New Benchmark Draft for Comments

Started by Oshyan, September 17, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Oshyan

Hello everyone. At last we have a new benchmark (candidate) that does a better job of showcasing Terragen 3 features and stressing modern systems without being as imbalanced as the older benchmark was on multi-core machines. The scene features several elements from the Terragen 3 presets pack, including Ulco's arch, Jack Marsh's green cliffs displacement and texturing, and Volker's marble texture and fake stones setup, along with Matt's Mackerel Sky. So it's got a decent amount going on.

[attachimg=1]

What I'd like you guys to do for the next day or two is run the scene on your machines and record the times (hours, minutes, seconds) and just post a reply here with your bench time and CPU type/speed (Ghz). Don't worry about OS or amount of RAM, we'll be collecting more complete system specs on the final benchmark, and there will be a form to fill out to submit results along with a public table of results for comparison. But for now I just want to make sure the benchmark doesn't take too long (and isn't *too* quick either) on a sampling of machines that you guys have here. On my i7 2600k here it takes about 10 minutes, and on my 2.0Ghz i7 mobile (also quad core) it's about 15 minutes. The Benchmark TGD is attached, just download, open, and hit Render.

I just don't want to see times that are longer than people are likely to bother with running a benchmark, so if we start to see 30, 45 minutes, or an hour or longer, I might adjust some settings or lower the resolution. Also feel free to let me know how long you think is reasonable for a benchmark to take, though keep in mind that a benchmark that's too quick will give you less accurate results.

Once I am able to get a preliminary idea of how performance is looking for average machines here I'll finalize the benchmark and, if settings haven't changed, you can just add your result to the final result list. Otherwise you'll need to re-run the benchmark before you can do so.

Thanks!

- Oshyan

yossam


kaedorg

#2
Time 12:12

CPU I7-2600-3.4Gz

____________________________

Time 9:33

CPU I7-3770-3.4Gz

choronr

Time: 0.28.53

CPU: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 2.66 Ghz

System built: June 2007

archonforest

Time: 0:32:58s.

CPU: Intel Xeon X5260 3.33Ghz (Dual Core)
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram, GTX 1080
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Oshyan

Not too horrible so far. How do you guys feel about having to render for ~30 minutes for a benchmark on an older machine? It seems reasonable to me, but it's really more about how long people are willing to wait for the results and will see see fewer people with old machines submitting results because of it. I'm also hoping to see some of the newer 8 core CPUs or dual core machines here for some faster comparisons. Those machines ought to be able to get down to less than 5 minutes I think, and with a new batch of 8+ core CPUs from Intel now available in multi-CPU configurations, we might see even lower times, so I think this is a good target range for speed. But I definitely want your feedback too.

- Oshyan

archonforest

I will redo the test when I get home tonight on my dual quad station. It should beat my office PC :D
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram, GTX 1080
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

pokoy

0:04:02s

Dual Xeon E5-2650 v2 @ 2.60GHz (8-core CPUs, HT enabled)

I can run a test on my older dual CPU render machines in the next days. Nice scene!

archonforest

Can u do one without HT pls? (Only 8 cores) Really curious about the time of that.  ;)
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram, GTX 1080
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd

Oshyan

Now we're talking! So pokoy, you've got a machine with 2 cpus of 8 cores each, so 16 threads for each CPU (with HT), and 32 threads total? The E5-2650 is 2Ghz by default as well, so yours are overclocked?

- Oshyan

pokoy

QuoteCan u do one without HT pls? (Only 8 cores) Really curious about the time of that.  ;)

This is my main workstation here and I can't take the time to restart with HT off for now, but will try to run a test in the next days. Too much work atm :-/

QuoteNow we're talking! So pokoy, you've got a machine with 2 cpus of 8 cores each, so 16 threads for each CPU (with HT), and 32 threads total? The E5-2650 is 2Ghz by default as well, so yours are overclocked?

Yes, 2 CPUs, 8 cores per CPU, 16 cores per CPU with HT, 32 threads total. Looks really neat in the task manager :)

Not sure about the 2GHz, system and CPU-Z report it to be at 2.6GHZ, so maybe it's faster because there's a 'v2' in the name...?
I don't think they're overclocked, they were purchased from a system builder shop and I bet they don't overclock systems, but I could be wrong.

masonspappy


Oshyan

Oh I see, V2 was 2.6Ghz per core, yes. Interesting. Shame on Intel for such a confusing naming scheme though. *sigh*

So that's about the fastest time I'd expect to see, in terms of the currently available CPUs. There are now some 10 and 12 core Intel CPUs that could be even faster, though there are diminishing returns with more cores at a certain point, and the faster per-core speeds of CPUs with fewer cores might win out eventually.

Still, 4 minutes is a pretty good lower limit I feel like. I wouldn't want it to be too much faster than that on current machines if this benchmark is going to last a year or two (the last one had to go for quite a few years!).

- Oshyan

Klas

0:28:13

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2833.3 MHz

archonforest

Quote from: Klas on September 18, 2014, 05:41:11 AM
0:28:13

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 2833.3 MHz

How is that possible that a quad core 2.8Ghz takes 28 min to render it and my office dual core 3.3Ghz took 32? Your quad should probably 40-50 percent faster than this dual...hmmm
Dell T5500 with Dual Hexa Xeon CPU 3Ghz, 32Gb ram, GTX 1080
Amiga 1200 8Mb ram, 8Gb ssd