Terragen 3 Benchmark released

archonforest · October 16, 2014, 01:40:32 PM

Just found something interesting.

A bit slower but 99 percent identical Xeon CPU finished the benchmark almost 2 min earlier than mine. Difference? I got only 8 gig ram he got 24. Hmmm... Interesting...does the ram can make such a big difference?

Oshyan · October 16, 2014, 02:24:46 PM

RAM should not make a significant difference in render time. When you say his CPU is "slower", do you mean purely in terms of clock speed (Ghz)? What is the model number of his CPU vs. yours? Or is one just overclocked and the other not?

- Oshyan

archonforest · October 16, 2014, 02:50:27 PM

Here it is:

mine: E5530 Xeon on 2.4Ghz - no overclock - 8Gb ddr3 - Win 7 64 bit
his: E5520 Xeon on 2.26Ghz - no overclock - 24Gb ddr3 - Mac OS X 64 bit

Hmm... hope is not the Mac

Oshyan · October 16, 2014, 02:59:05 PM

Well, operating system or other software config details *can* make a notable difference. In the past for example Macs were less efficient with a larger number of threads in Terragen, though we have since improved this quite a bit and it's about even now for similar hardware I believe. So I don't have an immediate explanation. What I would do though is freshly reboot both machines and make sure any background tasks are stopped or at least that there is minimal other stuff active on the machines, then run the benchmark again on both.

- Oshyan

Dune · October 17, 2014, 03:33:41 AM

Speaking of background tasks; that would have an effect on render time, wouldn't it? My machine is offline and has no other tasks running, such as firewall, or antivirus... hard to compare to machines playing music, games and stopping vermin.

jaf · October 17, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: Dune on October 17, 2014, 03:33:41 AM
Speaking of background tasks; that would have an effect on render time, wouldn't it? My machine is offline and has no other tasks running, such as firewall, or antivirus... hard to compare to machines playing music, games and stopping vermin.

Sure would. I was able to save 20 seconds on a 9 minutes 16 second render by simply killing a bunch of unneeded processes (and I'm sure I could have killed more -- I didn't go offline or kill Windows Defender.) So using a savings of 15 seconds, which if my math is correct is .02697%, I would save ~16 minutes on a 10 hour render. Of course that percentage probably wouldn't be linear since there's so many factors that determine render time.

However, I work a 24/7 job where I depend on my computer a lot for contact information, research, etc. If only I could save a partial TG render to disk and resume later, then I could do a quick reboot when needed. So for me, the time savings isn't worth it for that amount of time I could save.

TheBadger · October 17, 2014, 10:20:49 PM

In my specific case, TG drives my Graphics card bonkers. So I cant have TG open and do to much of anything else without getting "crazy screen".

So I learned from that to turn things off. I don't really know how much time it shaves off by having other programs stopped. But I know it saves a lot of frustration. And whatever time it saves, its at least clear that on my system some time is being saved, since you can visually see TG slow to a crawl when Im doing other thing while rendering.

Although, I don't reduce the amount of resources TG can use even for browsing. I figure I cant changes things mid render so there is no reason to reduce power for TG just to look on line for an hour during a long render. (threads, cores)

mundus · November 22, 2014, 05:20:07 AM

10m:28s on an old i7-960 OC to 3.6Ghz on win7 64, 16GB.
I'm really happy to see i7-5820K OC to 4.2 Ghz cutting my time in half.

Maybe time for an upgrade next year

terracr8or · January 02, 2015, 04:48:46 PM

x

masonspappy · June 27, 2015, 05:19:54 AM

Would have been nice if dates and timestamps were split into separate columns.

masonspappy · June 27, 2015, 05:39:49 AM

Quote from: masonspappy on June 27, 2015, 05:19:54 AM
Would have been nice if dates and timestamps were split into separate columns.

Never mind, looked in wrong column...

Dune · August 09, 2015, 11:59:48 AM

Just had my first run of the new i7 6-core, which will be used as rendering machine, and one of the first things I did was run the benchmark scene; 6'.10". My i7 2600k ran it at 10'.21", so I am pleased. So now getting all libraries and stuff over to that machine (I hardly hear it run, excellent!)

kaedorg · August 19, 2015, 03:32:04 AM

Did anyone try to test the Benchmark with Windows 10 and check if there is a difference in render time with his previous version ?

David

bobbystahr · December 03, 2016, 01:05:49 AM

Submitted my benchmark for the new AMD Corsair

Oshyan · December 03, 2016, 02:04:25 PM

We're due for a *new* benchmark soon that willl be more reflective of Terragen 4 performance...

- Oshyan