under XP 64-bit. I had to restart my desktop a few times because Poser would crash just afterloading the PZ3.
The most interesting thing was the fact that even though my desktop has a dual-core CPU, bumping the number of threads up to 4 improved the render time by 1 second. I have noticed that sometimes using 4 threads takes a bit longer to render but in this instance it saved me a whopping 1 second! :biggrin:
To keep things in perspective, my desktop has a SATA2 Seagate Baracuda hard drive running at 3GB/s bandwidth and my notebook still has a PATA hard drive.
04'41" - 1 thread - AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 6400+ Black Ed - 3200Mhz - 4Gig DDR2-800 - XP Pro 64-bit
03'07" - 2 threads - AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 6400+ Black Ed - 3200Mhz - 4Gig DDR2-800 - XP Pro 64-bit
03'06" - 4 threads - AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core 6400+ Black Ed - 3200Mhz - 4Gig DDR2-800 - XP Pro 64-bit
UA
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAnn
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAnn
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanArmitage
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanArmitage
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
thanks all again !
Running with 4 cores enabled:
4 threads: 1"13s
3 threads: 1"27s
2 threads: 1"51s
1 thread: 2"55s
Running with only 2 cores enabled:
4 threads: 1"39s
3 threads: 1"43s
2 threads: 1"50s
1 thread: 2"55s
Timed using the attached TimedRender python script, adapted from gwhicks TimedRenderCache script.
Remarkable results. The Q6600 is not the fastest CPU in the test, still the test results are the quickest by far. I suspect that the fact that Poser is installed on its own physical drive helps, and it confirms what has already been said: this test depends heavily on other factors than CPU, mainly on disk related factors.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Much of the reason for smaller difference is that this particular benchmark is not a great overall test - a great deal of the render job with this scene is preparing it for the renderer itself, loading objects and texture data, and it's all done in one thread (a great pity). Although it is good info, a more thorough benchmark would have things like reflection, AO, and the like - although Poser is still not very good at the multitasking business as I think we've discussed before, because render threads that finish early leave you with idle cores, and the work is not re-divided to make the idle cores busy again. Depending heavily on how the scene is laid out, e.g. if you have tons of reflection in the upper right corner of the frame, having multiple cores may not be a very big benefit there.
SVDL, very nice render times there! I had a Q6600 in my hands at the PC shop the other day, turning it over and over muttering something like 'my precioussssss!!!!!'. :biggrin:
The Q6600 seems to perform very well in this comparison. I agree though that the initial loading of textures and preparing for the render takes up a large chunk of the render times. On my AMD it was about 1'45" into the render that both cores kicked in and on my notebook it was closer to 3'00". The hard drive throughput is having a huge impact on that, as is memory timings IMHO.
UA
i tried twice with my pc. CPU=Q6600, 4GB RAM(but only 3 recognizable by my xp32bit OS). mhz=2.4
first trial - 4threads = 3:40 seconds(2 minutes + for texture loading:|! )
second trial - 4threads, seperate process - around 2:32 seconds(but maybe its cause its the second trail? i havent closed poser between thr trials :)
I hope more mobile CPU like T7700 will make the render test because i think about purchase one powerfull laptop only for render process (also i need a loptop too).
So i should go on my work on Desktop while rendering on the laptop.
Actually i think about X9000 or T9500 mobile CPU config , 4GB, OS64 and with fast HD and GeForce™ Go 8600M GT - 256 (alienware or Dell)...if anybody have one and poser on his laptop...please make the test !
update the list !
Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAnn
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAnn
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPark
2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunkyone
3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfred
3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreator
3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArmitage
4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanArmitage
5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanArmitage
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfred
7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
thanks all again !
well a bit disapointed with my bench mark...since I got a Q6600. a SLI 8800GTS (512 MB each one) 8 GB memory OCZ extreme- running XP 64 bits just clean from formatting about 2 hours ago (changed the board to a more suitable- 780i XFX >TriSliWay)
that same scene runs the render at it's..**for about 4 min.
Also tested the Cloth room with a V4 and Chinadress with 90 frames - took 13 min. Render it 4 min. What is wrong here? got a good hardware but results are not that good!
**Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
2"10s | 4 | QX6700 | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | **pjz99
**2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | **MungoPark
**2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | **xpac5896
**3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | **ghonma
**3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | **thefunkyone
**3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | **renderfred
**3"56s | 2 | E6400 | 2320ov | 2GB | XP 32 bits | **renderfred
**5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | **tastiger
**5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | **renderfred
**7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | **xpac5896
**8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
4" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64bits | softcris
"'you shut up! or I'll
bring democracy to your country! "
Cris
Galvão aka Softcris - www.crisgalvao.com
(or softcris,
SoftCris)
Rendering since 1997 and
at Renderosity since 1999.
OS
Win 8.1 64 bit
Are you certain you have Poser 7 set to use 4 threads? If so then I'd suspect your chipset, it shouldn't be THAT slow. I'm still not sold on SLI automagically speeding up OpenGL either, I've heard from far too many authoritative sources that it provides no benefit unless the app is specifically written for SLI, or can actually slow you down.
Note also, the Cloth Room is single threaded no matter what, so having multiple cores won't benefit you there.
- 1
- 2
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Attached Link: http://renderfred.free.fr/p7benchmark.html
hi !Because i though the render of one single picture is very slow on my computer, i'm searching a way to benchmark Poser with other people hardware configuration. In the end, i'd like to buy a new computer, but i need advice and result of yours!
The best way would be someone create a standard ,quick and preinstall project like this one for Blender : http://www.eofw.org/bench/
Also, we could compare our render time for a same singular project.
But i'm wondering too, how can we display the rendering time process ? i didn't find this display option in Poser7 menus....Maybe come one could code a python script who display time before, and run render, and redisplay time...
Thanks for help for building a benchmark project.
So, by the way, i found this way to benchmark us :
Download this poser project file renderfred.free.fr/P7B.7z
It is compressed in 7-zip format, Winrar can unpack it.
Run Poser 7
3 Load/open the project file P7B.PZ3
4 Adjust number of threads (ctrl+K)
5 Hit render and start chrono (or open and look at window tray clock)
6 Stop/look at chrono (at render box exit).
7 report your result here please !
Render TIME | Nb of Core | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS
5m50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits
8m26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits
Thanks for play and participate !