View Full Version : G5 Quad- My personal results

11-27-2005, 07:40 AM
Machine 1

Dual 1.42 G4, OS 10.4.3, 2 gigs of Ram, Radeon Pro 9800, LW 8.3, FPrime 2.1

Machine 2

Quad, OS 10.4.3, 2 gigs of Ram, NVidia GeForce 6600, LW 8.0, FPrime 2.1

The Match!

A 50,000 Poly scene with Ray Trace Shadows, Ray Trace Transparency, Ray Trace Reflection, and Ray Trace Refraction enabled with 3 Area lights. With 5 minutes of allowed time the G4 clocked in at an FPrime level of 3.2, while the Quad weighed in at 12.4. Roughly 4 times faster! Which I equate to a 4 week rendering project is now a 1 week project.

One beautiful thing is the Open GL difference, while I could only afford the stock graphics card, I can't wait to purchase a new offering by ATI or NVida down the road. I have yet to try Final Cut Pro, Motion, or Shake on the beast but only time will tell.

I would recommend this monster to anyone.


Captain Obvious
11-27-2005, 08:54 AM
That's not bad at all. According to Apple (http://images.apple.com/powermac/images/upgradefilmvideo4chart20051018.jpg), the Quad is barely three times faster than a dual 1.42GHz Power Mac G4 in Lightwave rendering. I guess Fprime scales better with more CPUs.

It would be cool if you played around in Lightwave with Fprime open, and recorded it. Here are two applications for it:

11-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Can you render some benchmark scenes and post them on blanos.com?

11-27-2005, 03:14 PM
I ran some of the benchmarks and posted on blanos.com

check it out



11-27-2005, 03:59 PM
Excellent! Thank you

looks like it's about 40-75% faster than the 2.7ghz

11-28-2005, 11:01 PM
I would like to also add I just changed processor performance under energy saver from automatic to highest and did another test render of one of the benchmark scenes and found a a slight decrease in overall rendertime. (So my results could of been better).


11-28-2005, 11:10 PM
Are you doing things like restarting the computer, running no other apps, multiple render attempts (the first one always takes longer), testing with different # of threads?

Captain Obvious
11-28-2005, 11:20 PM
According to the info, he ran the test with eight threads. As for restarting the computer and not running other apps, that usually doesn't make a difference. An app can't slow down another app unless it actually uses CPU cycles. It's much easier to just check the Activity Monitor instead of rebooting. ;)

11-29-2005, 12:58 AM
Rebooting may be a windows thing, but I do it anyway just to be sure - and 8 threads isn't always the fastest

Captain Obvious
11-29-2005, 01:09 AM
With four processing cores, eight threads is probably the fastest in almost in almost all scenes.

11-29-2005, 01:45 AM
Fewer threads may be faster in the shorter tests, the ones that only take a couple seconds. Whenever I render Quickshade test animations, 1 thread is usually the fastest. There's no reason not to try it, especially when you're seeking the fastest times possible.

Captain Obvious
11-29-2005, 03:22 AM
While that's true, I think the results of the tests that take less than ten or so seconds rather uninteresting, because they do not really test something you'll actually be doing. If your animation renders at three seconds per frame, you're probably better off using OpenGL and getting real-time performance anyway. ;) I'm more interested in the scenes that take a longer time to render, because they're closer to what most of us actually use the Lightwave render engine for (be it raytracing and radiosity that makes it take long, or advanced surfacing, high poly count or high resolution). I don't know about you guys, but I don't think I've ever had a scene that rendered in less than half a minute.

11-29-2005, 11:58 AM
I also just got a quad and would like to post some of blanos benchmarks.

Where can I download the benchmark files?

11-29-2005, 04:09 PM
Where can I download the benchmark files?
They are standard files from your content CD.


11-29-2005, 04:47 PM
awesome, thanks for the info. exciting info since im running a similar machine to the one u tested, but a dual g4 1.25

i mean the bus speed difference alone is from 167 mhz -> 1.25 ghz

12-01-2005, 10:35 PM
I've just received my quad, and I've started running a few tests with ScreamerNet.

I ran a little test scene I use on a G5 dual 2.5GHz with two instances of ScreamerNet. Each frame took 102 seconds to complete, but as it is rendering two frames at once, it works out at 51 seconds per frame.

The same test scene on the new G5 quad 2.5GHz and four instances of ScreamerNet gave 98 seconds per frame. Of course it's rendering four frames at once which works out at 24.5 seconds per frame. That's more than twice as fast!

Pretty impressive!

Captain Obvious
12-02-2005, 12:19 AM
What are the results in Lightwave's normal rendering?

12-02-2005, 12:44 AM
On the G5 dual 2.5GHz, rendering times from within LightWave are as follows:

54 seconds - 8 threads
55 seconds - 4 threads
55 seconds - 2 threads
94 seconds - 1 thread

This test scene is designed so that when it is divided up for multiple threads, they each finish at approximately the same time, hence the similarity between the times for 2, 4 and 8 threads.

So ScreamerNet is providing a savings of around 3 seconds per frame over rendering from within LightWave.

I haven't loaded LightWave onto the quad (nor do I intend to) so I can't give you the LightWave/ScreamerNet comparison for that platform.

12-02-2005, 10:49 AM
So Bruce,

Why wouldn't you load Lightwave on the quad? Do you plan on just using it with Renderfarm commander as a mini render farm? ...just curious.

12-02-2005, 03:19 PM
Hi Marlo,

That's exactly right. I use LightWave on a dual 2.7GHz G5 with one of those big 30" Apple LCD screens, and it's fine for the work I do. I mainly do print-resolution renders, so the only time I need the grunt is during the final render, where I use the render farm. So the quad is destined for a future of hard labour in the render farm!

Also, I'm currently testing the latest feature of RenderFarm Commander. It's now setup to integrate with LightWave so that even an F9 or F10 render can be split up and sent out to the render farm. So the quad will be working for me every time I press F9. I should have this ready for release soon.


12-03-2005, 09:09 AM
Bruce, any plans to write RenderFarm Commander for PC, I would absolutley love to use your program!

PPPPPPPPPleeeeeeeeeeeease! (<- said in Roger Rabbit type voice!)


12-04-2005, 05:34 AM
Bruce, any plans to write RenderFarm Commander for PC, I would absolutley love to use your program!

PPPPPPPPPleeeeeeeeeeeease! (<- said in Roger Rabbit type voice!)

Matt, the plan is definitely there. As to whether I will ever get the time, that's another thing! I assure you though, I do want to make a PC version.