mac vs pc rendering speed

Blender's renderer and external renderer export

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:06 am
Location: adelaide

Post by levon »

at blender we had a scene that was preaty much just sussane coloured green and refractive in a checkboard room, took a Pentium4 2.4ghz with 256mb ram 1:15s to render a single frame with no OSA but motion blur of 5 frames.

the G4 1.33 Emac with 512mb ram took 14m just to render a single pass of the 5 frames of motion blur.

this was more of a price comparison, and the Emac cost about $500 more then the PC.

Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:24 am

Post by MrMunkily »

I just played with two computers at my uni -

The mac: g5 1.8 ghz, 512 mb ram

The PC: p4 2.4 ghz 512 mb ram

The scene:
Subdivide cube fractal 5 times
duplicate cube 5 times (shift D)
render with AO 16 samples, OSA 16, 320x240 (i had little time), 512 octtree

The Mac: 2m:20s
The PC: 2m:50s

I noticed that they rendered at pretty much the same rate, though the mac started to render sooner after i pressed the f12 button

also, the mac locked the entire system hard after rendering. totally unresponsive and i had to restart it.

the pcs are crappy dell optiplexes and i dont know how much they cost.
a new one which is a bit faster costs 1050$

the mac seems to cost 1500$, which frankly is a pretty dcent price, though its the lowest end one on the lineup.

Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:45 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by pearl »

MrMunkily wrote:The PC: p4 2.4 ghz 512 mb ram ...
...the pcs are crappy dell optiplexes...
Don't Optiplexes generally use Celeron processors?

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:56 pm

Post by vitos »

File : Bench.blend
On my mac it took 3:17 to render the bench.blend, of course with 1 processor selected.
I have 2x2Gh G5 1Gb ram

Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 2:38 am

Post by z3r0_d »

pearl wrote:
MrMunkily wrote:The PC: p4 2.4 ghz 512 mb ram ...
...the pcs are crappy dell optiplexes...
Don't Optiplexes generally use Celeron processors?
nope, I don't belive they ever have either

Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:00 am

98se athlon 2100xp 256MB (ddr2100) , gf2mx200, time 4:24.5

Post by Mel_Q »

Win 98se athlon 2100xp 256MB (ddr2100) , gf2mx200, time 4:24.5

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:56 pm

Post by vitos »

Did You try 'cache' option in the yafRay tab ? it speeds up render and gives smooth result, worth to try.

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:18 am

Post by bannerboy »

AMD Athalon XP 1.6Ghz
256 mb 2700 DDR ram
GeForce FX 5900 XT
Custom Yafray build
Custom Blender CVS guild
Gentoo Linux
Kernel 2.6.10-r4

Time: 4:42:68

Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:06 am
Location: Midlands, UK

Post by DRF »

OS: Win2k
Athlon64 3400 (512k cache version), 512mb ram.
Apps running: Firefox and Blender 3.6 (With yafray 0.0.7)
Both blender and yafray are standard downloads not recompiled or optimised specificlly for my computer.

02:49:78 yafray (As is, no changes)
00:00:28 Blender Internal (Only change is the renderer)

The 2 times above use the same settings only different renderers however the image from the blender internal is such that I wouldn't persoanlly settle for it, to save time, so in my opinion this isn't a realistic comparrison between the two renderers (if 2 such different renderers can be compared)

I have other computers here but not got the time at the moment to run this on them as well.

vitos: The cache option is only enabled if the method is set to 'full' this file uses method 'none'. On 'full' the results are:
05:35:07 cache on. (yafray full, but nothing other than cache on toggle changed)
23:33:36 cache off. (Yafray full but no vlues changed)
Both results looked quite similar, didn't save them to do a detail look but the appearence at a glace looks the same, so worth remembering!

LetterRip: A detailed benchmark site with tables for various different settings and hardware types would be quite useful, would give people new to blender an idea on what effects are to be used/avoided for last min deadlines and what effects to render over night.


Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 1:34 pm

Post by rednelb »

thank you, guys....

Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:44 pm

Post by manawenuz »

AMD Duron 1600+
128 ddram (2100)
GeForce 2 GTS
Blender 2.36a + Yarfay 0.0.7 (official builds)

time: 4:18.38

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:57 am

Post by Dracarys »

First off, I haven't bothered to read this thread, so this'll probably be very irrelevant. But it's rather hard to do a "Mac vs Pc" comparison, as Macs tend to be rather fixed in their hardware (it does vary, but they very much less than pcs). Also, you seem to have made the all-too-common assumption that PC=Windows. Linux runs on both x86 and ppc archs, and it performs much better than Windows on the same machine. You also can't really compare such broad categories and get any relevant results, as I'm sure that there are plenty of PCs out there that can own most macs, and the other way around. So, be more specific. Compare a G5 to an Athlon 64 FX-53 with the same video card and RAM, and the Athlon will win. Compare it with a Pentium 3, and the G5 will win. Pick one.

Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:06 am
Location: Midlands, UK

Post by DRF »

Apples and PC's are difficult to do a direct compare with anyway. But rendering wise the only thing that could make major differences (hardware) is the amount and speed of RAM. (and the processor itself of course)
In this case the graphics card shouldn't make any particular difference I shouldn't think. But being that I, and I would guess most of the people here, don't have macs and pc's of similar specs the only way to go around this is to keep getting figures until someone with a similar apple posts some figures to a pc post that has allready been made. (MrMunkily using a different scean had a good comparisson between two similar computers a g5 and p4)

So far we have: (Yafray) (min.sec.milisec)
Duron 1600 (128mb ram) - 4.18.38

AthlonXP 1600 (768mb ram) - 5.05.00
AthlonXP 1.6Ghz (1900? 256mb ram) - 4.42.68
AthlonXP 2100 (256Mb ram) - 4.24.50
AthlonXP 2400 (512mb ram) - 4.46.18

Athlon64 3400 (512mb ram) - 02.49.78
Athlon(64?) 3800 (1gb ram) - 1.36.30

Pentium 4 2.4 ghz (1.5gb ram) - 3.56.00 (Blend ver 3.4)

G5 2x2Ghz (1gb ram) - 03:17:00

And Blender Internal:
Athlon64 3400 (512mb ram) - 00:00:28

G4 867Mhz - 26.57s
G5 2x2Ghz 08.90s (blender uses only ONE processor!)

Obviously I can't be sure how optimised the renderer was or what OS they all used, best way would be to have everyone install the same linux distro on the macs and PC's but thats a bit much to ask for a simple test, you could probably make this amazingly complicated if you so wished.

Anyhows I'm sorry if I've missed anyone in this very brief summary so far and apologise for the lack of other specs (OS being the main one) but this could easily be made into a whole website/database to organise in a number of fashions.


Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:16 pm

Post by Marty_D »

jsyk, updated my entry with the OS, Windows XP. Looking again at scene, the default saved state has no cache option visible so I didn't try rendering with that enabled. Only one P4? What is up with this place.

Post Reply