I just ran the render test at 800X600 on the new system.

2 minutes 50 sec -- 170 seconds.

The new system is an Asus M4A78T-E

Built in ATI 330 Video
8GB Memory
AMD 64 bit AM3 9950 X4 Processor 3.2 GHz.

No special tuning done etc.

The Old System was an AMD X2 Processor at 2.2GHz and ATI X1800 video 3GB memory (usable 4GB installed)

The hard drive remained the same -- WD250GB.

Render time was 5 minutes 43 seconds. (343)

So the new system is twice as fast.

I installed the new board in the old system -- removed the video board as well, and then followed the bouncing ball to install any required drivers.

Since the X1800 video (old system) appears to be faster, I would say the render operation is mostly CPU bound. It looks like a good candidate for a parallel processing approach on a rework. (multi-threaded)

Someone at IMSI needs to motivate Lightworks(?) to get with the times.


Note:

For those who asked the OS is Vista 64.

re: I just ran the render test at 800X600 on the new system. 2 minutes 50 sec -- 170 seconds.

Impressive time.
Congratulations. 

What OS?

Henry H

From where can I get a copy of the render test to run on a TC11.2 system?

From where can I get a copy of the render test to run on a TC11.2 system?

Here!   

All you have to do is unzip; it should extract to its own folder. Double-click the "800x600.bat" file. A window of that size will open and start rendering a house. A few seconds after the render is done, a little window will appear with the time it took to render.

You don't need to have TC running to try this.

It took 2min, 21sec. in my new box. This is 2 seconds faster than the last time I tried this a while back.



[attachment deleted by admin]

Intel 3.0Ghz Quad  - 4GB Ram 1.33Mhz Corsair, GTX8800
2.47Min
Running Vitual box on 2nd screen also.

John, what machine are you running there ?

Vista SP2, 64Bit

This is the render Time with  a Nvidia 295.
Same machine, just a new Nvidia 295 Card.
Time is 2.48 Sec, not faster on the render test BUT in TC itself, where the GTX 8800 battled to render, the 1295 just "flash" it - exceptonally an improvement on the works inside TC.

It seems with this test "render.bat", the CPU makes the call. I did the first test on 3. GHZ and it was 3.0 min, then overclocked on Auto mode to 3.286 GHZ and it came down to 2.48 sec. The same machine was overclocked for the GTX 8800 on 3.1GHZ.

But when I render with the Nvidia 295, the RAM stands still at 40%, the CPU shoots up from 3% to 27%.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Thanks John,
It took 2m 46s on my system, but only one core used of course .
Intel Coreâ„¢2 Duo E8500 (2 X 3.16GHz), 4GB 1066MHz RAM, GEFORCE 8400GS PCI graphics.

[attachment deleted by admin]

John, what machine are you running there ?

Intel® Xeon® CPU — W5580  @ 3.20GHz, Quad Core
RAM — 6GB, DDR3 RDIMM Memory, 1333MHz, ECC
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800, 1.50 GB

Just got new machines at work and did some comparing:

Old: Acer Vertiton 7800 with Pentium 4 Dualcore, 3GHz, 1.5Gb DDR2 RAM, Matrox Millennium P650 Graphics with 128MB RAM, WinXP Pro. - The test takes 6min. 5s

New (the secretary's): HP Compaq dc5800 with Intel Core 2 duo, 3.16GHz, 3GB DDR2 800 SDRAM, WinXP Rro SP3 (Downgraded from Vista), on-board graphics with max. 256MB shared Memory - The test takes 2min. 49s (definitely faster than I expected).

New II (the one with TurboCAD on): same model as above, except with ATI Radeon HD3650 Graphics card (Low budget / Midrange?), with 512MB RAM - The test runs in the exact same time as on the one with on-board graphics (2min. 49s)!

The graphic card doesn't seem to improve the performance of TurboCAD (except if the one I got is just not a bit better than the on-board one, but I doubt that).

Edit: Just reran the test, both CPU's where in use (both maxed out, actually), no program in use while running the test.

New (the secretary's): HP Compaq dc5800 with Intel Core 2 duo, 3.16GHz, 3GB DDR2 800 SDRAM, WinXP Rro SP3 (Downgraded from Vista), on-board graphics with max. 256MB shared Memory - The test takes 2min. 49s (definitely faster than I expected).

New II (the one with TurboCAD on): same model as above, except with ATI Radeon HD3650 Graphics card (Low budget / Midrange?), with 512MB RAM - The test runs in the exact same time as on the one with on-board graphics (2min. 49s)!

The graphic card doesn't seem to improve the performance of TurboCAD (except if the one I got is just not a bit better than the on-board one, but I doubt that).

Interesting.
My post (Aug 20) reported a 3 sec improvement with same 3.16GHz Duo, but with 4GB 1066 RAM.
Seems that RAM plays an important part. I don't think the amount (4GB v 3GB) is significant as long as there is enough, but the speed certainly is - re. 1066 v 800)

I think I am not doing something right, I double clicked renderBench.exe, it run, but the render was small (upper left corner). When finished it stated 22 seconds. I tried to get a full screen render. I have Vista Home 64bit system, Intel Duo Core Quad 6600,  4 Gig. memory, GeForce 8800

I think I am not doing something right, I double clicked renderBench.exe, it run, but the render was small (upper left corner). When finished it stated 22 seconds. I tried to get a full screen render. I have Vista Home 64bit system, Intel Duo Core Quad 6600,  4 Gig. memory, GeForce 8800

Ken, Double click the 800x600.bat one.

Guess my system must be really dated.
It took over 7 minutes on my dell dimension 9200.

Only upgrades were a video card. FX 8800 I think and 4 gig of ram.

Answers why some of my renders take hours and hours.

Ok, now I am getting 3 min. 44 sec.  Thank Don.

Finally got me a new system... thought I would give it a try.

2min 28 sec.

Phenom II X6 1090T processor
8Gb Ram

Not too shabby I guess... haven't even started overclocking it yet 

The last time I ran the test it was for laughs.  I used an ancient Dell laptop with a 2.4 GHz Celeron, it started with 256Mb RAM and then 1Gb, can't remember which it had when I ran the test, but it took about 30 minutes.... Bought a newer Gigabyte laptop, SU7300 ULV Intel, stock 1.3GHz or 1.73GHz overclocked, 2Gb RAM.  It dual-boots 32-bit or 64-bit Win7, not that I run anything 64 bit at the present, so the benefit of additional RAM isn't overwhelming.   Reasonable battery life, it'll run TC, coupla browsers and music for 3-5 hours on a charge.  Render test:  At 1.3GHz, 6:45, at 1.73GHz, 5:30. 

Got bored yesterday, and thought I would try running more than one instance of RenderBench simultaneously. There was no change in render time with 4 instances running, but took about 8-10 seconds longer with 6 running... probably do to services and other programs running in the background using up processor time. Running all 6  processors at full throttle sure heats up the chip fast... the fans really kick in to high gear.

Did a little overclocking today... bumped up 3 cores of the CPU by 400Mhz... knocked 11 seconds off the time.

Very impressive Greg, think you have certainly proved TC likes a fast CPU.

Andy

New Dell XPs8300 Win7 64bit i7-2600 not overclocked 8Gb Ram renders the 800x600 @ 1 min 50 secs.

They had that system on the Dell Outlet a week or so ago going for $639 with a coupon. Had to hide my CC to keep me from buying one... I figured it was going to be a smoker, though. 

Good thing I didn't buy one... my wife would have cut off more than my credit.   

Guess I'm going to have to concede after this... I think I've pushed mine as far as I can with the stock cooler.

New Acer Ethos 8943G refurbished model manufactured 2010 but looks new.
Intel core i7 740QM processor
1.73Ghz 6mb L3 cache
Ati mobility Radeon HD 5850
18" Full HD 1080p LED LCD
16Gb DDR3 Memory
1280 GB HDD [total of 2 hard drives] of which primary is equally partitioned C and E and second is unpartitioned D
Windows 7 Home premium

The 800 x 600 rendered on C in 2mins51seconds and on D in 2mins52seconds. Pretty good though I suppose I expected a little better.

Time to move up from XP at last!

At the other end of the spectrum, a windows tablet with AMD Z-01 APU, 1 GHz dual-core that's rated at 5.9W TDP takes 13:13 with 2G RAM.  It's a standard plug-in upgrade to double the RAM, but this is 32-bit Win 7, so it will be interesting to see if there's any gain to be had. 

It makes sense to keep this thread warm so patterns can develop to see what are the features which really help speed and to what extent as technology marches on.

Guess I'm going to have to concede after this... I think I've pushed mine as far as I can with the stock cooler.

Wow, good time Greg. I'm still on 2 cores here. The time for an upgrade is certainly on the horizon.

Quote from: GregT on June 11, 2011, 02:19:17 PM

Guess I'm going to have to concede after this... I think I've pushed mine as far as I can with the stock cooler.

Wow, good time Greg. I'm still on 2 cores here. The time for an upgrade is certainly on the horizon.

Yea... but that was pushing this chip way beyond what I care to do. Average time with the setup I use day to day is 2:15 or so. I would go with the i7-2600k if it were me.

As reported some months ago, my XP 3.15GHz Core2 Duo with 1066 DDR2 takes 2m47s and the same processor using 800 DDR2 takes 2m50s so the faster memory clips 3s from the time. The amount of memory has no effect as long as it's enough to avoid paging. I get the same results with Win7.

My son has a 3.3GHz Core I5 with 16GB of 1333MHz DDR3 memory.
I wanted to know how it would perform with render test, but a) he runs Linux, and b) he was visiting for the Christmas period, plus his machine was 100 miles away.
He's a bit of a geek and can access his machine from anywhere, and he has installed Win7 in a virtual machine, so we decided to try it out.
He did the 800x600 test in 2m14s, but remember, that's running in a virtual machine under Linux over a public network.
I don't think that running remotely had much effect, but running in a virtual m/c certainly did.

As reported some months ago, my XP 3.15GHz Core2 Duo with 1066 DDR2 takes 2m47s and the same processor using 800 DDR2 takes 2m50s so the faster memory clips 3s from the time. The amount of memory has no effect as long as it's enough to avoid paging. I get the same results with Win7.

My son has a 3.3GHz Core I5 with 16GB of 1333MHz DDR3 memory.
I wanted to know how it would perform with render test, but a) he runs Linux, and b) he was visiting for the Christmas period, plus his machine was 100 miles away.
He's a bit of a geek and can access his machine from anywhere, and he has installed Win7 in a virtual machine, so we decided to try it out.
He did the 800x600 test in 2m14s, but remember, that's running in a virtual machine under Linux over a public network.
I don't think that running remotely had much effect, but running in a virtual m/c certainly did.

Thanks for posting that, got halfway through reading and I thought what about a virtual machine, and the second half was exactly that!! Great answer, just wonder how much difference the VM makes. My XP whizzes along in standard settings Virtualbox on Win 7. With a more professional VM with optimum tweaking that may be able to be improved.

Thanks for posting that, got halfway through reading and I thought what about a virtual machine, and the second half was exactly that!! Great answer, just wonder how much difference the VM makes. My XP whizzes along in standard settings Virtualbox on Win 7. With a more professional VM with optimum tweaking that may be able to be improved.

I took him (my son) back this morning and we tried re-running the test in the same VM and Win7, but no network - it clocked 2m3s.
So the networking consumed 11secs.
We then tried running under WINE on Linux and it shaved another 2secs off to give 2m1s.
I suspect that overclocking would make a big difference, but he doesn't want to do that.
It would be interesting to see what it would do on a native Win7, but he's a devout Linux user.

Update: I've just run it in the XP Mode VM under my Win7 and it clocked 2m54s, so, since it took 2m47s under Win7, the VM consumed 7secs.

Lemel_man, very interesting. Sorry for accidentally posting within your quote in my last message, one more lesson learnt.

I've just installed a SSD [solid state drive] Agility 3 120GB from OCZ into the primary bay of my 2 hard drive bays Acer 8943G notebook pc. The User Experience Index rose from 5.9 to 6.9 as the index determines by lowest subscore. The Disk data transfer rate which had been 5.9 is now at 7.4. I would say that start up time of the computer from switched off has reduced to less than half, though I haven't actually timed that.

With regard to the impact upon render time, I am sorry, I forgot to test before the change, but the following is interesting:

First test: with the render test located on the SSD: a disappointing 3mins 28secs and with the render test on the 640gb conventional hard drive [which I will call CHD from now on], a better but still disappointing 3mins 2secs.
I then had a look at task manager and I have over 70 processes running!

Second test: Having stopped Snagit processes:[latest version bloated screen capture app] SSD:3min19sec; CHD:3min4sec.
Third test: Having additionally stopped Uniblue's Power Suite processes [which ironically includes an app called speed up my pc] SSD:2mins55sec [getting better]; CHD: didn't test.

Fourth test: For interest, I ran the test in XP virtual Machine in Virtual Box [the machine is located on the CHD but the Virtualbox program files are on the SSD]:3mins 27secs. [not too shabby considering].

Summary: Bearing in mind I still have many other processes running in task manager [far more than when I did initial tests on this computer which gave far better results], which could be disabled, like dropbox for example, I am sure the times can be improved but it does not look like a SSD offers any advantage with respect to render times. I would be interested to consider an effective Task Disabling manager which is easy to use and does not require time researching each task, as this seems to be the major factor to extending time to our systems' optimum potentials.

There would be no reason for the SSD to help in this situation, as the RenderBench program is loaded into RAM prior to rendering.

2m:46s is my laptop's time @ 800x600 render test.....

1m:37s on my system.

3m:15s at 800 x 600 here.

1m:37s on my system.

D*mn...