ratGPU OpenCL raytracing benchmark

[jogshy]

I got my card back from warranty land, so here goes a 4890.

Nice to see 4XXX working!

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

[mattkosem]

or a Fusion A8-3850

I got 314 on a llano at 125x28 or 311 with just the GPU portion.

--Matt

[jogshy]

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.

[SUPERKAMES]

2*HD6950 (one unlocked @1536 SP) with latest driver . Rendering time ~ 39.88s.

jpg_thumb.gif

[Gilgamesh]

This is my bench: 2x HD6950@6970 - 900/1400

[mattkosem]

With the Llano at 152x23 and the ram at 1013mhz, I see a little under 277.

--Matt

[NapalmV5]

wow radeons ^ have improved a lot


3 seconds faster than 2x 580 at the same clocks.. still room for improvement

[jogshy]

Nice result Napalm!

[jogshy]

Go test with Bulldozer!

[The Stilt]

Attachment 121320

AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz (Turbo Core enabled, i.e two cores running at 3.7GHz with this kind of load).

[jogshy]

Woah! Your Bulldozer seems to be 2.5X slower than my 3-years old obsolete i7 920 OCd to 3,8Ghz + DDR3-1600



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
Also could be a good idea to disable all the energy saving modes ( in Windows->Power options and also C1E,etc... in the BIOS ).

[kaktus1907]

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

[Ket]

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;

[jogshy]

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

[The Stilt]

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

1525s, don´t push it
Does RatGPU support SSE4 or AVX?

[The Stilt]

Here´s 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

[jogshy]

Does RatGPU support SSE4 or AVX?

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.
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?

[The Stilt]

719s

[jogshy]

719s

Oh, I thought it was 779s. Must be a JPG-compression glitch with the green line on the top

So your FX-8150 performs more or less than kaktus1907's Q9650 @4.00GHz ... 3 years after and with 2x times cores
You should try to disable the energy saving mode and Turbo Core... Bulldozer cannot be so bad

[The Stilt]

You should try to disable the energy saving mode and Turbo Core... Bulldozer cannot be so bad

It has nothing to do with the Turbo Core or C6 State.
With these disabled the time is around 620s with all cores running at 4.2GHz.

[jogshy]

It has nothing to do with the Turbo Core or C6 State.
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.

[jogshy]

Btw, I've uploaded the 0.5.5 with some bugs fixed.
Go test with those Radeon 7970s!

[blindbox]

jogshy, as interested as we all are, nobody has one yet apart from the reviewers lol.