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

O.K., here we go, download the Zip, read the instructions, open the PZ3 in Poser 5 and run it. Just stock P5 stuff in there (Judy and Don made the file too big, I had to use the Posette, BTW) NO CHEATING! The purpose of this is to compare various computer speeds in Poser 5, not to play one-ups-man-ship. Report your results to this thread, I'll tabulate every once in awile. To get it rolling: AMD 1.4Ghz 1GB RAM, Win2K 355 seconds

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? ;-)

Here is what it actually looks like, BTW, with the Posette and the Dork, I did squeeze P5 hair in, though, file is about 600K.

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

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

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. :)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

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

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

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

Dominique Digital Cats Media

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

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

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

There are a lot of things worse than dying, being afraid all the time would be one.

My Gallery

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

beryld, Stefan's site at the link posted explains all of the firefly options. A wealth of knowledge there.

.

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. ;)

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.

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

p4 2.4 w/1ghz pc333 2700ddr (2 512's) win2k pro sr4 p5sr3 with a whole bunch of stuff in the bg... kerio, aim, icq, printer,mouse,norton,soundmanager,freeRAM. time: 227seconds

Correction. I have RDRAM, not SDRAM. Sorry, I just spent the weekend upgrading my friend's computer, and I guess I had SDRAM on the brain. :-) And I think Lucstef is right, it's not worth it. It's just what came with the system.

I would agree that RDRAM isn't that great (at least for the extra cost). I got it because I bought my Pentium 4 machine around a month after P4's were launched and there was no DDR RAM option at the time and only two motherboards to choose from. If I were buying my computer today I certainly wouldn't get RDRAM.

P4 1.9Ghz, 2GB RDRAM, XP-Pro, P5SR3
time: 303 sec

One observation: If I render a second time in the same Poser session, render time will increase with more than 30 secs. Extra time seems to be spent between rendering the shadows and the actual rendering (new render window remains white). Is this specific to my system or do other people have the same experience?

Pentium 4, 2.0 GHz, 1.5 Gb RAM, W2000 Pro, P5 SR3 Time= 385 sec

Could a Python script be used to time how long a render takes place? If so, that would give a more accurate measurement than using a watch.

Athlon T-Bird 1.2Ghz, 1280MB RAM, WinXP Pro. Start time: 08:30.00 Finish time: 08:35.14 Total: 314secs Ram usage: 969MB free RAM at start of test. 561MB free at highest peak of rendering process.

P4 2.2 GHz 1 Gb RAM Win XP Home Time: 278 sec

Dual P4 1.7 Xeons 1 gig ram 100 meg HD, 50 free, last defragged 6 days ago (oops) Anti-Virus, Firewall, and three other apps running. 345 seconds. Just for kicks rendered again with the P4 renderer, all options on: 47 seconds. (of course the hair & reflection didn't come out). Reloaded the scene with the original render settings and replaced the dyanmic hair with Ziggy's Rockstar hair (closest thing I have to a mohawk). Render time was 225 seconds.

You can get to within a second using a watch by timing correctly. I hit the Render button at the "0" second on my watch, counting down the final ten seconds. I just counted minutes until the render neared completion. Then I counted seconds after that. So, I'd consider my time to be +/- 0.5 seconds. That's accurate enough for these magnitudes. :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Mac G4 800 MHz, OS X 10.2.6, 1,25 Gig RAM: 950 sec.

Well, just built a new system (the older's last choke was this test...), now I have a AMD 2600+ (real clock 2.083 Mhz), FSB333, memory bus 333 Mhz, and the old disks and peripherals and OS (with SP4).

Rendertime now is...210 secs!!!
I outperformed all the 2.8 CPUs minus one, and many P4 3.06!!!!!!!

Ok, the OS is clean now, but it isn't optimized yet; I have many tasks running, my systray is ten centimeters long :-DDD

I'm scratching my head trying to understand the means of that, I can only think about FSB and memory bus speed...
Time to try a clean render...stay tuned :)

OK, realized I could test my own theories on memory speed. I have a 100MHz AMD T-Bird, which I run at 133MHz. So I can adjust the memory bus speed from the BIOS - but only to be equal or faster than CPU speed, so I had to slow the chip back to 100MHz first. So I re-ran the tests at 3 combinations of CPU and memory bus speeds. Each was from a BIOS-level reboot, nothing else running except of course the necessary safe computing prophylactics! (The slight difference in CPU speed is closest I can get with chip multiplication factor with this BIOS.) All timing by stopwatch. 1.066GHz @ 133MHz, memory @ 133MHz, 1GB Ram, Win2K = 370 1.000GHz @ 100MHz, memory @ 133MHz, 1GB Ram, Win2K = 406 1.000GHz @ 100MHz, memory @ 100MHz, 1GB Ram, Win2K = 423 So with CPU at 100, and varying memory from 100 to 133 shows ~ 4% improvement. Whereas leaving the memory at 133 and adjusting CPU up from 100 to 133 shows a 10% improvement. So this would seem to NOT support the memory bus speed theory. Raw CPU - or FSB - speed has more than double the effect! Yeah, I know these are all slow speeds, but this should show up differences more clearly, as the increase is 33%.

My system is similar to Lucstef's XP2800+ Vs XP2600+, 2.13 GHz Vs 2.08 Ghz clock speed My system posted an average of 192 Sec vs 210 bye Luc's We both have the same FSB, assuming we both use the same amount of memory. The difference in time seems to support layingback's theory. JV

---

---

Software: Daz Studio 4.15,  Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM,  RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery  My Other Gallery 

I fooled with some settings on the file: Changed light properties from "depth shadow map" to "ray tracing" Changed bucket size from 32 to 256, changed texture filtering to 1.000, and enabled "remove backfacing polygons" and changed the texture size to 2048. p4 2.4 gh 1.5 gb ddr ram (266 mhz) win xp home render time went from 258 to 218 seconds

Yes, but bear in mind once you guys start changing things in Poser you aren't testing your computers any more, you are testing changes in Poser. wimvdb- I noticed that too, unlike Poser 4 which tends to get slightly faster on the second render. Does P5 access the drive at all during the render? (I can't tell as my HD light isn't connected yet.) I also noticed with the big bucket sizes P5 sometimes just sits there after the render is done, with the "rendering.." box still open, sometimes for 30 seconds or so. Sometimes it seems if you wiggle the mouse it will pop it out of this state. Weird.

Jim: The slowing down of the second render does not seem to have anything to do with drive access. It looks like it is doing some cleanup of the previous render before it actually opens the new render window. This is directly after loading textures, object and calculating shadows: it just sits there for 20-30 seconds and then opens the new render window. This might account for some of the differences in the timing for equivalent machines.

Pentium 4 3Ghz, FSB800, 1GB dual channel DDR400 SDRAM, WinXP Home: 176 seconds

Getting too difficult and complex to pull any valid information from this thread. Too many people are making a game out of it and 'tweaking' the file's settings, which in turn destroys any validity to what Jim Buton was setting out to find. Oh well, it was a good idea in the begining....

G4 Dual 1,25 Ghz, 1024 MB Ram, MacOS X 10.2.6, 613 seconds Interesting to compare... Holger

Drats, I'm a bit late to this thread. Anyways, Athlon XP 1.66Ghz, 640Mb SDRAM, Windows XP Pro: 305 seconds

It is STILL a good idea, igohigh, expecially when we can compare scores from very different specs (and if I recall correctly - just awoke... - there's no one spec similar to another).

Look at the last info from mountainmaster: he has the best specs stated until now, and has even one of the best score, so NOW I can say "CPU power AND memory bus speed does matter, and REAL Mhz among processors does matter".
Look, a 3.06 P4 can easily overrule all the AMDs, but AMDs are running at MUCH LESSER Mhz counts, and don't get so low scores.

Example: a 2.2 real Mhz AMD takes 192 secs to render this scene, when a P4 with 30% more Mhz takes 176 secs.
Is it worth the way more money spent on the P4, only to have 16 seconds less in this render???
Yes if you don't want only render power, no if you're a simple hobbyist who fire up Poser and play with DAZ's or Renderosity's toys, dreaming to be a photographer :-)
Well, this is only one of the miriads of conclusions that can be got.

But as we are talking of pure render speed, there's one other thing to keep in mind: the time for the final render is a small fraction of the time spent overall on the picture, unless you are an animator and you regularly make one hour lenght films (but I think at this time you aren't using a P4 and Poser, aren't you? ;-) ).
So, if you want render speed AND workflow, the 16 seconds for the first could be HOURS for the second...now it's up to you to decide how many budget to be allocated for your needs.

And this thread had convinced me that my last buy was a REAL bargain :-)))

CPU Type & speed (Overclock speed) , RAM amount, Operating system, RAM speed, AGP speed P4 2.4GHz (2.4GHz), 1.5GB, Windows 2000 Pro (patched with all latest patches except SR4), DDR (266), 4X (card maximum) 226 seconds to completion (rendering box vanished and render window has flashed white then back to render). Also running... Foreground apps: Outlook Express, Internet Exlorer (2 Renderosity pages), Windows explorer, Calculator (need math help, brain hurts) and CPU test readme. Background apps (that show up in ashtray): Sound Effects (default sound card utility) Atmoic Timesync MaxMem EXPERTool (default video card utility) CleanSweep Smart Sweep Cleansweep Internet Sweep Norton Internet Security (Enabled, natch) Norton Antivirus Local Area Connction status Clock (naturally!) A great deal of time was spent creating shadow maps - I can't help but think that faster RAM would have an impact.

igohigh- Gee, I was thinkinging the exact same thing! I'd like to complile all the results, only now I'm afraid now that some of them are tweeked, and not marked as such in the thread. I think, perhaps the results sould be averaged for each CPU anyway, maybe CPU and memory size (maybe "low" - less then 512, medium = 512Mb, high 1GB or more). Something like: P4 2.8Ghz High memory, average of 4 - 215 seconds P4 2.8GHz Med Memory, average of 2 - 221 seconds Any volunteers? ;-) I going to assume that stuff like 400 Hhz dual ported, DDR, Raid 0 and all that stuff doesn't really matter as a listed item, as "new" CPUs have it, old ones don't, nobody is building new P4 1Ghz machines, for example. So what I'm saying is while this stuff effects times, it is going to be reflected in the CPU it goes with, anyway.

P4 2.0Ghz 1.0Gb RAM WinXP Pro 321 secs Time improves to 258 secs with bucket size at 128

Jim - actualyl some CPU's will work with a variety of RAM speeds... it still might be worth noting them, perhaps. BTW obviously I didn't tweak MY setting for rendering - tho first 2 renders were interrupted by telephone calls so I only timed 3rd one correctly (and that's the timing I gave - which I've been reasonably proud of given all the otehr stuff I had running).

Jim, for your info, the 176 seconds from my previous post were straight out of the box. With the bucketsize tweaked to 128 I get: Pentium 4 3Ghz, FSB800, 1GB dual channel DDR400 SDRAM, WinXP Home: 147 seconds Wow! I love my new computer! :) Sorry, I know this is not a contest but just could not resist ;)

Attached Link: http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030812/index.html

Jim, I think it's starting to look like OS, CPU (speed/make) and then FSB (front side bus) speed, in that order - with 2 caveats: The overriding caveat is that any memory capacity of less than 512MB is going to put you in a hole no matter what. And the second caveat is that you have to have the memory speed/type to make use of that FSB speed. FSB speed might almost give you more gains than CPU speed, but of course any system with really fast FSB is going to be a new system with a very new and thus relatively fast CPU. Anyone got a P4 2.4 or 2.6 overclocked to 3/3.25 on a 1GHz FSB yet? Seems to be a sweet-spot configuration (see link above), but hard to do with a P4 3.0, as it'd be pushing 4GHz!

Dell Inspiron Laptop P4M 1.7GHz 1Gb RAM XP Pro 352secs

Mark

FSB must have much to do with it. Mine is only 533MHz FSB (with 2.66GHz cpu), giving 209 secs. mountainmaster, on the other hand, has 800MHz FSB (with 3GHz cpu) which cuts it down to 176 secs. His cpu/FSB combo gives about 5% (84% cpu ratio as compared 89% render time ratio) increase over cpu only. Hmmmm... Makes me wish I could have afforded a dual Xeon mobo with 800MHz FSB. :) Finally, my numbers are from the time I clicked Render until the actual image was displayed - no changing of Poser settings. I did try increasing Poser's priority, killing background apps, and so on, but there was no increase in performance.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

layingback- Yeah, I read that too, after I ordered the memory for my new computer (naturally!) I should have got faster memory, I've had a couple of lockups so I'm going to have to try standard speed again. Corsair (and maybe others) makes memory suitable for a 1000 Mhz FSB, my 2.8 would be running 3.5 at 25% overclocking, which might just fly.

Wish I could optimize the memory in my head... Anyway, my initial results were: P4 2.8(3.09)Ghz 1GB Ram Win2K 209 seconds I got a couple of lookups in Max, though, so I ended the 10% overclocking. However, I did play around with my DRAM settings, it turned out they were (in "auto") 4,4,8 CL 2.5, I changed that to 3,3,6 same CL, same burst length (8). New time is: P4 2.8Ghz 1GB Ram Win 2K 194 seconds, an 8% improvement that didn't cost anything. Hopefully, this will be stable (2,2,6 CL2 would be "radical", maybe I'll try that later if this seems O.K. after a week or so. Now to make some kind of a list from all these results!

Would't boot at 2,2,6 CL 2, Opps!!! (That answers that question, anyway!) I think we have enough results above to draw some conclusions, BTW, so except for Macs, please no more.

AMD MP 2400 X2 CPU FSB 266 1.5 gig DDR ECC PC2100 266 "in sync with FSB" out of zip render, no tweek, 3 render's AVG. 286 sec. +/- 5 seconds might help that my memory and bus speed are the same. 266 FSB is pretty narrow compared to 800 or 1000.

Dell, 1.7Ghtz, 1GB RDRAM, XP Professional: 357 seconds with several programs running. 344 seconds with everything shut down but Poser 5. (And being a moron, I forgot to save things before I closed out so there goes a few data files.) :(

Apple G4 (Silver Bullet for those who care) 867 MHz PPC, 1.5 G RAM, OS X 10.2.6 Poser 5: 980 seconds. this sucked. of course, my machine doesn't break the Gig barrier, BUT... when i increased the block size from whatever you had it at (i think it was 30) to 500, my render time improved to 654 seconds. not GREAT, but closer to reality.

Hey all :)

I thought I would put these times here, just as an FYI. I am running the CPU test on the new box we picked up to evaluate from some guys we know @ Maingear. I mention this because system speed has a lot of factors other than pure CPU.

Oh, and if this is one PC result to many, chalk it up to pride. Not only is this thing fast but it glows blue :)

Time:

Default Render time: 3:19 - that translates into 199 seconds - (avg of multiple runs)

Bucket size 128 Rendertime: 2:59 - that translates to 179 seconds (avg of multiple runs)

System:

CPU: P4 2.80G with HT

Memory: 1.0 gig "corsair" memory

OS: Windows XP, SP1, all updates applied. NO SPECIAL settings used. I run my system with all the UI "eye candy" turned on.

Resolution: 1600x1200x32 bits

Notes:

The system was not particularly clean, having been up for more than a week so there is some stuff running in the background.

Before hitting the render button, the system was using 388 meg of ram, during render it never paged to disk.

Poser only used 50% of my CPU during this render, as it is not HT aware. In effect I have a dual CPU system here and Poser couldn't use one of them. This may explain why background tasks and UI had no impact on speed.

Well beter later than never, Time: 296 seconds CPU: Athalon 2500 RAM: 1 gig PC2100 266 OS: W2k - SR4 Screen Res 1600x1200x32 bits Poser: 5 SR3

I got 171 seconds with a dual AMD Opteron 246 Dual Opteron 246 (2 ghz) 2 gb ram 400 gb drives (2 x 200 gb raid) WinXP pro

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end" - Margaret Thatcher 1989

Ooo with a bucket size of 64 it took just 154 seconds.

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end" - Margaret Thatcher 1989

erm and when it was 128 it dropped to 135 seconds Okay, I'll go get a life now :)

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end" - Margaret Thatcher 1989

Someone asked earlier, and was never responded to so I would like to ask again. What is Bucket Size? Unfamiliar with the term. Thanks!

Attached Link: http://www.keindesign.de/stefan

For that and just about any other question on P5 Renderer see www.keindesign.de/stefan.

Thanks layingback! Haven't seen that site before. Will definitely go check it out! Much appreciated! Mac

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=10139&Form.ShowMessage=2077843

update....

i built an 'optimal poser rig, Jan 05, on advice of excellent Renderosity thread linked above.

Benchmark 159 seconds.

::::: Opera :::::

Almost the same rig as Opera: - Athlon64 3500+ - 4 GB Transcend dual channel @166 Mhz (stability issues...) - MSI K8N Neo2 (nForce3 Platinum chipset) - 2x 73 GB WD Raptor RAID 0, 2x 160 GB Hitachi ATA133 RAID0 - GeForce6800LE 157 secs (+/- 2) Steven.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff

Tweaked my memory settings, now running at 200 Mhz: 148 secs (+/-2) Steven.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff