»

[KimmoK]

@ppcamiga1

Is there OpenCL benchmark where the effect of system bandwidths are observed?
For example PCIex4 vs PCIex16.

[ppcamiga1]

Originally Posted by KimmoK

@ppcamiga1

Is there OpenCL benchmark where the effect of system bandwidths are observed?
For example PCIex4 vs PCIex16.

Maybe so.

I did not do such tests.

I have in my PC slowest PCI Express 1x16 ver 1.0.

The is significant difference in rendering time on the GPU in comparison to the CPU.

I might change my motherboard with a faster but for now what I have is enough for me.

[ppcamiga1]

Originally Posted by Linde

... nothing worth quoting ...

It's very simple.

Once again yet another who has a problem with Amiga hardware (sexy but slightly more expensive than PC), start with useless benchmarks.

"so don't be a dick about it. "

and accept this simple explanation.

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by ppcamiga1

Results with OpenCL are significantly better.

My 4 year old graphics card renders twelve times faster than the four cores in my pc.

That makes this whole benchmark stupid and pathetic trolling.

In the real world, no one will use 3D software that runs only on the CPU, and wait, when the GPU is able to render the scene almost immediately.

Only a complete *IDIOT* would confuse a CPU benchmark with GPU benchmarks, and come to the conclusion "pathetic trolling" based on this...

Crazy!

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by ppcamiga1

In the real world, no one will use 3D software that runs only on the CPU, and wait, when the GPU is able to render the scene almost immediately.

*raises hand* I do. Both because POV-Ray doesn't support OpenCL to begin with, and because Intel chipset video sucks and it'd probably be slower even if it was supported.

But, y'know, that doesn't support your argument, so feel free to claim that it totally doesn't count.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by KimmoK

@Iggy
"You gave them what they asked for."
Hmm???

From the first thread:

Originally Posted by Seiya

With linux will be more interesting benchmark with LAme, Blender and Mplayer...

[Rob]

@Piru

Sundown said that the test was 6 seconds faster under OS4. It would be interesting to see the test result from your Powermac G4 under MorphOS. Since MorphOS is generally faster than OS4 it may well be a good bit faster than Linux for the same test.

[KimmoK]

@thread

Interesting observation by pavlor:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/...order=0#664371

"Edit - exact numbers:
PowerBook G4 1667 MHz, Blender 2.49: 325 s
PowerBook G4 1667 MHz, Blender Piru: 205 s

Edit2 (Blender 2.48 - same as used on OS4):
PowerBook G4 1500 MHz, Blender 2.48a: 425 s
AmigaOne XE G4 1000 MHz, Blender 2.48: 591 s"

AOS4 users would be happy to get those Blender optimizations, as it seems to make Piru's Blender 2x faster.

[Linde]

Originally Posted by ppcamiga1

It's very simple.

Once again yet another who has a problem with Amiga hardware (sexy but slightly more expensive than PC), start with useless benchmarks.

"so don't be a dick about it. "

and accept this simple explanation.

You didn't really explain anything. It's not a matter of having a problem with Amiga hardware as much as it is an informative benchmark. The numbers speak for themselves, and if they offend you, that's your problem.

I don't see how you can call someone a troll for posting a benchmark of hardware that could all potentially run Amiga-like operating systems just because the numbers aren't in your favor. If the truth hurts, learn to deal with it yourself instead of calling people trolls. If you think the benchmarks are useless, go ahead and don't mind them, but don't pretend that it's not an indication of CPU power.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

*raises hand* I do. Both because POV-Ray doesn't support OpenCL to begin with, and because Intel chipset video sucks and it'd probably be slower even if it was supported.

But, y'know, that doesn't support your argument, so feel free to claim that it totally doesn't count.

Intel Ivybridge supports OpenCL.

From http://news.povray.org/povray.genera...povray.org%3E/

CPU using 8 threads
fps 33.39695
2.9942 seconds

OpenCL CPU using 8 worker units
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz
2.8005 seconds

OpenCL GPU using 18 worker units
Cypress
1.7871 seconds
----

OpenCL can slightly speed up the CPU path.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by takemehomegrandma

Only a complete *IDIOT* would confuse a CPU benchmark with GPU benchmarks, and come to the conclusion "pathetic trolling" based on this...

Crazy!

Why the separation between CPU and GPU when AMD GCN supports IEEE 754-2008 floating point operations (including double precision FP)?

[Jupp3]

Originally Posted by ppcamiga1

Results with OpenCL are significantly better.

My 4 year old graphics card renders twelve times faster than the four cores in my pc.

That makes this whole benchmark stupid and pathetic trolling.

In the real world, no one will use 3D software that runs only on the CPU, and wait, when the GPU is able to render the scene almost immediately.

Yes, the whole thing is totally pointless. You already got the scene rendered, so what's the point of rendering it again on two other systems? You already got the picture you wanted!

[Piru]

Originally Posted by KimmoK

AOS4 users would be happy to get those Blender optimizations, as it seems to make Piru's Blender 2x faster.

This is the blender version from my linux distribution (debian unstable). I installed it with "apt-get install blender"

It was not built from source nor was any kind of optimizations applied.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Intel Ivybridge supports OpenCL.

Oh, I'm sure; I just meant that with the general performance of Intel GPUs I wouldn't be surprised to find out that CPU-only rendering was faster anyway

[cgutjahr]

Originally Posted by Piru

This is the blender version from my linux distribution (debian unstable). I installed it with "apt-get install blender"

So you were comparing results of two completely different Blender versions (sid has v2.63 while squeeze delivers v2.49)?

Now that should have been mentioned for sure.

Could you please update your initial graph with the proper value from this page (it's test no. 3786)? As pointed out by pavlor on AW, Blender 2.49 takes 325 seconds on a Powerbook matching yours - not the 205 seconds stated in your posting.