unbelievableTonyD wrote:Hi, I ran 2 different setups on my rig...
Thanks!
Tony D.
what's the hell!!
what's the system specification?
unbelievableTonyD wrote:Hi, I ran 2 different setups on my rig...
Thanks!
Tony D.
Hello, Win7 64 on Asrock X79 Extreme 11. Titan X on mobo.snorky wrote:unbelievableTonyD wrote:Hi, I ran 2 different setups on my rig...
Thanks!
Tony D.
what's the hell!!
what's the system specification?
I think, in essence, it's partly due to longer build time, but also due to short passes not being suitable for many GPUs. The GPUs need to sync and sometimes wait for each other at the end of every pass, and can really start to stretch their legs only when the passes are longer. The devs are well aware of this.TonyD wrote:Hello, Win7 64 on Asrock X79 Extreme 11. Titan X on mobo.snorky wrote:unbelievableTonyD wrote:Hi, I ran 2 different setups on my rig...
Thanks!
Tony D.
what's the hell!!
what's the system specification?
Use a pair of Amfeltec splitters for the Titan Z arrangement, and USB Risers for the additional 2 Titan X arrangement.
BIOS won't boot with > 13, so run either of these 2 arrangements (external PSU) depending on strategy.
The Benchmark shows render speed but doesn't actually show real-life process time (ie including OpenCL scene build time, acceleration to top GPU speed...). So it's a funny thing, how it measured them at parity, it just so happens to capture them at 3 tile building passes. However, a 12 Titan Z, arrangement on a larger render (High res, many samples, >3 tile-building passes .igs) would be 'faster', whereas in building a scene quickly at low res and lower samples, and reaching top render speed, 3 Titan X's would be 'faster' (ie for a frame sequence .igq), .
In other words, if IR could build a scene and have the rendering GPUs reach top speed with 12 TitanZ as fast as with 3 TitanX, 12 TitanZ would be faster in all cases. But since with 12 Z it builds OpenCL and reaches top speed slower, the 3 Titan X is actually much faster at pumping out frames. Perhaps more PCI 1x cards slows scene building and reaching top render speed down.
I will note that 4.0.45 BETA was improved to have OpenCL scenes with multi-GPU build much faster than 4.0.44 BETA did!
:)
-Tony D.
Seems like a lot of material IDs (ie individual materials) will slow down the render time, as well as the build time. If you have a model with one master mat, my goodness, Indigo whips through each pass blazing speed on OpenCL (like 1 second!) So, assuming if all GPU ran at same speed, it seems some slowdown factors will be:Oscar J wrote:
I think, in essence, it's partly due to longer build time, but also due to short passes not being suitable for many GPUs. The GPUs need to sync and sometimes wait for each other at the end of every pass, and can really start to stretch their legs only when the passes are longer. The devs are well aware of this.
Regarding what OscarJ stated about build and rendering speed...Oscar J wrote:Slower rendering with increased model and material complexity is sort of expected from any renderer. :) Regarding build time, it's afaik the number of material types in your scenes that matter the most - Indigo has to compile the material types.
ME WANT NOW!Oscar J wrote:Wait for the next beta... :)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests