Terragen 3 Benchmark released

[jaf]

.... also, if you load the benchmark , render and then render again without re-loading the benchmark you will save time (ten seconds on my system.)  I believe it's because the instances are not recalculated. 

I was able to save 20 seconds by exiting/killing many non-needed processes and switching to a single monitor (verses dual) mode.  However, to me the benchmark makes the most sense by running it the way you normally work -- not to get the best possible time.  So I would urge booting up as normal, loading TG and the benchmark and hitting Ctrl-R and simply reporting that time.

[TheBadger]

This one went even slightly faster than the original preliminary benchmark file from 2 weeks ago. Judging by the submissions, it seems I have the fastest machine here 

I'll do another test on my older render machines and will try to get both of my co-workers to run the benchmark on their new Mac Pro machines (they have different ones), wonder how they'll perform.

I will look forward to that Pokoy! I am very curious my self about the new macs. I have slowly been working to increase my general knowledge of hardware. And stuff like this benchmark is kinda a fun way for me to get some info. Really its got to be one of the easiest ways to see what the hardware can do in a context that I have some familiarity with. So please do it! 

I do wish that there were also times posted without water though. I felt like that was the only thing that slowed my time down. Not really by all that much, about a min maybe.
And I am not saying anything bad about water here. Just I don't often render a scene with any water, so I also am curious how much faster all the other systems would be if they did not render water?

@ JAf
Thats good to hear. when I am rendering something I am taking seriously, I always make sure everything else is turned off (everything that I know how to turn off). I even turn off wifi.

I wondered about having two monitors and rendering. So thanks for that info!!

[Oshyan]

Please do not report times that don't include the population phase. It is there intentionally, to test multithreading of the populator.

Water is not a significant contributor to the render times here actually, and it was designed that way intentionally. Try disabling it in the scene and you'll see. We included it because it *is* a common element of scenes though, in fact it's surprising to say you don't often see scenes with it. Of the most recent 10 images submitted in Image Sharing, 8 have water, so...

- Oshyan

[RogueNZ]

Tried to edit my submission but ended up submitting twice - apologies 

[TheBadger]

Of the most recent 10 images submitted in Image Sharing, 8 have water, so..

I said *I* don't often render water.
But I will believe you on all the rest

[jaf]

Please do not report times that don't include the population phase. It is there intentionally, to test multithreading of the populator.

Water is not a significant contributor to the render times here actually, and it was designed that way intentionally. Try disabling it in the scene and you'll see. We included it because it *is* a common element of scenes though, in fact it's surprising to say you don't often see scenes with it. Of the most recent 10 images submitted in Image Sharing, 8 have water, so...

- Oshyan

Just to be clear, I didn't report mine that way.  I was attempting to make the point we should use the benchmark the way we normally use Terragen and don't try to get the best score possible.   That said, don't run other processes or applications that cut into your cpu usage either because that won't give a good "picture" of what your system is capable of compared to others.

As far as dual monitor or not, I didn't test each process individually so it likely didn't change the benchmark time -- just killed everything I could (and I'm sure I missed some) to see how much difference it would make. [edit]  That was clear as mud!  I meant to say, I didn't test to see how much a dual monitor setup hurt the benchmark time, and I don't think it makes a difference.  But many of the other processes do, over the app. ten minutes my system ran the benchmark, cut a few seconds off the time.

[lat 64]

Very telling test. Nineteen minutes for my old mac!
I sorted the results by column "c"(time), and I see that I was not the worst.
I could not list my proccessor model no. because I couldn't figure out which item that would be on my Hardware Preview.

Here is that data if anyone else can figure it out for me:
Hardware Overview:
  Model Name:   Mac Pro
  Model Identifier:   MacPro1,1
  Processor Name:   Dual-Core Intel Xeon
  Processor Speed:   2.66 GHz
  Number of Processors:   2
  Total Number of Cores:   4
  L2 Cache (per Processor):   4 MB
  Memory:   6 GB
  Bus Speed:   1.33 GHz
  Boot ROM Version:   MP11.005D.B00
  SMC Version (system):   1.7f10
  Serial Number (system):   G87493LA0GP
  Hardware UUID:   00000000-0000-1000-8000-0017F20FEF9A

[archonforest]

That CPU is the Intel Xeon 5150. The orig MACs were shipped with that We got 2 towers around here collecting dust...

[Oshyan]

Archonforest is correct. Lat 64, you can ignore my email asking about this, I've updated your result with the correct CPU.

RogeNZ, I've deleted your first (incorrect) submission. Thanks!

- Oshyan

[pokoy]

I've added a new MacPro to the benchmark list, 5m 11 sec on a 6-core 3.5 GHz single CPU - not bad.

[Oshyan]

I've added a new MacPro to the benchmark list, 5m 11 sec on a 6-core 3.5 GHz single CPU - not bad.

Not bad perhaps, but for $5200 (with 64GB RAM) also not very compelling. For $5700 I can get a Boxx workstation with 2x 6 core at 2.4Ghz. Or the same for $4670 at Puget.

- Oshyan

[pokoy]

I meant the CPU speed compared to my Dual CPU workstation. I agree, spending money on Mac hardware is like burning money AND throwing it out of the window at the same time

[TheBadger]

Care to start a thread in open on the top performing system in the benchmark?
Parts, names, options, places to buy at the best price?

A real breakdown for shopping.

Oshyan, its not exactly fair to add 64 GB of mac mem. Who buys mac mem at their prices anymore? Anyway, I am learning about linux now. I hope that I will find it as good as efflux says.  He is surly convinced.

[lat 64]

Yea, I like Bager's idea.
I get it that a fancy GPU does not really benefit this software, but other than that, I don't know much. I am(like Badger I think) just studying the benchmark results to get a feel for what a person would focus on to improve render times and not waste efforts on unnecessary configuration "toys".
Since we can divide up the project so handily into several threads for rendering, I'm getting the impression that the smart money should be spent on getting the maximum number of processor cores—speed comes next, and then ram.
I have four cores and 6GB ram and watching the activity monitor during renders, I don't see it using up my ram.

Do I have any of this right?
Russ

[archonforest]

Cores are pretty important in TG
Then u are right about the magic trio TG needs the most. Cores/Ghz/RAM. The good news is that u do not have to spend a fortune to get something decent. I bought this year a dual quad xeon workstation with 8Gb ram for about 800 bucks and if u look up the spread of the timings it came out pretty okay. 8 min for the test render. I think it is good for the price I paid.
RAM is pretty cheap these days so u can have 8 Gb for nothing and that is also a good start. More is better when u have a more complex scene with lots of populations...etc. Also when u buy a cpu for rendering make sure it is hyperthread capable as that can give some nice boost also