Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Benchmark Mayhem
Benchmark Mayhem This section is for you benchmark freaks. Wanna show off your 3D Mark Vantage scores with your brand new GTX 295 SLI or Radeon HD 4870 X2 Crossfire in that Intel Core 2 rig? Then this is your section!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
MayaCarBench: real world performance in Autodesk Maya
Old
  (#1)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default MayaCarBench: real world performance in Autodesk Maya - 10-24-2009, 00:16 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

Hello World

here I am again, worrying, as always, about the best way to run Maya as smoothly as possible

but there's something different now: standard benchmarks won't cut it anymore

it's not just a matter of whether or not the mods we currently have (for both ati and nvidia cards) are really working, but there's also the question of whether a real FireGL/Quadro makes any difference in the real world anymore: they certainly do much better in the usual spec benchmarks, but it doesn't seem easy to feel the difference in the real world

this guy has done a great job of analysing performance in 3dsmax:
http://area.autodesk.com/forum/autod...s41/post-0/#p0

but I use maya, so, after textbench and bikebench, here comes the new and greatly improved MayaCarBench

It's a scene containing 11 models from gfx-3d-model.blogspot.com: 10 cars and an aircraft; with 1.3 million triangles, and some nice textures, it's definitely able to bring my rig to its knees, both with the mod and with the standard catalyst drivers

here it is:
http://uploading.com/files/8c25edd2/MayaCarBench.zip/

if you want to use it:
* download zip
* extract it to a local drive, it will create a project subdir tree
* set 1280x1024 resolution
* open maya
* if you don't see it already, get the fps indicator: display > heads up display > frame rate
* file > project > set > look for the MayaCarBench directory that came out of the zip
* file > open scene > MayaCarBench.mb
* you should see ten cars and an aircraft, plus some text disclaimer on the origin of the models, all shaded and with textures
* press play; the camera will rotate around the models
* look at the fps indicator, and take note of the HIGHEST fps number achieved (ok, if it's a clear outlier, please discard that one and get the highest non-outlier)

let's see if this can help us find an answer to questions like these:
* do the super-expensive FirePro / FireGL / Quadro cards make sense anymore?
* are the mods we have really working?
* which is best, nvidia or ati?


results so far:
Code:
n4d444 ------ 9.6 fps -- Q9550@3.6GHz - 8GB - xp.64 - GF8800 GT @ Quadro FX3700
kocha ------- 9.2 fps -- Q8200@3.2GHz - 4GB - xp.64 - real Quadro FX4600
SCHOKO ------ 8.6 fps -- T7700@2.4GHz - 4GB - w7.64 - HD2600M@FireGL - BUG SOLVED!!
kocha ------- 8.0 fps -- Q8200@3.2GHz - 4GB - linux - real Quadro FX4600
kocha ------- 8.0 fps -- Q8200@3.2GHz - 4GB - linux - real Quadro FX1700 512MB
kocha ------- 8.0 fps -- Q8200@3.2GHz - 4GB - linux - geforce 9500GT unmodded
kocha ------- 7.4 fps -- Q8200@3.2GHz - 4GB - xp.64 - real Quadro FX1700 512MB
Maryus3D ---- 7.0 fps -- q6600@2.4GHz - 8GB - w7.64 - GF8800 GT @ Quadro FX3700
wpgscorpion - 6.8 fps - i7-860@2.8GHz - 8GB - w7.64 - GF9800GT 512MB
n4d444 ------ 6.4 fps -- Q9550@2.8GHz - 4GB - xp.64 - real Quadro FX1700 512MB
CADCAT ------ 6.0 fps ---- C2D@3.8Ghz - 4GB - xp.64 - HD4870 unmodded
CADCAT ------ 6.0 fps ---- C2D@3.8Ghz - 4GB - xp.64 - HD4870 @ FirePro
CADCAT ------ 6.0 fps ---- C2D@3.8Ghz - 4GB - xp.64 - FirePro v7700
Maryus3D ---- 5.7 fps -- q6600@2.4GHz - 8GB - xp.64 - GF8800 GT @ Quadro FX3700
kocha ------- 5.2 fps -- T7500@2.2GHz - 4GB - xp.32 - real Quadro NVS 320M (NVS!)
Maryus3D ---- 4.7 fps -- q6600@2.4GHz - 8GB - w7.64 - GF8800 GT @ GeForce driver?
Glidefan ---- 4.5 fps -- ???????????? - 4GB - ????? - geforce GTX260 unmodded?
NormanBates - 4.4 fps -- q6600@3.0GHz - 2GB - xp.32 - HD4670 1GB unmodded 8.612
NormanBates - 4.4 fps -- q6600@3.0GHz - 2GB - xp.32 - HD4670 1GB unmodded 8.612, clocks down by 50% (GPU/GPURAM)
NormanBates - 4.4 fps -- q6600@3.0GHz - 2GB - xp.32 - HD4670 1GB modded 8.603
NormanBates - 4.3 fps -- q6600@3.0GHz - 2GB - xp.32 - HD4670 1GB unmodded 8.612 - system RAM 667MHz (instead of 800MHz)
NormanBates - 3.7 fps -- q6600@2.4GHz - 2GB - xp.32 - HD4670 1GB unmodded 8.612



WHAT WE'VE LEARNED: in this scene...
* NVIDIA is faster than ATI
* apart from that, the CPU is the only bottleneck: faster GPU, pro drivers, real pro card... they don't make a difference
* vista and w7 suck (with respect to xp)


sister benchmarks:

MayaBikeBench:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=307873

MaxCarBench:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=3338059

Last edited by NormanBates; 11-16-2010 at 18:17.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-25-2009, 14:47 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

I'll try in windows xp with the modded driver for Quadro and win7 with a clean Quadro driver which has the same performance as a geforce . My rez is 1680x1050 22 inch monitor .
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-25-2009, 15:24 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

thanks, I'm really interested in the performance of those cards
I guess the resolution shouldn't be a problem as long as it's not too different, say 800x600 or 1920x1200
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-25-2009, 15:47 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

I'v got 4,7 under win7 and 5,7 under win xp with the mod. Well the scene won't let me to zoom only rotate donno why. My Q6600 is at 2,4 GHz and rez 1680x1050.

EDIT: I'v solved the problem . It is slow . Reminds me of my island scene mayascen2

Last edited by Maryus3D; 10-25-2009 at 16:02.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-25-2009, 18:57 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

thanks, I posted your results in the table above

your gpu smokes mine in raw power and games, and it does so also in MayaCarBench
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1538.html?prod[2823]=on&prod[2872]=on

but we did learn one thing: in line with the 3dsmax review above that found wxp much faster than vista, we now know that in maya it's also best to stick to xp, even compared with w7


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryus3D View Post
I'v solved the problem . It is slow . Reminds me of my island scene mayascen2
don't cry, it's just a hell of a scene; just more realistically so than the ones we used in previous benchmarks

Last edited by NormanBates; 10-25-2009 at 19:01.
   
Reply With Quote
MayaCarBench on real Quadro FX4600
Old
  (#6)
kocha
Newbie
 
Videocard: NVidia Quadro FX4600
Processor: C2Q 8200@3150 MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45
Memory: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX
Soundcard: ALC888
PSU: LC Power Hyperion 700W
Default MayaCarBench on real Quadro FX4600 - 10-26-2009, 08:25 | posts: 12 | Location: Serbia

Hello to all!

I've tested my pc with MayaCarBench and got 9.2

Maya version 2010 64bit, XP64, 1280x1024.

My nvidia drivers are set to "Maya 2009 Stereo" profile, with overlay off.

I hope this throws some light on question "real quadro vs fake quadro"...

Last edited by kocha; 10-26-2009 at 09:01.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-26-2009, 09:09 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

wow, that's an impressive result for a card that's basically the same as Maryus3D's

it can be the drivers, or maybe the memory bandwidth (it can't be the amount, I think yours has 768MB, does it?)

but it looks like it's most probably the drivers; impressive
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-26-2009, 12:29 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

Well the Q8200@ 3,2 is faster then my Q6600 stock and FX 4600 is faster the my FX3700 like 8800GTX > 8800GT . Overall nice results .
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
kocha
Newbie
 
Videocard: NVidia Quadro FX4600
Processor: C2Q 8200@3150 MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45
Memory: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX
Soundcard: ALC888
PSU: LC Power Hyperion 700W
Default 10-26-2009, 12:32 | posts: 12 | Location: Serbia

Another test with even older Quadro FX 1700 512 MB on the same computer gives me 7.4 FPS.... Not bad at all, better performance/price ratio than FX 4600 :-)

When I choose "Base profile" settings on Quadro FX 1700 result is 7.1, with "Maya" profile = 7.4

Some nvidia driver settings are not "published" through Control Panel, but do exist in registry (for example OGL_App_SupportBits). It is very difficult to trace the meaning of each bit in that value, I am not an expert, but I've noticed that every application profile has its own value...

One more thing... I can't find application profile settings in nvidia linux drivers, so I am "convicted" to base profile settings. Benchmark results of FX 4600 in linux are worse than in windows (just 8)... but guess what FX 1700 in Linux scores better (8 = the same as FX 4600).

Conclusion: For Maya on Linux : cheap original Quadro = expensive original Quadro !!??!!??

Last edited by kocha; 10-26-2009 at 13:12.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-26-2009, 18:22 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

Because Maya uses only one core from CPU and the GPU is limited .
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-26-2009, 18:59 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

wow, still amazing results: that FX1700 should be definitely slower than a 8800GT: it's the pro version of a really slow 8600GT, it has less raw power, less memory, less bandwith, less everything --> it can only be the drivers!

and the linux results are also interesting, but my main concern there would be: some people said, long time ago, that in linux and mac drivers for Quadro/FireGL cards were exactly the same as for their gaming counterparts --> can you test a geforce card in linux?



what's in a quadro, and in a geforce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Quadro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ocessing_units

Last edited by NormanBates; 10-26-2009 at 19:18.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
kocha
Newbie
 
Videocard: NVidia Quadro FX4600
Processor: C2Q 8200@3150 MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45
Memory: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX
Soundcard: ALC888
PSU: LC Power Hyperion 700W
Default 10-26-2009, 19:36 | posts: 12 | Location: Serbia

Yes, both Nvidia and Amd (Ati) pack both non-workstation and workstation Linux drivers in one large archive...

I can test Gainward GeForce 9500 GT 512 MB in Linux, I will be back with results in 30 minutes

tick tack tick tack ... 30 minutes passed


Thank You Norman for your suggestion to bench "good old" 9500GT, because I've found out something very interesting.

9500GT 512 MB + Centos 64bit Linux 5.3 + Maya 2009 + MayaCarBench ...
8 fps (like both Quadros I've tested)

With Backface culling enabled score is even better = 8.7

What to say, I am confused. Maya only users, dont throw your GeForce, try Linux

Last edited by kocha; 10-26-2009 at 20:28.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-26-2009, 23:35 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

ok, so linux is the promised not-even-a-mod-is-needed land... as long as you can live with it

amazing

edit: yes, truly amazing

Last edited by NormanBates; 10-26-2009 at 23:40.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Glidefan
Don Booze
 
Glidefan's Avatar
 
Videocard: HD7850 | 8600M GS
Processor: C2Q Q6600 | C2D T5550
Mainboard: ASUS P5W DH Deluxe
Memory: 6144MB | 4096MB
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS | ALC 888
PSU: Aurora 600w | 90w AC
Default 10-26-2009, 23:49 | posts: 12,015 | Location: Solar System, Earth, Med, Cyprus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryus3D View Post
Because Maya uses only one core from CPU and the GPU is limited .
You sure? i can see my cores going back and forth all the time with maya.
4.5fps but at 1680*1050 with a 260
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-27-2009, 06:27 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

Yes I'm sure .
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-27-2009, 09:15 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glidefan View Post
You sure? i can see my cores going back and forth all the time with maya.
4.5fps but at 1680*1050 with a 260
are you using v.2010? it would be nice if they had changed this (though I also doubt it)

I add your results to the table, with ??? so far for OS and processor, and assuming you didn't use modded drivers

Last edited by NormanBates; 10-27-2009 at 09:19.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
kocha
Newbie
 
Videocard: NVidia Quadro FX4600
Processor: C2Q 8200@3150 MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45
Memory: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX
Soundcard: ALC888
PSU: LC Power Hyperion 700W
Default 10-27-2009, 09:20 | posts: 12 | Location: Serbia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryus3D View Post
Yes I'm sure .
True, Maya use only one core for viewport rendering, but use all cores for final rendering. I've tried to set affinity of maya.exe process to CPU 0 only and got the same bench results as earlier.

During the MayaCarBench, that one core is nearly 100% used. That could be the problem if we talk about MayaCarBench "reliability" as graphics card bench. Because of high CPU usage whole test is very CPU dependable. I suppose the main goal is to evaluate GPU effect on viewport performance.

Maybe this is main reason why I get the same result with 3 different cards in Linux
   
Reply With Quote
MayaCarBench on my laptop
Old
  (#18)
kocha
Newbie
 
Videocard: NVidia Quadro FX4600
Processor: C2Q 8200@3150 MHz
Mainboard: MSI P45
Memory: 2x2 GB Kingston HyperX
Soundcard: ALC888
PSU: LC Power Hyperion 700W
Default MayaCarBench on my laptop - 10-27-2009, 09:35 | posts: 12 | Location: Serbia

HP 8710p notebook, C2D T7500@2.2 GHz, 4GB, Quadro NVS 320M

XP32, Maya 2010 32bit, 1680x1050 resolution

5.2 FPS (5.6 with Backface culling enabled)


This notebook Quadro is not like real workstation Quadro, even my control panel is "GeForce like" without workstation options. Technology is the same as GeForce 8400GS.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-27-2009, 11:31 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

ok, there must be something wrong here if a quadro NVS with 320MB of memory and running on the slowest CPU in the table can score higher than any non-quadro thing we tested

possible explanations:
* drivers are still very important, even quadro NVS ones have the necessary bits turned on
* I'm dumb and I created a scene that needs so much memory in the card that even 1GB is not enough and we're just meassuring the GPU-to-system-RAM performance; I'll try to investigate that

in any case, I still think it's a useful benchmark: it's a scene with 1.3M triangles and real textures, so it's close to what many of us would find in real world

if the conclussion is that under these circumstances Maya is so CPU dependant that it doesn't matter which GPU you are using, then it means I don't want to spend big $$$ on a quadro card, maybe I'm just fine working in linux with a 8800GT, or, if I find linux too cumbersome (as I do) I can just decide between that same 8800GT with modded drivers or a real Quadro FX1800, but I won't go above that, and I will make sure I get a really fast CPU

it would be a nice conclusion, but I think the jury is still out on this one...

now, if the problem is that I used a scene with too many MB of textures, then I'm dumb because you could always work with slower res textures and then swap them before the final render

EDIT: one way to see if the main performance driver is the CPU would be to downclock it and test again; if access to the system RAM is the bottleneck, playing with the clocks there should tell us something; my 2 systems are busy until thursday, I'll test all this then

Last edited by NormanBates; 10-27-2009 at 11:38.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-27-2009, 14:11 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

I don't understand why Autodesk live the same poor optimization for maya since 1996 or so . There is a lot of powerful hardware out there and maya can't use it at all.

Last edited by Maryus3D; 10-27-2009 at 14:23.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
n4d444
Member Guru
 
Videocard: 8800GT@FX3700
Processor: Q9550@3.6
Mainboard: Gigabyte P35-DS3P
Memory: 4x2GB DDR2
Soundcard: E-MU 1212m
PSU: Corsair CX400
Default 10-28-2009, 09:22 | posts: 71 | Location: Croatia

Big companies ("big" managers) think big. They think a few new stupid features are gonna make them more customers/profit than optimizing their existing program. All programs that have been bought by a big company suffer like this.
I didn't test the scene on my computers but from what I can see looking at these benches is that it's a bad scene. It not so much a bad scene as much as Maya lack optimizations and your CPU and HDD make a larger impact on your frame rate than your graphic card does.
Trust me in a regular scene (where you aren't bottlenecked by CPU/HDD/lack of optimization) a real/modded quadro (no difference in Maya from what I have seen untill now) is at least 2-3 times faster than a regular geforce or a real/modded firegl.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-28-2009, 12:57 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

Quote:
Originally Posted by n4d444 View Post
Trust me in a regular scene (where you aren't bottlenecked by CPU/HDD/lack of optimization) a real/modded quadro (no difference in Maya from what I have seen untill now) is at least 2-3 times faster than a regular geforce or a real/modded firegl.
well, this scene is not far from what I would be using at those times when I get an urge to scream at my screen (I'm not interested in having more fps when I already have *enough* fps)

what I can picture quite easily is that, as I'm not a real pro, I'm mostly self-taught and still in my learning process, what I work with may be completely different from what a pro user would be working with

maybe you would be generous enough to provide us with a "regular scene" which is hard enough on any system to be a useful benchmark?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
Maryus3D
Member Guru
 
Maryus3D's Avatar
 
Videocard: Zotac GTX 285
Processor: i5 750 @ 2,6
Mainboard: ASRock P55 Deluxe
Memory: 4 GB KingMax Mars
Soundcard: onboard
PSU: Corsair 450VX
Default 10-28-2009, 21:05 | posts: 97 | Location: Romania

Remember the bike scene? The textured one? I guess we should use it as a benchmark ... on a regular card the scene has around 7-8 fps but on Quadro mod has over 20fps .
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
n4d444
Member Guru
 
Videocard: 8800GT@FX3700
Processor: Q9550@3.6
Mainboard: Gigabyte P35-DS3P
Memory: 4x2GB DDR2
Soundcard: E-MU 1212m
PSU: Corsair CX400
Default 10-28-2009, 22:16 | posts: 71 | Location: Croatia

These pictures just show how badly optimized Maya is.
You all guys should also bench in wireframe. That seams to show a cards power a bit.




Strange how 3ds max is so much faster in shaded view than in wirframe. Maya shaded view performance is horrible.
I just started learning Maya (I am just curious and mby I'll need it one day). I am a 3ds max user for many years now. I was amazed how completely similar the two programs are, even some of the shortcuts are the same.

edit: btw this is a modded quadro FX3700 (8800GT) not a real one (tested under WinXP x64 SP2 with Maya 2009 at 1680x1050 with Maya profile in nv control panel I also forgot to mention I have 8GB of ram)
edit: To answer your question. It's about CPU power. Quadros are all gonna performe similary here cos of Maya bad optimization. If I put an FX1700 in my comp I would probably get exactly the same results in shaded view but a bit smaller results in wireframe. I am gonna prove this some other time.

Last edited by n4d444; 10-28-2009 at 22:36.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
NormanBates
Master Guru
 
NormanBates's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI HD3870 / ATI HD4670
Processor: Intel Q6600@3GHz
Mainboard: Asus P5K
Memory: 2gb DDR2-800
Soundcard: similaar.com
PSU: find similar things
Default 10-28-2009, 23:22 | posts: 376 | Location: Spain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryus3D View Post
Remember the bike scene? The textured one? I guess we should use it as a benchmark ... on a regular card the scene has around 7-8 fps but on Quadro mod has over 20fps .
yes, I remember the maya scene, and specially the textured one; in fact, I textured it, in about 5 minutes: I googled something like "brass", got a couple of really big bitmaps, created some new materials with them, and applied them mostly at random, with no meaningful UV mapping at all

so it's not a bad benchmark, but I felt it had some potential to be misleading

this time the models are realistically textured: someone (not me) has taken his/her time to apply those materials correctly

anyways, it may not be a bad idea to collect all of the BikeBench results and create a table like the one I posted at the beginning of this thread, to see if we can make some sense out of them; I'll give it a try...
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.