If you're gonna test with an ATI card, pls use the 0.4.7 or it may hang. The 0.4.5e had several problems related to Catalyst 10.12 APP that could hang the system ( should be ok with Cat.10.9 + SDK 2.2 tho ).Quote:
Originally Posted by AmdAtiTom420
Printable View
If you're gonna test with an ATI card, pls use the 0.4.7 or it may hang. The 0.4.5e had several problems related to Catalyst 10.12 APP that could hang the system ( should be ok with Cat.10.9 + SDK 2.2 tho ).Quote:
Originally Posted by AmdAtiTom420
Just tried on notebook...
sony-vaio-vpcea36fg
Core i5 Processor – 2.66 Ghz
4 Gb DDR3 RAM
500 Gb SATA Hard Disk
ATI Radeon HD 5650 – 1 Gb Graphics Card + ati mobility catalyst 10.12 + ati stream v2.3
14″ TFT Display
GPU only = 666
satanic number :D
BTW: i checked with 3dsmax there is a ratGPU renderer inside after install ratgpu. How to use it?
Nice to see the program works with an ATI laptop! I own only a 5750 to develop/test.Quote:
Originally Posted by realbabilu
Hehehe!Quote:
GPU only = 666
satanic number :D
Start looking at the ratGPU examples in \ratGPUinstallDir\3dsmax_examplesQuote:
BTW: i checked with 3dsmax there is a ratGPU renderer inside after install ratgpu. How to use it?
For a custom scene just change the default renderer to ratGPU: Rendering->Render setup->Assign renderer->Production->ratGPU 0.4.7
Then you assign several materials... and sure you set almost one with "emissive color" to non-black so lights can be created.
After that, just set your camera, change the ratGPU's parameters you need ( # of rays, type of map to render, etc... ) and render the image.
You can also save the scene to a .RAT file to be open in the stand-alone renderer app.
Here you can find a small tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIQ6VANw-HE
Not sure if its these new, (263.14 found on Palit's site), drivers or the new ratGPU, but I was a little faster with the 258.96 / v0.4.5e combo. :D
http://www.palit.biz/main/download.p...ate=vga&id=673
http://img.techpowerup.org/110118/263 14 def NVcpl.jpg
EDIT
The option to use both the cpu and gpu won't show.
Well, you should see ratGPU c++ device always. That's kinda strange :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by AmdAtiTom420
If you could not see the AMD Stream: CPU device could be logical as you're using an NVIDIA card but the C++ dev should be always present ( unless your Athlon II is OCd but not stable so the system could start making strange things )
No screenie but the same held true after going back to the HD 5750. Could it be my 10.12 mobo drivers ? I'll reinstall and try again later ..Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
Everything is okie, after switching over to Stream SDK 2.2. :up:
stock HD 5750
http://img.techpowerup.org/110123/047 gpu.jpg
3250mhz cpu
http://img.techpowerup.org/110123/047 cpu.jpg
Stream cpu
http://img.techpowerup.org/110123/Stream Cpu.jpg
Edit
840/1200 gpu .. personal best gpu oc :D
http://img.techpowerup.org/110123/840 1200 gpu.jpg
Nice, AmdAtiTom420 !
Btw, just by curiosity... How did you OC for the Juniper? With the ATI's CCC or with the Radeon BIOS Editor? I want to OC my 5750 too!
Mucho thanks lol..
I used CCC and its built in tester. Has not failed me yet heh..:cool: Every combo I've tried has been stable so far. 770/1200 > 800/1250 > 810/1200 > 810/1250 > 840/1200
Using the stock cooler ? Soo very impressed by mine, considering there is noo copper. hehe
And I will be testing/buying a BFG GTX 285 tomorrow... "licks chops" ...
My stock, 700mhz run was not so stock b/c CCC was set at 16x AA and AF. :D
Edit..
The HD 5750 is sold ahah.. and the buyer has given me a BFG 9800 GX2 to troubleshoot :up: The 285 is on the way tomorrow. :D
Good thing I still have this still kickin! :shocked: GPUz shows no checkmark for Open CL ...
http://img.techpowerup.org/110126/88...orrent lol.jpg
Oooh, nice score ! The good old 8800GT is still rocking !
It wouldn't make it to the welcome screen ! Then I read somewhere that I maybe overloading my 12v rails.
A 2x 4pin to 6pin adapter later and ... :D Good to see it scales well with the 8800.
http://img.techpowerup.org/110126/9800 gx2.jpg
:clap:
Update..
Glad I held off buying the GX2 lol... bought this instead today. :D
:up:
http://img.techpowerup.org/110127/GTX 285.jpg
Everthing is turning up Milhouse ! haha
First try, any good?
http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m...GPUcapture.png
41.33 using 267.24 drivers on GTX480 @ 800/2000
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...61747F167520A5
Hi,
I have a question concerning your benchmark. I have three GPUs in my rig, which are not connected via SLI Bridge. According to the usagemeter in the downleft corner, the benchmark is splitting up the image in 4 pieces which are then calculated by each single GPU, but the last one is only being calculated by one GPU, while the others are idling.
Wouldn't it be possible to split up the last part of the image in again 3 pieces and on and on... just the way cinebench does it for your CPU threads/cores?
I think that would speed up the benchmark quite alot.
Yep, the last tile is a bit problematic. Your solution sounds interesting, thanks. I'll take a loot for the next release.Quote:
Originally Posted by soya_crack
Btw, I've just uploaded the v0.4.8 with some bugs corrected ( /point ATI ). It might be a bit slower than the 0.4.7 because I'm preparing it for new features.
@jogshy same issue here @ 3 gpus what soya_crack stated above
im at 15.xx sec and it should be more like around 11.xx sec
Cool, which cards do you use Napalm?
@soya_crack
gtx580 + sli bridges + 100mhz pcie
1x: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=52
2x: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=65
3x: http://www.xnormal.net/ratGPU/verify...3DC0AB16754B20
http://i52.tinypic.com/2eyz2fa.png
Nice score, Napalm!
Btw, you don't really need the SLI bridge to use multiple devices with OpenCL.
I've uploaded the 0.4.9 with some bugs corrected, ATI optimizations and sightly smaller tiles for SLI/CF.
thanks jogshy gave ver.4.9 a try same clocks as ^above 950/2300
this is the best time i got @ ver.4.9
http://www.xnormal.net/ratGPU/verify...D3220D1675487D
I just uploaded the 0.5.0 with AA and texture support.
6950 @ stock : 148s.
Btw, anybody can tell me if the GTX 590 or the 6990 are seen as an unique OpenCL device or, on the contrary, as two independent OpenCL devices, pls?
I still don't see any improvements with my 3 560 GTXs. The benchmark does look like cinebench now but it doesn't act like it as i obvisiouly don't get a better time score. To me it seems that all the GPUs are used all the time but not all are used at 100%.
What version are you using? Try to use the latest one ( 0.5.0 ), pls.Quote:
Originally Posted by soya_crack
If you render with (1 GPU vs 3 GPUs) or (1 GPU vs 1 CPU) you should notice any difference for sure :)
Are you performing hybrid rendering? Render only with the GPUs, disable all the CPU devices and see if that helps.
I've uploaded the 0.5.1. Fixed several problems with Catalyst 11.3
Concerning Post Number 128.
I do of course see a difference comparing 3 Cards with 1 Card. But there is no performance difference between v.0.5 and v0.4.9.
In Version 4.9 all GPUS were used at 100% Usage but the lasr frame was always only rendered by 1 card.
In version 5 all GPUs render all the time but not at 100 %, that is why there is no difference between 5 and 4.9
Thanks for the detailed explanation, soya.
Well, the 0.5.0 performs AA and the 0.4.9 not, so if their render times are equal then then 0.5.0 is much faster in practise because it's taking much more samples !
However, the last tile is a bit problematic: as the GPU requires tons of data to perform optimal parallel execution, I cannot make it much smaller. The 0.4.9 used bigger tiles but the 0.5.0+ uses sightly smaller ones. In theory, that should help SLI synchronization but, in practise, reducing the data size affects performance so the net win might be annulled.
It's hard to solve it. All the parallel tasks must wait at some point to perform synchronization. It's near impossible to get a 100% scaling. In a CPU renderer the tiles can be smaller but GPUs need lots of data to amortize the ALUs and the big-latency memory fetches. I neither can avoid to use tiles because, then, it will be almost impossible to render big images without being out of memory.
It is support as plugin in 3ds max 2012?
3dsmax 2010, 2011 and 2012, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by realbabilu
I plan to support Maya soon too.
im not going to pretend that i read this thread all the way so it may be covered.
the rv770/790 work with this so why are they not supported officially on the list of working cards (both detect as the rv770)
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...B6373916752916
its not quick but it was not using the cpu (that was an rv790, 4890 not a 770 4870)
Oh, nice to see a 4XXX running well.
The main reason for not supporting the 4XXX is that I lack a card to test and that the AMD APP SDK does not support images/multiple UAV buffers for the 4XXX.
It's strange that your 4XXX supports all this but maybe your drivers are patched to emulate that functionality in some way.
i think that amd dose not support it since its slow, but the box said openCL.Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
can u change the site to say that it may work on the rv770/90 as i think that those are the only ones with openCL support that works, or it might be a change from the 770 to 790 like the change is shader cashe and power trenching and shader timings
HD4670 (RV730) 1GB DDR3. Windows 7 with Catalyst 11.3 .
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...0BE2CC16752999
Will test with my 4870 later....
I've uploaded the 0.5.2:
- Added Maya 2012 support ( Windows and Mac ).
- Added support for ATI Radeon HD 4XXX cards.
- Optimized a bit the precomputation phase.
- Fixed several installation problems under linux.
- Removed the need for an Internet connection and the expiration date.
- Improved rendering speed for ATIs a lot ( 33%-100% ) ... BUT you'll need Catalyst 11.5 or above or ratGPU may hang.
OMG 4xxx support, looks like ill be testing this when i get home tonight
great work!
stock 4850: 268 seconds
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...C12D1C16752996
Nice, thanks for testing.
NVidia Quadro 600 : 299.56s
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...CE1E0B167527D9
HD4870 650MHz Ratgpu 0.52 beta - 252.197548s
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...D925141675297B
Catalyst 11.5 hotfix
HD 6970 910 core, 1450 mem clock
83.505 seconds
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...1FEFDA16752E1D
Nice!
Btw, anybody with a Fusion E-350 to test, pls? I'm curious.
4870 (1Gb) 775/935 clocks - 190.264 secs
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...B3434E1675293E
I was curious if any platform differences would come into play, and also if modded 6950 is somewhat a bit slower (mem timings ?).So i did a test with same settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by xPliziT
Appears all is same.
Cat 11.5b
HD6950@6970 910 core, 1450 mem
83.484
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...76867316752EFE
Cpu scores :
APP 652.338
Rat Gpu Cpu C++=1750.830
ill try again to convince my brother to run it,Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
and ill leave out the part about how long it will probably take when does the cpu :D
or a Fusion A8-3850 :p:
I got my card back from warranty land, so here goes a 4890.
284 seconds. Catalyst 11.6
http://www.ratgpu.com/verify.aspx?k=...A2323F167529A1
EDIT: I think my scores are pretty bad because I'm running a simulation right now (and a lot more queued)... I'll try again in a few months when I get a newer computer, lol.
Nice to see 4XXX working!Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
Btw, I've just uploaded the 0.5.3. I fixed some problems with Catalyst 11.6 and optimized the CPU rendering a 20-33% for Manicdan's bro :p:
Thanks for testing Llano, matt.
I've uploaded the 0.5.4 with some minor bugs corrected and optimizations.
Also tested with an E350, GPU only : 1689s.
2*HD6950 (one unlocked @1536 SP) with latest driver . Rendering time ~ 39.88s. :D
Attachment 119442
This is my bench: 2x HD6950@6970 - 900/1400
Attachment 119449
With the Llano at 152x23 and the ram at 1013mhz, I see a little under 277.
--Matt
wow radeons ^ have improved a lot
3 seconds faster than 2x 580 at the same clocks.. still room for improvement
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/3854/48727807.png
Nice result Napalm!
Go test with Bulldozer! :)
Attachment 121320
AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz (Turbo Core enabled, i.e two cores running at 3.7GHz with this kind of load).
Woah! Your Bulldozer seems to be 2.5X slower than my 3-years old obsolete i7 920 OCd to 3,8Ghz + DDR3-1600 :rolleyes:
http://i55.tinypic.com/wm1nwg.jpg
Btw... can you disable the Turbo Core to force your CPU to run always at 3.7Ghz independently of the workload? I suspect Turbo Core is pure evil :D
Also could be a good idea to disable all the energy saving modes ( in Windows->Power options and also C1E,etc... in the BIOS ).
Q9650 @4.00GHz
721.563357 seconds
GTX460 1GB @975/1950/4600MHz
57.8731473 seconds
2x2GB DDR2 1000MHz 5-5-5-15-2T, P45, Win 7 x64 SP0, ForceWare 285.38
Not exactly standard settings (left NV CP settings to my custom preferences if that makes a difference with this app), my Quadro 285.58 mod drivers, everything else as in sig;
There's something strange with your Bulldozer, Stilt.
My 18W E-350 1,6Ghz APU is rendering in 1689s and your 95W FX-4100 3,7Ghz in 1594s .... Bulldozer cannot be so bad :ROTF:
1525s, donīt push it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
Does RatGPU support SSE4 or AVX?
Hereīs a FX-8150 at stock (Turbo Core enabled).
During rendering half of the cores are at 3600MHz and the other half at 3900MHz.
This means the average effective frequency is 3750MHz (4*3600 + 4x3900 / 8).
Attachment 121418
Yep, SSE and x64(which includes an improved SSE3 set). I'll probably add AVX once the final release of Visual Studio 2011/2012 is available.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
In my simulations AVX gives only a 3-5% benefit for this case though.
I still think the energy saving or Turbo Core is slowing the process. Have you tried to disable them?
719s ;)
Oh, I thought it was 779s. Must be a JPG-compression glitch with the green line on the top :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
So your FX-8150 performs more or less than kaktus1907's Q9650 @4.00GHz ... 3 years after and with 2x times cores :ROTF:
You should try to disable the energy saving mode and Turbo Core... Bulldozer cannot be so bad :p:
It has nothing to do with the Turbo Core or C6 State.Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
With these disabled the time is around 620s with all cores running at 4.2GHz.
Well, I bet then we must wait for Windows 8 and BIOS, Visual Studio 2011/12 and new optimizations .... but the BD's initial results aren't very good, that's for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Btw, I've uploaded the 0.5.5 with some bugs fixed.
Go test with those Radeon 7970s! :p:
jogshy, as interested as we all are, nobody has one yet apart from the reviewers lol. :p: