Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 25 12:38 pm)
Subject: let's go to BENCHMARK Poser 7 all of us !
- 1
- 2
softcris there was a new bios released at the end of March for the 780i, and new mother board
drivers are due out soon, if not already. Check you bios version on post, then go to the XFX site
and see what the latest is, and look for the MB drivers.
8-)
hello there!
yesterday when I posted here was already over mid night here...got out early to work so....
yes, guys; I have being since 6 PM till mid night w/ the technician installing the '780i' XFX in the machine.
Poser 7 sp 2. Sli enable.
All good but not higher speed.
Thanks for the support. I continue this in Hardware post under: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2735431&page=2#message_3210408
"'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
I improved the above figure of 75 seconds to 66 seconds by two simple tricks.
I first observed that Poser wants to write every texture it reads before it switches to the rendering engine into it's "PoserTextureCache" folder. In this case the amount of data written is around 1,1Gb (Poser writes ALL the texture data to .exr file format probably because FireFly wants it that way). Poser also behaves very stupidly in this ... if it encounters multiple instances of the same texture file (like in this case "KateShoes" and "KateShirt" etc, it just writes the file again ... and again... and again. That's why you may see some texture files disappear quickly from the "Loading textures" phase and some seem to stay there forever.
Okay. Writing 1,1Gb creates a small amount of i/o traffic. Not enough to choke i/o operations (at least on my system) since the actual process that writes the files is a single thread and even if the disks and busses could take more load, Poser just isn't pushing them to the limit. Nevertheless taking that into notice, I shaved a few seconds by pointing the texture cache to a RAM disk (actually a "tmpfs" filesystem in Linux, but I suppose it's a RAM disk in Windows). That pretty much eliminates any i/o overhead caused by writing the said 1,1Gb.
Next in the general preferences tab the default values for "Memory limit buffer" and "Adaption threshold" are not optimised for my system (I did a fresh P7 install just for this benchmark since I had already deleted most of the needed resources required by the pz3). So I went to the upper limit and put 2047 as the "Memory limit buffer" and "0" as the adaption threshold. With these two things ... over 10% total speed increase.
Normally I wouldn't want to use RAM as the renderer's texture cache because of the obscene file sizes of .exr images.
Quote - Poser also behaves very stupidly in this ... if it encounters multiple instances of the same texture file (like in this case "KateShoes" and "KateShirt" etc, it just writes the file again ... and again... and again.
Are those files dated in the future by any chance?
For managing the texture cache, Poser checks the file dates of the source textures and compares them to the files dates mip maps in the cache. This way it can react appropriately when files get changed in Photoshop between renders.
Quote - > Quote - Poser also behaves very stupidly in this ... if it encounters multiple instances of the same texture file (like in this case "KateShoes" and "KateShirt" etc, it just writes the file again ... and again... and again.
Are those files dated in the future by any chance?
For managing the texture cache, Poser checks the file dates of the source textures and compares them to the files dates mip maps in the cache. This way it can react appropriately when files get changed in Photoshop between renders.
That's very interesting.
The original files (Kate resource files) referenced by the pz3 are dated 13 of Nov. 2006 on my system so I can't see why that would be happening. Cause for further investigation as it really slows down this benchmark for me (clicking open some of my own pz3 files doesn't make this happen so it's an anomaly and not a norm).
thanks for all your remarks
i knonw that benchmark is not a reference, but it's the one ! And somewhere, it provides any idead of gain by CPU to another; at least a minimal expected performance if nobody did tweak his hardware before the test !
You know i own a pentium D960, i will purchase a core i7 (maybe i7 940 or 950). So by reading thi all your score, i guess i will gain x4.5 speed at leastn wheras in cinebench i will gain only x3, and in Blender x5 (http://www.eofw.org/bench/)
In my drawer, i have a compactflash-to-SATA adaptator and a 266x compact flash card. I forecast to build a speed SSD with this (for only 100€) to use for a system cache partition (where poser will be)
thanks again for all !
Quote - In my drawer, i have a compactflash-to-SATA adaptator and a 266x compact flash card. I forecast to build a speed SSD with this (for only 100€) to use for a system cache partition (where poser will be)
thanks again for all !
Flash cards are actually much slower then modern hard disks. Any recent HDD of 1+ TB with decent amount of cache can do a burst transfer of over 100MB/s and sustained of over 70MB/s Compared to this flash cards, even the 266x can do only 10-15MB/s max.
IMO you'd be much better off getting a WD caviar 1TB or something like that, which will cost you about the same 100€ and will give you a lot more space to play with.
What can throw the results off is if you render twice without quitting Poser as it appears you now have the textures in cache
MacOSX 10.5.6, Quad Core Intel Xeon 3 ghz, 16 gigs of 667DDR2 Ram, 8 cores, PoserPro, 4 threads, render as a separate process checked.
First render in background 2:03
Second Render Internal 1:01 (did not quit between renders)
Third Render again in Background 0:58 (did not quit between renders)
Quit and restart Poser
Fourth Render Internal 2:21
Fifth Render again in Background 0:58 (did not quit between renders)
After a fresh launch of Poser, it takes about half the Render time just loading the textures.
Gary
"Those who lose themselves in a passion lose less than those who lose their passion"
Quote -
In my drawer, i have a compactflash-to-SATA adaptator and a 266x compact flash card. I forecast to build a speed SSD with this (for only 100€) to use for a system cache partition (where poser will be)
I would advise against it. Not only flash cards are slow to write to, they have a limited amount of write cycles per memory cell and have no wear-levelling, no write buffers, no read caches etc.
Then again if you're going for a real SSD, THAT I would say will get you get nice big boost - for a pricetag. My experiments with a OCZ 60Gb SSD housing Poser are showing a huge impact on loading times. But I also put caches to a 10000rpm disk since SSD writes don't give the same benefits for writing as they do for reading and also this way also the system doesn't have to read and write the same disk at the same time. While my WD Velociraptor is THE fastest HD I've yet to encounter (for home use, that is), it loses to my SSD in every possible measurement I've made (the most important being a real-time analysis of disk activity during actual Poser use).
Quote - well, i guess i need this solution :
LoL!
In that video they did a defrag on the SSDs... that's just stupid.
Defragmentation is pretty much meaningless when SSDs are concerned and defragging the disk can be even downright harmful - certainly it doesn't give any benefits.
i update the records :
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"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
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
well ! i you can see ! it is plenty not a good test , neither a good benchmark !
i didn't say that because i have a huge hardware (red line) and i am not be on the top of the list.
Everybody said that !
It would be good to have a real benchmark for poser like cinebench10 is for c4d !
A benchmark which can handle 8 threads and compiled in 64bits natively (will it be poser pro 2010 ?)
well , let's see now with poser 8, i'm installing it on the same hardware.
i updated again the records :
what did it change ?
i add new columns for poser version (V), and for the number of the successive render (T).
As the scene file can run in both poser 7 and 8 (maybe poser pro ?), it is very usefull to compare.
As the first render (directly after the scene loading) is longer than the second (due to hard drive read and caching), it is important to know when the render had been done.
in my case (usamike), the first loading of the scene takes 1min before render and light computing. And in the second render, the hard drive didn't run (led is off) so i gess all the texture are been loaded from the memory cache (6 MB is enough to hangle the complete scene and its textures).
That's why in the previous result, the time render vas very curious (very longer than a q6600)
And known, on the same machine i have poser 7 and poser8 trial, and i can have an idea of the factor of render improvement :
seoncd render :
p7 : 47s
p8 : 33s
first render : (same time of hard drive loading, it is stranged..)
p7 : 2"01s
p8 : 1"33s
so at last, with 4 more threads (p8 uses my 8 threads where p7 uses 4), poser 8 renderfirefly is x1.42 quicker than poser 7.
i post there the render image in poser7 and poser8 to be sure it is the same in my eyes.
i looked it very closer, i didn't see any obvious differences except the size of the files.
poser7
poser8
if someone have a picture tool to compare it pixel by pixel, it can be usefull but it is enought for my eyes !
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
**8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike **
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
updated by ricky1:
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 02:00 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
8 | 1 | 03:45 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
Hello,
just stumbled over this thread. Here's some data from my PC. I don't have Poser 7 installed any more, so I used P for PoserPro, and 2 for PoserPro 2010.
The data shows how much better the renderer now is, apart from that my system seems to be much slower than comparable boxes. I use standard memory timings, maybe that's the problem.
2 | 2 | 0"37s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
8 | 2 | 2"06s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 2 | 5"20s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
2 | 1 | 1"55s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
8 | 1 | 2"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 1 | 5"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
Best regards,
Michael
thanks you !
i have poser pro 2010 too, i will make the test next week too.
here now, the list :
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 2 | 0"37s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"55s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 02:00 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
8 | 2 | 2"06s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8 | 1 | 2"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
8 | 1 | 03:45 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
P | 2 | 5"20s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 1 | 5"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
Quote - Hello, Just ran the test for you...
- Poser Version : 2012 pro 64bit
- Render time : 0 minutes and 20 seconds
- CPU : i7-2820QM
- Threads : 8
- MHz : 2.30
- RAM : 8GB + 3GB Video
- OS : Windows 7 Ultimate
- User : Lost Alien
Hope that helps
LA
you score is wrong because poser2012 miss several texture of the g2 model.
you might had error message while loading p7b file.
i miss this :
G2Casual-TennisShoes
G2Casual-T-shirt
G2Casual-CasualPants
G2_Pants
G2_T_shirt
G2_Tennis_Shoes
so, 2 models (of 4) are nude, without clothes textures. Then the render is obviously faster !
i have to find out where these texture are gone ?
Glad to give some info too. Scene downloaded, unpacked and run, no flaws.
Score: 14-15 seconds to render, either internal or as external process (consistent over 6 runs).
When rendering external, shadow maps have to be calculated first unless re-used from an earlier run (check the menu option), this adds 5 to 10 sec and seems to be a 1-thread process. When rendering internally, things seem to be slightly different (= much faster).
When rendering the first time textures have to be found, this takes 40-50 sec additionally. Its a 1-thread process whether you render internally or externally. Speed depends on the size of the Poser Runtime folders which have to be searched, mine are 45-50Gb, the default Poser one is about 10% of this. The search result is stored in a Temp folder, so the search has to be redone only when this is cleared between scenes or Poser launches or - as in my case - machine reboots.
Specs:
win7 Pro Sp1 64-bit, PPro 2010 64-bit, CPU: i990X @4GHz (6 cores, 12 threads), RAM: 24Gb incl 4Gb Ram-disk for Temp, C: on SSD (program only, no data), Data on 9x2Tb disk unit, nVidia GTX560Ti OC/1Gb.
Indirect Lighting anyone? I just checked the box in Render Settings.
4.5 min (=270 sec) preparation, 95 sec rendering = 365 total. That's say 25 times as long compared to No IDL. No additional memory required. CPU temp ramped up to 75C = 170F (Idle=45*C). This is fun. Note that using LuxRender might need 30 mins to get a full blown photoreal result (well, not for this scene I guess), which is again 5 times longer.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
Quote - Glad to give some info too. Scene downloaded, unpacked and run, no flaws. Score: 14-15 seconds to render, either internal or as external process (consistent over 6 runs).(...)
Specs:
win7 Pro Sp1 64-bit, PPro 2010 64-bit, CPU: i990X @4GHz (6 cores, 12 threads), RAM: 24Gb incl 4Gb Ram-disk for Temp, C: on SSD (program only, no data), Data on 9x2Tb disk unit, nVidia GTX560Ti OC/1Gb.
so, according to your specs, i guess you use poser pro 2010 (not 2012) to run the test. that's explan why you did not have the miss texture file problem.
And for the record, with your i990X @4GHz and 12 threads and SSD configuration, you reached a x2 factor faster than my cpu (i7-975 3.3Ghz and 8 thread and hard drive). What is pretty much not bad at all !
yeah, PPro2010 was mentioned in the specs.
And indeed: (12 threads * 4GHz) / (8 threads * 3.3Ghz) = 180%. Disks don't do much in this scene, and if any: Ram-disk beats all. Its simply a matter of horsepower. I guess UsaMike is aware of this (by now).
In reverse: my 14 sec * 180% = 25.2 which is 5 sec above your 20, hence PPro2012 might be 20% faster when taking the HW-factor out. Nice to know. I'm curious what they did to the IDL handling, perhaps you can give it a try. Total prep+render should take my 365 sec * 180% HW-factor * 80% PPro2012-factor = 525 sec.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
updated on 26 february 2012
For whom wants to redo the test, i remember links (with textures fixed):
for poser pro 2012 only users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/pro2012.zip
for poser pro 2010 users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/pro2010.zip
for other poser (7,8 maybe 6) users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/poser7.zip
legend :
v (version) :
2 : poser pro 2012
0 : poser pro 2010
8 : poser 8
7 : poser 7
p : poser pro (release before the 2010 one)
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
0 | ? | 0"14s | 12 | Ci7-990X | 4000 | 24GB | W7 64 bits | Artbee (poser p2010 and SSD)
2 | ? | 0"20s | 8 | Ci7-2820QM | 2300 | 8GB | W7 64 bits | Lost Alien (maybe missing texture)
2 | 2 | 0"22s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"11s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
0 | 2 | 0"25s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
0 | 1 | 1"15s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 2 | 0"37s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"55s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 02:00 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
8 | 2 | 2"06s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8 | 1 | 2"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
8 | 1 | 03:45 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
P | 2 | 5"20s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 1 | 5"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
AMD Phenom X6, 3200 MHz, 16 GB, 6 threads Poser Pro 2012; 1' 37"
For this to be a true CPU benchmark, rather than a disk benchmark, one should hit Cancel after it starts rendering, so the textures remain loaded in RAM, and then rerender. Doing that, I got 38 seconds. Going from a 64 pixel to 128 pixel bucket size cut off 0.3 seconds... 
EDIT Switching light 2 to Raytraced shadows cut it down to 28 seconds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home
Oops; too late to edit.
I inadvertently turned shadows off above 
It took 1' 2" with raytraced shadows...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home
T=2 in my case (0'14"). The T=1 case takes about 50"longer, and therefor reads 1'04"
@WandW: dont press cancel, just finish the initial render. Your T=1 was 1'37" while T=2 lasted 0'38". Values make perfect sense.
The observation on raytraced shadows is interesting, as compared to shadow maps: better=faster in this case.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
so better = slower still. That's a relief.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
Unzipped obz"s
Config i7 970 w 24G ram
Poser 7 T2 render 1:43
Pro 2012 T2 render 0:24
A word is not the same with one writer as with another. One tears it from his guts. The other pulls it out of his overcoat pocket
Charles Péguy
Heat and animosity, contest and conflict, may sharpen the wits, although they rarely do;they never strengthen the understanding, clear the perspicacity, guide the judgment, or improve the heart
Walter Savage Landor
So is that TTFN or TANSTAAFL?
Your image is very amusing. No P7 so I cant join the race!
Quote - 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-)
Michael,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I believe my results are sound and are valid for the following reasons:
-
I use all the poser libraries from several previous versions of poser as well as 2012
-
I had no error or warning messages
-
All characters in the scene were skinned and the render was complete
-
The scene looked good to me
-
I have been using poser for over 12 years and am very familiar with the product
-
I have just opened Poser, added both male and female G2 tennis shoes
This worked without issue and rendered perfectly... See attached image.
If you are having issues with missing components and have legitimate copies of previous versions of Poser, I would suggest using your backups to restore your runtimes and include them in the list of libraries.
If you don't have backups available, install the earlier versions on another computer, create a backup of the Runtime then deinstall poser on that computer.
You will need to do this for each version.
Do not leave Poser installed on another computer unless you are licensed to do so.
If you do not have another computer available, you could try the following (at your own risk):
-
Take a backup
Full image if possible or copy the poser folder to another location. -
Remove Poser 2012
This will be restored as it is in step 8 below. -
Install earliest version of poser that you have
This will create the runtime folders with the missing content. -
Make a copy of the runtime in another location
This is done so that you can use them once Poser 2012 is restored. -
Remove this old version of Poser
Do this by using the uninstall, do not just delete the folder. -
Repeat steps 3 to 5 for all your versions
This will result in all runtimes being restored and saved.
-
Reinstall Poser 2012
This will be a "Vanilla" build of Poser 2012 -
Overwrite the new Poser 2012 folder with the one taken in step 1 above
This will restore your poser folder to how it was when you removed it... -
You should now be back to where you started but with all your runtimes
Add them to your library list in poser.
Note that I have not performed these steps as I use my backups. If you undertake these actions, you do so at your own risk. This is, in my opinion, a valid way to do this although you might want to check with SmithMicro to see if it would cause any issues or if they have a better solution.
You mentioned that the following files were missing:
- G2Casual-TennisShoes
- G2Casual-T-shirt
- G2Casual-CasualPants
- G2_Pants
- G2_T_shirt
- G2_Tennis_Shoes
On my computer, these are currently in my Poser 7 libraries so, unless I moved them from somewhere else, I assume that these came with Poser 7? Not sure, don't really care - They are there.
I have 5 libraries in my version of Poser 2012 - 3 are from earlier versions of poser (Poser 7, Poser 2010 and Poser 2012) and the others I created myself to keep my own content separate.
Having multiple libraries is a great feature of Poser.
Thank you for your concern.
I hope that this helps you.
LA
If you point the request for the shoes' obj to the clothing for Simon and the pants to Sydney clothing (both under libraries/props) and select the appropriate obz, it will load fine.
One additional note; I have a scene with a lot of transparency and an SSS skin texture. In PP2012 with my Phenom X6 at 3200 MHz it rendered in 57' 35". Bumping it up to 3500 MHz cut the render time to 54' 2", which is about a 5% decrease in render time for a 10% increase in processor speed.
Max CPU temperature was 52 C at the higher speed, as compared to 46 C at stock speed...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home
@WandW
-
did the CPU ran at full 100% in both cases? Memory should have matching speeds too.
-
you can check the real net clock speeds with TMonitor from cpuid.com (freebie).
Thanks to Turbo Boost Technology, clock speeds are dynamic and temp dependant. So if your 3200-setup actually ran at 3400, and your 3500 setup could make 3600, then that's just a 5% diff. Or: overclocking requires over-cooling to get the real benefits out. Although your 52C is quite low, actually. PhenomX6 is quite nice.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
When Poser renders, it uses all 6 cores at 100% of the base CPU clock speed. Turbo Boost doesn't kick in because all of the cores are being used.
At 3500 I'm running at 1.32 Volts at full load, compared to 1.26 V at 3200.
EDIT I should add that I could overclock the bus as well, but since it is an unlocked chip It's simpler to tweak the multiplier...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home
Individual threads however perform different, turbo off make most (!) of them run at 3464.5 (next image), but with turbo on none (!) of them made the full 4GHz (image after that). I am loosing some 4% there.
So, run TMonitor with the -T option (threads), and find out if your 3500-setting really delivers.
I'll stop this now, as we are sort of sidetracking this forum thread.
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
- - - - -
Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.
visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though
I have Turbo mode disabled at 3500. I looked at the CPU utilization with AMD Overdrive, and its charts look much like yours. The difference could be memory timing related, as 3200 is a multiple of the 800 MHz memory speed...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home
updated on 20 september 2015 since i update my configuration hardware, i redo this old test (not perfect, but the only poser benchmark on the internet!)
Please post your result with this form to help me tu update the tab array
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User & small comment
4 | 2 | 0"11s | 12 | Ci7-980X | 3300 | 12GB | W7 64 bits | usamike (poser p2014 and SSD evo850)
it is awsome to see that poser pro 14 make my render quicker than the higher cpu (i7 990x) with older poser pro release (pp2012)
For whom wants to redo the test, i remember links (with textures fixed):
for poser pro 2012 and 2014 only users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/pro2012.zip
for poser pro 2010 users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/pro2010.zip
for other poser (7,8 maybe 6) users : http://www.michael-remy.fr/forum/poser7.zip
Legend :
v (poser version) :
4 : poser pro 2014
2 : poser pro 2012
0 : poser pro 2010
8 : poser 8
7 : poser 7
p : poser pro (release before the 2010 one)
And T means 1 or 2. When first render (load texture to disk) then it is 1, and when second render next, it is 2 (texture are already preload in memory)
Please post your result with this form to help me tu update the tab array
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User & small comment
4 | 2 | 0"11s | 12 | Ci7-980X | 3300 | 12GB | W7 64 bits | usamike (poser p2014 and SSD evo850)
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
4 | 2 | 0"11s | 12 | Ci7-980X | 3300 | 12GB | W7 64 bits | usamike (poser p2014 and SSD evo850)
0 | ? | 0"14s | 12 | Ci7-990X | 4000 | 24GB | W7 64 bits | Artbee (poser p2010 and SSD)
2 | ? | 0"20s | 8 | Ci7-2820QM | 2300 | 8GB | W7 64 bits | Lost Alien (maybe missing texture)
2 | 2 | 0"22s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
0 | 2 | 0"25s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 2 | 0"37s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
2 | 2 | 0"38s | 6 |Phenom X6 | 3200 | 16GB | XP 64 bits | WandW
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"11s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
0 | 1 | 1"15s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"37s | 6 |Phenom X6 | 3200 | 16GB | XP 64 bits | WandW
2 | 1 | 1"55s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 02:00 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
8 | 2 | 2"06s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8 | 1 | 2"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
8 | 1 | 03:45 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
P | 2 | 5"20s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 1 | 5"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
updated on 27 december 2017 since i update my configuration software, i will redo this old test (not perfect, but the only poser benchmark on the internet!)
Please post your results with this form to help me to update the tab array
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User & small comment 4 | 2 | 0"11s | 12 | Ci7-980X | 3300 | 12GB | W7 64 bits | usamike (poser p2014 and SSD evo850)
it is awsome to see that poser pro 14 make my render quicker than the higher cpu (i7 990x) with older poser pro release (pp2012)
For whom wants to redo the test, i remember links (with textures fixed):
for poser pro 2012 and 2014 only users : http://www.michaelremy.fr/pro2012.zip for poser pro 2010 users : http://www.michaelremy.fr/pro2010.zip for other poser (7,8 maybe 6) users : http://www.michaelremy.fr/poser7.zip
Legend :
v (poser version) :
11: Poser Pro 2011 4 : poser pro 2014 2 : poser pro 2012 0 : poser pro 2010 8 : poser 8 7 : poser 7 p : poser pro (release before the 2010 one)
And T means 1 or 2. When first render (load textures from hard drive) then it is 1, and when second render next, it is 2 (textures are already preload from memory or cached)
Please post your result with this form to help me tu update the tab array
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User & small comment
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
4 | 2 | 0"11s | 12 | Ci7-980X | 3300 | 12GB | W7 64 bits | usamike (poser p2014 and SSD evo850)
0 | ? | 0"14s | 12 | Ci7-990X | 4000 | 24GB | W7 64 bits | Artbee (poser p2010 and SSD)
2 | ? | 0"20s | 8 | Ci7-2820QM | 2300 | 8GB | W7 64 bits | Lost Alien (maybe missing texture)
2 | 2 | 0"22s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
0 | 2 | 0"25s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 0"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 2 | 0"37s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
2 | 2 | 0"38s | 6 |Phenom X6 | 3200 | 16GB | XP 64 bits | WandW
7 | 2 | 0"47s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"11s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 1"13s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | Vista64 bits | svdl
0 | 1 | 1"15s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 1 | 1"33s | 8 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
2 | 1 | 1"37s | 6 |Phenom X6 | 3200 | 16GB | XP 64 bits | WandW
2 | 1 | 1"55s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 1"57s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 1"58s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | ChippsyAn
7 | 1 | 2"01s | 4 | CI7-975 | 3300 | 6GB | W7 64 bits | usamike
8 | 2 | 02:00 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 2"07s | 4 | Q6600 (over) | 3200 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
8 | 2 | 2"06s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 2"10s | 4 | QX6700 (over) | 3000 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | pjz99
7 | ? | 2"11s | 4 | E6850 (over) | 3300 | 2GB | XP 32 | Dalroi27
7 | ? | 2" 11s | 4 | QX6700 | 2670 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Magoo
7 | ? | 2"15s | 4 | T7700 | 2400 | ???? | Vista 64 | adom
7 | ? | 2"23s | 2 | Q6600 | 2400 | 8GB | XP 64 bits |ChippsyAnn
7 | ? | 2"25s | 4 | Core2Extreme?? | 2800 | 2GB | MacOS | MungoPa
7 | ? | 2"46s | 3 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
8 | 1 | 2"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 3" | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | ghonma
7 | ? | 3"06s | 4 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"07s | 2 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 3"08s | 4 | E6600 | 2700 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | thefunky
7 | ? | 3"21s | 4 | 2x Opteron 285 | 2600 | 8GB | XP 64 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 3"40s | 4 | Q6600 | 2400 | 4GB | XP 32 bits | gsfcreato
8 | 1 | 03:45 | 2 | Athlon 64x2 | 3000 | 8Gb | w7 64 | Ricky1
7 | ? | 3"56s | 2 | E6400 (over) | 2320 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfre
7 | ? | 4"41s | 1 | AMD X2 6400+ | 3200 | 4GB | XP Pro 64 | UrbanArm
7 | ? | 4"43s | 2+HT | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
P | 2 | 5"20s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
P | 1 | 5"50s | 4 | Q9550 | 2800 | 4GB | XP 64 bits | Michael314
7 | ? | 5"40s | 4 | 2x AMD X2 5200+ | 2610 | 4GB | Vista 64 | tastiger
7 | ? | 5"50s | 2 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
7 | ? | 6"03s | 1 | T7700 | 2400 | 4GB | XP Pro 32-bit | UrbanAr
7 | ? | 6"31s | 1+HT | Pentium 4C | 3400 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | renderfr
7 | ? | 7"02s | 3+HT | P4 | 3200 | 2GB | XP 32 | xpac5896
7 | ? | 8"26s | 1 | Pentium D960 | 3600 | 2GB | XP 32 bits | usamike
V | T | Render TIME | thread | CPU | MHz | RAM | OS | User
11| 2 | 0"12.8s | 16 |Ryzen 7 1700 | 3000 | 16 gig | win10 pro | Bantha
11| 2 | 0"10.6s | 16 |Ryzen 7 1700 | 3800 | 16 gig | win10 pro | Bantha
I don't think that this scene is complex enough to get good results from a lot of cores.
A ship in port is safe;
but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing
Grace" Hopper
Avatar image of me done by Chidori.
- 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.
that's why i'm proud of my old architecture and high natural frequency cpu Pentium D960@3.6GHZ !
Because there is many many tasks to do on a desktop computer that are not multi-core/thread yet !