Loading...
> >

Carrara Benchmark - Scene and results

3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
edited February 2018 in Carrara Discussion

Just found an old Carrara benchmark scene by Kixum, posted in 2010 in the Rendo forums, but it seems to older since Carrara 5 is mentioned and a web site with old scores list very old PCs:
http://renderfred.free.fr/c5pro_bench.html
For example Pentium4 at 20 minutes and Core 2 Duo at 10 minutes

Benchmark file: https://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/carrara-benchmark/60396

To keep it similar to the web site, I changed the resolution from 1280x1024 to 800x600 (the benchmark file on the renderfred site is 800x600):
Intel-2700@3900MHz (4C/8T) on Win10 64Bit in 800x600:
Carrara 8.5 Pro: 1 minute 22 sec
Carrara 8.1 Pro: 1 minute 20 sec

Intel-2700@3900MHz (4C/8T) on Win10 64Bit in 1280x1024:
Carrara 8.5 Pro: 7 minute 21 sec (Default tile size 128)
Carrara 8.5 Pro: 7 minute 04 sec (Modified tile size 64)
Carrara 8.1 Pro: Not tested yet

Probably need to run it a few times to average out the score and shut down all other apps, but I will leave that for another time, when testing overclocking too.
Some runs were up to 1:30.

What is your score???

Post edited by 3drendero on
«1

Comments

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited February 2018

    i5 @3.2GHz (2C/4T) MacOS High Sierra (10.13.2) Carrara 8.5 Pro:

    800 x 600: 2 minutes 45 sec
    1280 x 1024: 13 minutes 18 sec

    Post edited by TangoAlpha on
  • UnifiedBrainUnifiedBrain Posts: 3,588
    edited January 2018

    i5-3450 @3.10 GHz.  (4C/4T)  Windows 7 Pro.  Carrara 8.5 Pro.

    9 minutes and 20 seconds at 1200 x 1024 resolution (default).

    2 minutes and 2 seconds at 800 x 600 resolution (as suggested).

    Post edited by UnifiedBrain on
  • chickenmanchickenman Posts: 1,202
    edited January 2018

    i7 4790K @4.3 Ghz (8C/16T) Windows 10 Pro 32 Gb RAM, liquid cooled, dual R7 250 2Gb video cards,

    1280x1024

    Default carrara render engine default bucket size 5.14 minutes.

    Default carrara render engine 16 bit bucket size 6.33 minutes.

    800X600

    Default carrara render engine default bucket size 1 min 5 seconds .

    Default carrara render engine 64 bit bucket size 1 minute.

    Default carrara render engine 32 bit bucket size 1 minute 4 seconds.

    Default carrara render engine 16 bit bucket size 1 Min 14 Seconds.

    Luxcore does not recognize the blue so it is a bust.

    Post edited by chickenman on
  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,987

    AMD Ryzen 1700X 8C/16T CPU OC

    ASUS Prime B350-Plus motherboard

    Cooler Master Hyper 212 Turbo Cooler

    32G DDR4 Kingston Ram

    256G SSD M.2 Intel 6 Gen PCI Express + Seagate 2TB HDD

    ASUS 8G GeForce GTX 1070 PCI Express

    Cooler Master MasterBox 5 + 650W Power Fractal Design

    22 Speed DVD RW ASUS

    Built in Gigabit Lan USB 3.0 SATA 3.0

    Windows 10 Home 64

     

    sorry don't know what's relevant as far as hardware

    8.1 default bucket size 1 min 8 secs (same result with two renders)

    8.5 tile  size 128 -  1 min

    8.5 tile size 16  - 43 seconds

     

    all renders 800 by 600

  • Bunyip02Bunyip02 Posts: 8,605
    edited January 2018

    Intel SKYLAKE Core i7-6700K CPU, 4.0GHz Overclocked to 4.2-4.4Ghz Quad Core 8 Threads, 8M Cache

    Gigabyte Z170X-Gaming 3 DDR4 VGA 7xUSB3 USB-AC 7.1 HD Killer LAN motherboard

    Corsair H80 Water Cooling CPU Cooler

    32 Gigabytes 2133Mhz DDR4 GSkill / Crucial

    512 Gig SAMSUNG 850 PRO SERIES SSD SATA 3 R/W(Max) 550MB/s/520MB/s & 2 x 4 Terrabyte Seagate SATA3

    nVidia GEFORCE GTX 1060 6GB DDR5 DVI/HDMI/DP

    Thermaltake/Cougar/Coolermaster 80 Plus 750W Heavy Duty

    LG/SAMSUNG DVD/CD Burner 24 Speed

    WINDOWS 10 PRO 64 bit

     

    Carrara 8.5 Pro

    1 min 5 seconds

     

     

    Post edited by Bunyip02 on
  • SileneUKSileneUK Posts: 1,975
    edited January 2018

    1 min 7 secs with default settings with Carrara 8.5 Pro

    PC SPECIALIST:  Case   COOLERMASTER CM690 III ADVANCED CASE (GREEN) 

    Processor:  (CPU) Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7‐4790k (4.0GHz) 8MB Cache 
    Motherboard  ASUS® Z97 WS ‐ ATX, USB 3.0, SATA 6 GB/s 
    Memory (RAM)  32GB HyperX FURY DUAL‐DDR3 1600MHz (4 x 8GB)
     
    Graphics Card  PNY QUADRO K2200 ‐ 4GB GDDR5, 640 CUDA Cores ‐ 2 x DP, 1 x DVI 
    1st Hard Disk  240GB HyperX SAVAGE SSD, SATA 6 Gb/s (upto 560MB/sR | 530MB/sW) 
    2nd Hard Disk  2TB 3.5" SATA‐III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 64MB CACHE 

    Power Supply  CORSAIR 650W VS SERIES™ VS‐650 POWER SUPPLY 
    Processor Cooling Corsair H100i GTX Hydro Series High Performance CPU Cooler 
    Thermal Paste  STANDARD THERMAL PASTE FOR SUFFICIENT COOLING 
     
    Operating System Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit w/SP1 ‐ inc DVD & Licence 
     

    Post edited by SileneUK on
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

  • pimpypimpy Posts: 274

    Carrara 8.1. pro

    1280x1024 – 5 min 55" (128 tile size)

    1280x1024 – 5 min 42" ( 64 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 07" (128 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 05" ( 64 tile size)

    PC : intel core i7 4790K -16GB ram – Windows 8.1 pro

  • 3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
    edited January 2018
    chickenman said:

     

    Luxcore does not recognize the blue so it is a bust.

    Yeah, neither Luxus nor LuxCore can translate the mixed shader, but the lighting is probably also wrong.
    They both need a new scene with new lighting to make a comparable benchmark scene.

    Anyone with Octane that wants to try?

    Post edited by 3drendero on
  • 3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

  • pimpypimpy Posts: 274

    Octane render demo vers. 2.17.0068

    3000 samples 1 min 45"  (1000x600px)

    Geforce GTX 960

  • chickenmanchickenman Posts: 1,202

    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

     

    Or Just get a Z820 or somthing like that it should just scream through this test. Nice Dual Xeons they may be slower but designed to do the math.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited January 2018
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    BUT Mac's support windows

     

     

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • SileneUKSileneUK Posts: 1,975
    Chohole said:
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    BUT Mac's support windows

     

     

    You been into the pre-6 Nations booze already? devil Silene

  • 3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    There are some Hackintosh builds with the Threadripper 1950x, you get 16 cores at half the price of a Mac Pro with 8 cores.
    Or 2x16 core rigs for the same price...

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    There are some Hackintosh builds with the Threadripper 1950x, you get 16 cores at half the price of a Mac Pro with 8 cores.
    Or 2x16 core rigs for the same price...

    Hmmmm. Anyone got a spare billionaire lying around?

  • SileneUKSileneUK Posts: 1,975
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    There are some Hackintosh builds with the Threadripper 1950x, you get 16 cores at half the price of a Mac Pro with 8 cores.
    Or 2x16 core rigs for the same price...

    Hmmmm. Anyone got a spare billionaire lying around?

    £94,000,000  Euromillions Friday's Draw!!  wink Silene

  • 3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
    pimpy said:

    Octane render demo vers. 2.17.0068

    3000 samples 1 min 45"  (1000x600px)

    Geforce GTX 960

    How does the result look like?
    Similar to a Carrara native render?

  • 3drendero3drendero Posts: 2,024
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:
    3drendero said:
    TangoAlpha said:

    Sounds like I need a faster computer, lol

    Yeah, I recommend a 16-core (32 thread) AMD 1950x threadripper.
    Probably the same price as a quad core Mac.

     

    No price is worth the penalty of Windows! cheeky

    There are some Hackintosh builds with the Threadripper 1950x, you get 16 cores at half the price of a Mac Pro with 8 cores.
    Or 2x16 core rigs for the same price...

    Hmmmm. Anyone got a spare billionaire lying around?

    Check your bitcoin wallet or sell your rig and buy a used workstation, like posted by others here.
    I think it was HP z620, check ebay.

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,206

    6 mins 13 secs

    I have the suckiest PC so far 

    ( is why I normally use OR4C as my 980ti is much better than my CPU with less upgrade expense including the plugin and Octane cost!)

    CPU Intel Core i7 4790 

    Cores 4

    Threads 8

    Name Intel Core i7 4790

    Code Name Haswell

    Package Socket 1150 LGA

    Technology 22nm

    Specification Intel Core i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz

    16GB RAM

    Motherboard

    Manufacturer MSI

    Model Z87-G45 GAMING (MS-7821) (SOCKET 0)

     

  • VyusurVyusur Posts: 2,235

    8 min 55 sec

    Intel Core i5 8 GB RAM

  • Bunyip02Bunyip02 Posts: 8,605
    th3Digit said:

    6 mins 13 secs

    I have the suckiest PC so far 

    ( is why I normally use OR4C as my 980ti is much better than my CPU with less upgrade expense including the plugin and Octane cost!)

    CPU Intel Core i7 4790 

    Cores 4

    Threads 8

    Name Intel Core i7 4790

    Code Name Haswell

    Package Socket 1150 LGA

    Technology 22nm

    Specification Intel Core i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz

    16GB RAM

    Motherboard

    Manufacturer MSI

    Model Z87-G45 GAMING (MS-7821) (SOCKET 0)

     

    Hello Wendy

    I would have thought that your computer would have been faster than that, and a bit slower than the i7-4790K, seems like quite a difference.

    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790/2384vs2293

    http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/3502vs2384

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,169
    edited February 2018

    I think there is a bug that makes the render take longer if you wait.  Seems like the times are getting slower and slower.  

    12 minutes, 59 seconds

    Intel i7, 4 cores, 8 threads, 8 GB Ram

     

    EDIT:  The above was for the default size of 1280 x 1024.  Lower time for 800x600

    For 800x600, 5 minutes, 51 seconds

    Post edited by Diomede on
  • chickenmanchickenman Posts: 1,202

    Note that the fast times are 800 X 600 and I would guess the slower times are 1280 X 1024. THe size difference does make a difference.

    The speed of your RAM will also make a difference, is the CPU Over clocked? There are many factors that play into the speed of the rendering.

  • VyusurVyusur Posts: 2,235

    8 min 36 sec on my mac

    i7, 8 GB RAM

  • ProPoseProPose Posts: 527

    Carrara 8.1. pro

    1280x1024 – 7 min 21" (128 tile size)

    1280x1024 – 7 min 09" ( 64 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 29" (128 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 23" ( 64 tile size)

    PC : intel core i7 3820 -32GB ram – Windows 10 pro

    Carrara 8.5. pro

    1280x1024 – 7 min 21" (128 tile size)

    1280x1024 – 7 min 08" ( 64 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 29" (128 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 24" ( 64 tile size)

    PC : intel core i7 3820 -32GB ram – Windows 10 pro

    Carrara 8.1. pro

    1280x1024 – 5 min 29" (128 tile size)

    1280x1024 – 5 min 24" ( 64 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 06" (128 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 02" ( 64 tile size)

    PC : intel core i7 4790K -32GB ram – Windows 10 Home

    Carrara 8.5. pro

    1280x1024 – 5 min 33" (128 tile size)

    1280x1024 – 5 min 28" ( 64 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 06" (128 tile size)

    800x600 - 1 min 07" ( 64 tile size)

    PC : intel core i7 4790K -32GB ram – Windows 10 Home

  • UnifiedBrainUnifiedBrain Posts: 3,588

    To all contributers, if you don't post the render size (either the default 1280x1024 or the suggested 800x600), the time you post doesn't mean much.

     

    Diomede said:

    I think there is a bug that makes the render take longer if you wait.  Seems like the times are getting slower and slower.  

    ??  I just rendered again at 800x600, and it took almost exactly the same amount of time it took before, about 2 min on an i5.

  • Bunyip02Bunyip02 Posts: 8,605

    3drendero suggested 800x600 - "To keep it similar to the web site, I changed the resolution from 1280x1024 to 800x600 (the benchmark file on the renderfred site is 800x600)"

    My original time of 1 min 5 seconds is for 800x600

    Did another render for 1280x1024 and got a time of 4 mins 30 seconds

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,987

    OT: I've noticed with other renders that if I change a texture in a scne and go and render it takes longer the first time I render it

    the next time I render the scene it is quicker (if I dont change any textures or add anything with textures) - I assume it's because of texture spooling?

    anyone else notice this ? I see Fenric notes :  https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/437527/#Comment_437527

     You need to turn off texture spooling on 64-bit systems if you are using any of the Global Illumination options, or Carrara spends too much time fiddling with spooling textures instead of rendering.

Sign In or Register to comment.