MacBook Pro beats G5 Quad for GI rendering?

[Triker]

MacPro 8 Core: 1:30

[laughingtotem]

Quad 2.0 MacPro 2:38:shrug:

Mark

[jackb602]

Very impressive.

I just tried the same scene at 1280x720 resolution, and the gap becomes even bigger.

G5 Quad 17:22
MacBook Pro 11:49

With the higher resolution, the advantage of the MacBook Pro increases from 21% to 47%. In this case at least, Cinebench scores seem to have little correlation with the real world.

I wonder if there is a speed difference between the UB and PPC versions of 9.6? That's the only other variable I can think of.

[dann_stubbs]

Very impressive.

I just tried the same scene at 1280x720 resolution, and the gap becomes even bigger.

G5 Quad 17:22
MacBook Pro 11:49

With the higher resolution, the advantage of the MacBook Pro increases from 21% to 47%. In this case at least, Cinebench scores seem to have little correlation with the real world.

I wonder if there is a speed difference between the UB and PPC versions of 9.6? That's the only other variable I can think of.

just for curiosity can you run the G5 quad using two threads. sometimes there is overhead in multi-threading and i wonder if the two processors are gaining a bit over the 4 in that way.

i do think the intel chips are faster - but just wondering what two threads on the G5 would equal

dann

[jackb602]

Hey Dann,

With two threads I got a time of 19:04. All four cores were consistently working at 80% or higher, but they weren't nailed at 99% like they are when 4 threads are used.

I'd be curious to see more results, especially at the higher resolution of 1280x720, from various machines. Like a Mac Mini, or a quad core Mac Pro.

This informal test makes me think it would be great to have a benchmarking scene specifically for architectural work.

Jack


EDIT: The 19:04 time was for a 1280 x 720 image. At 320 x 180, my time was 5:23 with 2 threads.

[Matariki]

I got 8:21 for a 1280 x 720 on a 4 core mac pro (2.66 GHz). The small image took 2:04.

EDIT: As requested more specs: 6 GB Ram, C4D 10.111, Nvidia 7300, OS X 10.4.10

[Delinos]

MacPro 8 Core: 1.27 for the small and 6.01 for the large one.

Anders

[Lone Deranger]

Seeing the differences between the various Macs is interesting to say the least.
However, it would be much more usefull if you guys would post a few more specs about your systems. Like:

Mac Pro quad 2.66Ghz, 8GB Ram, ATI X1900, Mac OS X 10.4.10 (8R2218), C4D 9.6

They all make a difference as to how well your machine is running.
And also make sure C4D is the only major app running. (Watch out for those background tasks gobbling up resources).

I'll see if I can get around to running this test on my Mac at work (don't have a C4D license here at home :sad: )

[Mike Abbott]

Out of curiosity I tried this on my quad Xeon PC - which has very similar specs to the Quad Intel G5's:

Small 320 render: 2:03
1280x720 render: 7:36
(both running the standard 4 threads for this machine)

Quad Xeon 2.66Ghz, 4 Gig ram, Windows XP 32bit, C4D 10.111

Mike A.

[3DBond]

Dang... 8:56 on my dual G5 :(

I need a new machine.

But I suppose compared to the 4:16 on your Quad it sort of makes sense.

Althought, my processors were jacked to 100% nearly the whole time except for a strange bit at the end of the render.

When you guys do these tests, do you quit all other apps?

[3DBond]

Saved a whopping 24 seconds by quitting everything (including the Finder) and re-rendering.

So I guess 8:32 would be my official time. :cry:

:D

Maybe I'll give R9.6 a go.

[3DBond]

9.6 = 9:22

[govinda]

I'm here to help everyone to their Monday dose of smug. Dual 1.8GHz 2.5Gb Ram OSX.4.10, small scene was 11:01.

After restarting the machine for that 'fresh boot' pureness: 10:50.

That's like 10%, never thought the difference would be so great.

Yes, that's on the small scene.

Now off to work where I have a 8 core MacPro, if I can see through the tears.

[anobrin]

Beige G3 tower 266mhz 352 megs of ram

small scene render time: 19 Days!!

you quad core weenies have no patience:wise:


.........Joking of course

[courtneyrocks]

I would love to see how long this scene takes on a Mac mini Intel.

The 2.0 Ghz probably isn't quite out there yet but if anyone has a Intel Core Duo 1.83 Mac Mini or less it would be cool to see how it performs as a rendering machine considering they are so cheap.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.