How fast you are ?

[Ecuadorian]

I don't know what it is (More bits per channel? Compression deactivated?), but PNGs saved from OSX seem to be extra heavy.
A friend has OSX, too, and he once posted a 1-MB image to a forum; the page came to a crawl trying to load that thing.

[Dan]

Better later than never, isn't it?

System : Win XP Pro SP2
Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2133 MHz
Physical Memory : 4096 MB (4 x 1024 DDR2-SDRAM ) - only 3.2 Gb seen by Windows
Graphics Card : NVidia GeForce 7950 GT, 512 Mb RAM

...and a loooooong 1m 47s render time

[dtr]

1:12


Core 2 Duo 8500 3.0 mHz
4 GB ram
SU 7.1

dtr

[grdnblak]

1min 01s! I thought I might have been faster than that!

AMD Phenom x4 quad-core 2.2GHz
4GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 9500GS
Windows Vista SP2

Does that speed/time seem about right to anyone? is there anyway of checking that all cores are being used during rendering? When i changed the thread count from 1 to 4 it didn't seem to make a difference......

[Fletch]

by default Twilight utilizes all available threads. one should not change this setting in 99% of the cases, IMHO because Twilight also automatically gives thread priority to other applications while it's rendering, so as not to slow you down too much while rendering and working in SketchUp or other programs. That said, if you are using your machine for processor-intensive things while rendering, it will slow the rendering down.

[grdnblak]

hmmm, cheers for the response Fletch. Whenever i'm doing renders, i tend not to be doing anything else on the machine so as to attempt to maximise the speed of the renders, i'll keep looking however see if i can find anything...

[Fletch]

AMD 2.2Ghz ... well, a 2.2Ghz is actually a kind of slow processor. You should see if you can overclockit without doing any damage... do some serious study... we are not responsible for any harm to your system if you attempt overclocking. However, if you have sufficient cooling and experienced help, overclocking your system a little may not hurt.
I see another AMD 2.3Ghz in this thread that got a 50s time, so... 2.2=slower = 1min. render... sounds about right. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

I bought a corei7 2.66ghz (8 virtual threads) and it rendered about 2.5x faster than my Boxx quad... so it depends on the system/ghz speed of the processor. If you have a 3.2Ghz processor, for instance, in machine A, and a 2ghz processor in Machine B, Machine A's performance will be equivalent to 1.6 of Machine B.

[grdnblak]

cheers for the info Fletch. Overclocking is something i've looked into on many occasions but never felt confident enough to do. I ain't ashamed, just thought it be a bit faster but hey, just means rendering through the night or while i'm at work

[Fletch]

never posted this machine's time, so...
Intel Core i7 920(2.66GHz)
3GB DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT (an entry level card soon to be replaced)
Vista 64-bit

while 29s is good, in comparison to some, I will look into a better cooling system, power, and overclocking. Solo's 12s time hurts.

[afecelis]

Interesting exercise.
Vizfellas, I got the same processor as you Here's my shot:

1 minute, 6 seconds, or 66 seconds.
Windows XP pro sp3 32 bits
Intel Core2duo E8400 @3.0ghz
4 gb DDR2 ram @800mhz (windows only uses 3.2)
Nvidia 9800 gt 512mb