Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
reran with the render-er at 100. and got 32.41. not bad i guess? should we be noting our ram speeds, too? it seems to matter.
Bump the tile size to 400x400. I got my single GTX 780 Ti down to 16.87 seconds at 200 samples. Big GPUs will generally benefit around 256x256, but the final image is only 800x800, and the whole scene uses less than 300MB of RAM. Please make sure it is actually using the second GPU, since Blender is not exactly good at keeping settings when it comes to OpenCL rendering (in my limited experience).by playing with the tile size i managed to get it down to 21.22 sec with 2 r9 290's @200 samples
Bump the tile size to 400x400. I got my single GTX 780 Ti down to 16.87 seconds at 200 samples. Big GPUs will generally benefit around 256x256, but the final image is only 800x800, and the whole scene uses less than 300MB of RAM. Please make sure it is actually using the second GPU, since Blender is not exactly good at keeping settings when it comes to OpenCL rendering (in my limited experience).
Oh, okay. I know the OpenCL rendering path is less mature, but I remember it wasn't too far behind the CUDA pathway, a little as one year ago (when I last made use of Blender). 1/2 the Last I remember, it could also make use of the CPU+GPU in OpenCL mode, too (which might not be beneficial for a tile of that size). I remember it had troubles with rendering with multiGPUs, unless if they were setup in a certain way, but it has been a while since I had my last multiGPU setup.the fastest i could get was 18.52 @ 400*800 tiles ( it is using both gpus) from my understanding blender is significantly better on nvidia gpu's. Im still tempted to throw it on my 6 290 mining rig and give it a try but i think i wil hold back.
i just ran with 1 card at 800*800 tile size and got a 35 so it seams to scale fairly well. and the only reason i belive mine likes 400*800 is each gpu takes halfOh, okay. I know the OpenCL rendering path is less mature, but I remember it wasn't too far behind the CUDA pathway, a little as one year ago (when I last made use of Blender). 1/2 the Last I remember, it could also make use of the CPU+GPU in OpenCL mode, too (which might not be beneficial for a tile of that size). I remember it had troubles with rendering with multiGPUs, unless if they were setup in a certain way, but it has been a while since I had my last multiGPU setup.
My GPU was not as friendly towards the 400x800 tile arrangement, netting 17.58 vs 16.87.
EDIT: I am wrong, it was another program that had issues utilizing two GPUs if SLI/CF was enabled.
Fwiw, it took me 00:37.42 to run Ryzen 5960X @ 4.6 I'd post a screen grab, but with a 4K screen I doubt yoiu could see the little timestamp. And that's without touching anything but "Render".
Ran it again, 00:37.47, so pretty repeatable here.
5960X @ 4.6 This browser window minimized during the runs.
100 Samples 19.30
150 Samples 28.52
200 Samples 37.82
I tried CUDA and OpenGL Select in the User Preferences > System settings, but on 200 Samples my score was still 37.60 ~ 37.81 so I don't think it changed over to GPU or Titan X M SLI runs about the same as the 5960X.
ETA: Looks like this was 800 x 800, that's the default of the file and I didn't want to change anything but the sample size.
for reference what did amd claim their score was?
Ryzen is starting to look like the real deal, let's just hope we can see some real clocks. The best stable overclock I even got with the 6950X was 4.3GHz. So I do not think this is too much out of reach of Ryzen. We will see though. Fingers crossed.Thanks, I've updated the OP.
When I say a stable 6950X overclock, I am referring to a fully threaded workload that extends for at lest 2 hours. In the past year or so, I have moved away from the synthetic and generally use Handbrake. The latest versions of ASUS Real Bench are actually very good as well and push the CPUs beyond Handbrake workloads. But yeah, I have never gotten the 6950X past 4.3GHz with a real world workload.Agreed. I know you guys did a lot more with overclocking the 6950x than I did, but from everything I've read and from my experience, the 6950x seems to go off a cliff past 4.3. Which I don't think gets appreciated, at least for highly threaded stuff, it's an incredible CPU which would have been far better regarded but it's clear that Intel was gouging because of lack of competition. No one is really a fanboy unless they want to pay more for stuff. I want Ryzen to be great. That's good for everyone.
Problem is that we all want AMD to do well so Intel is forced to either stop gouging, or actually show worthwhile improvements with each release, but then we are all going to go out and buy that Intel part, because that's what we really want. we want AMD to make Intel honest again, but unless we get another K7/K8, we are still going to buy what ever has the performance, which likely will still be Intel.
I have run benchmark (100 samples) on MBPr 15" ( 4750HQ - 2.0Ghz - 3.2Ghz Turbo) and I get : 43.84 seconds. It seems a bit 'high' for a laptop? Especially 3 yrs old entry-level machine.