PDA

View Full Version : MacPRo 2.6 Ghz Rosetta and Win XP test results



icegiantnewtek
09-27-2006, 09:37 AM
Hi all. I had been looking for speed tests for the Mac Pro running Lightwave under Rosetta to see whether to wait or not to get one. Then someone else in the office got one so we ran some speed tests. We have just received a Mac Pro 2.6 We installed Windows XP using Boot Camp (incredibly easy and quick) and Lightwave 9 in both OSX and Windows XP and ran the same scene 3 times.

The results make me very excited about LW9 Universal Binary when it comes out. I’m presuming that the Univsal Binaries for OSX will be as fast as the Win XP. These machines are super-fast!

The scene was rendered at 640 x 480 pixels, 54,047 points, 91,912 polys, 1500mb segment memory limit, 8 threads selected and 5 pass classic anti aliasing. I’ll try to attach JPGs of the Render status display for all 3. Thought you might be interested as this is a fairly complicated file.

1. G5 dual 2.5 OSX (10.4.7) 4 GB Ram - 9 mins 17 secs

2. Mac Pro (10.4.7 Rosetta) 2 Gb Ram - 11 mins 13 secs

3. Mac Pro (Windows XP) 2 Gb Ram - 3 mins 4 secs

Hope these results help.

Icegiant. :) :) :)

Chilton
09-27-2006, 09:42 AM
Hi,

These are definitely interesting results. Could you run a similar test with some of the v9 content? I'd like to compare it to the UB version.

Now, this would be entirely internal here right now--I'm not going to post benchmarks yet. But I am curious, nonetheless.

And even if you don't have time for that, thank you for doing that. Very interesting...!

Thank you,
-Chilton

icegiantnewtek
09-27-2006, 09:49 AM
No problem at all!

V9 content? Can you elaborate? Sorry, Im not as pro a user as Id like to be.
Id be glad to do any tests that might help between work stuff.

I know the Rosetta test is slow and Im aware that the G5 quad is much faster than my G5 but the Win XP result I think is really exciting.

John the Geek
09-27-2006, 01:55 PM
V9 content? Can you elaborate?

Sample content that came with Lightwave 9. =)

toby
09-27-2006, 02:10 PM
There is a 'Benchmark' folder in the LW content directory, can you do the Tracer Radiosity test? ( it's the most processor intensive one ) Then we can compare it to the tests at : http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

Thanks!

BeeVee
09-28-2006, 02:51 AM
There is no benchmark folder in the LightWave v9 content.

B

icegiantnewtek
09-28-2006, 02:56 AM
Yes BeeVee I can’t find one either. Does it have something to do with our LW9s being downloaded rather than from CD/DVDs?

Edit: Found out ftom Newtek that it’s in my downloads section on their website. Downloading it now.

icegiantnewtek
09-29-2006, 08:14 AM
I did some more tests with LW 9 content.

I did Pillars.lws as a still frame but turned on Radiosity and Caustics. I also rendered bot_26_v002.lws as a 500 frame Quicktime animation but stopped at the first frame to get the estimated total time from Lightwave. I presume the estimated total time on the render diplay is acurate. Rendering it out would have taken 13hrs.

I noticed something very interesting when setting up bot_26_v002.lws to render on the MacPro under Win XP. I hadn’t got Quicktime installed so I set it to render as an AVI just to see how quick it would be and came back with a time exactly the same as the MacPro under Rosetta. When I installed Quicktime into Win XP and ran it again it was lightning fast. Maybe you guys know about this already but I thought it was weird enough to post.

The results are:

Pillars: G5 dual 2.5 OSX (10.4.7) 4 GB Ram - 32 mins 9 secs
Pillars: Mac Pro (10.4.7 Rosetta) 2 Gb Ram - 31 mins 10 secs
Pillars: Mac Pro (Windows XP) 2 Gb Ram - 8 mins 25 secs

Bot: G5 dual 2.5 OSX (10.4.7) 4 GB Ram - 11 Hrs 15 Mins 8 Secs
Bot: Mac Pro (10.4.7 Rosetta) 2 Gb Ram - 13 Hrs 45 Mins 0 Secs
Bot: Mac Pro (Windows XP) 2 Gb Ram - 2 Hrs 8 Mins 4 Secs

Attached to this post are screen grabs of the render displays of Pillars. I’ll attach the rest the next post straight after this one as there is a 5 file limit.

Hope this all helps.

Icegiant.

icegiantnewtek
09-29-2006, 08:16 AM
.

Chilton
09-29-2006, 08:46 AM
Would you mind posting a higher quality (lower compression) version of those? It looks like the PC version is rendering a much less complex end result. I suspect that's artifacts from the JPEG compression though.

And aside from that one little request, thank you very much for this!

-Chilton

Scazzino
09-29-2006, 09:02 AM
Yes, it looks like the pillars renders are very different with the Win version missing much of the detail. [EDIT: Maybe it's missing some image maps?]

Also, one reason the Bot test was over 10x faster in Windows was that the AA was turned off... The Mac version shows AA Classic, Enhanced Low while the Windows version shows AA None...

It might be worth re-running the tests and making sure that all settings are exactly the same on all the tests...

Chilton
09-29-2006, 09:09 AM
IceGiant,

Don't feel like you really have to push this any farther. I really appreciate your work on this already, and it does give me some numbers I obviously would have had to spend many hours coming up with on my own.

Of course, if you have some free time, feel free to continue. Likewise, if you have some free money, I can send you my address. ;-)

Thank you!
-Chilton

icegiantnewtek
09-29-2006, 09:35 AM
Sorry about that, well spotted Scazzino. I have updated the time on the Bot Win XP to 2Hrs 8Mins 4Secs. The Win XP render of Pillars seems to leaving out some of the texture maps yet all are there, I checked the Surface editoe and Image editor and it doesn’t ask for any missing images, very strange. I re-rendered and will attach a high quality render display anyway.

I see what you mean about not pushing it any further, we get the idea from what is done already. It has been no problem at all to give a tiny helping hand and good luck with the UBs etc.

P.S. I’ll send your details Chilton on to our Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister). He’s just been nicked for receiving "private donations" from "friends" so he’s obviously got some spare cash lying round.

pixym
09-29-2006, 10:53 AM
I do not understand why it takes so much time to render under XP Pro...
I have performed the pillars scene under XP Pro on a dell dual woodcrest 5160 3ghz, and it takes 33 sec.

Scazzino
09-29-2006, 11:02 AM
I do not understand why it takes so much time to render under XP Pro...
I have performed the pillars scene under XP Pro on a dell dual woodcrest 5160 3ghz, and it takes 33 sec.

That render's missing some image maps too...

Compare it to the Mac OS X versions in this thread and you'll see that the Mac versions all have burn (and/or dirt) marks and brighter highlights. Looks like the specular (and/or diffuse) maps are missing, which probably also makes it render a bit slower on the Mac since it's dealing with more image maps...

Maybe the Windows versions are running out of memory to render the image maps, or maybe the file paths aren't converting properly between Mac and Windows???

pixym
09-29-2006, 11:05 AM
ok, I will check this in a few minutes...

3dworks
09-29-2006, 11:09 AM
I do not understand why it takes so much time to render under XP Pro...
I have performed the pillars scene under XP Pro on a dell dual woodcrest 5160 3ghz, and it takes 33 sec.

...but you didn't turn radiosity and caustics on, like did icegiant...

3dworks
09-29-2006, 11:32 AM
just for comparing, here the result for the rendering of pilars.lws with radiosity and caustics activated (all other settings as defaults) on a mac quad PPC G5 at 2.5 ghz:

12m 6s

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7594/picture1dt3.jpg

markus

pixym
09-29-2006, 06:20 PM
...but you didn't turn radiosity and caustics on, like did icegiant...

Ah ok, what are the settings?
Hey markus, we have something in common, FPrime addict both :thumbsup:
The only thing I am waiting for is FPrime 64 bits...

Largemedium
09-30-2006, 01:29 AM
I do not understand why it takes so much time to render under XP Pro...
I have performed the pillars scene under XP Pro on a dell dual woodcrest 5160 3ghz, and it takes 33 sec.

I think one reason... well, actually two... is because you turned off caustics and radiosity. Apply those and watch your render time increase substantially.

Edit: Oops, sorry. Didn't notice that 3dworks had already caught that. My bad.