|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
System Win 11 , AMD 5950 Stock, GPU 2080 Super Game Drivers Default, 64GB RAM 3600MHz DDR4
Date 12-02-2022
Iclone 7.93
CC 3.44
Method CC3 DH Sample ccproject renamed to iProject and Background Hidden
Render a Talking Animation of a Dialogue using Default Microsoft Voices, NO supersampling.
576 Frames 4k Video Render AVI uncompressed.
HDD Windows WD SN850 Video output different Drive WD SN850 1TB Result Render 576 Frames in 72 Seconds i.e. 8 Frames Per Second
This is Suppose to be a Light Test .
All Default assets.
If attachment of Project fails due to any reasons then I will provide an external link of possible.
Link
https://we.tl/t-Aw7fC9EVJu new link https://ufile.io/ygiw3k4b new link https://file.io/vNWlJX7gMMyz maybe deleted Edit : Kindly Take Part in this everyone who can. :)
Edit 2 Same test in MP4 in 4K MP4 576 Frames @ 96 Seconds so 6 Frames Per second AVI Uncompressed 576 Frames @ 72 Seconds so 8 Frames Per Second Same test 1080 Render test 1080p Mp4 test 576 Frames @ 42 Seconds 1080 AVI uncompressed @ 42 Seconds Enlighten me @all
|
|
By yepkoo - 3 Years Ago
|
I did sungod test and accidentally chose HDD drive first :)
It took 2 minutes 40 seconds. (160 seconds)
I then tried again with the m2 disk and it took 1 minute 10 seconds (it took 70 seconds)
However, I had to do this when there were too many programs and files open on my computer that I couldn't close.
Maybe that would save me a few more seconds.
Maybe it wouldn't save a few seconds.
As far as I understand, the maximum system resources that iClone will use while rendering are certain, and it seems to give the same result to anyone above this limit.
I also took note of the system resources it consumes while doing this process.
CPU 8%
Memory 2%
GPU 60%
DISK 7%
It doesn't seem to make any difference when you do it only with super sample 3x3.
The speed seems to be constant at about 1 second.
Windows 11 Pro , AMD RYZEN 9 3900X 3.8ghz (OC 4 ve yukarı), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, 64gb ram (3400mhz), Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
@yekoo Thank you for taking part in this light test.
We had very similar results 72 vs 70 seconds with Similar Systems. Our GPU are neck to neck and 3060Ti is Few FPS better than 2080 Super so its very cool and very expected result.
I also had CC3 open while rendering.
So M2 NVME SSD is a Key factor as we can see in your benchmark.
Edit : Kindly Take Part in this everyone who can. 
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
|
@sundgod: I clicked your link but it says the file has been deleted.
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
|
animagic (2/12/2022)
@sundgod: I clicked your link but it says the file has been deleted.
Reuploaded in two more places
https://we.tl/t-Aw7fC9EVJu
https://ufile.io/ygiw3k4b
|
|
By yepkoo - 3 Years Ago
|
My finding is as follows.
Used 60% for GPU.
That means it uses an estimated 5GB of VRAM during rendering.
So even if you have 28 gb of vram, those with a system of 6 and above will get the same result.
So upgrading the system doesn't provide perfect performance for rendering.
But it can be important for your work scene.
I used m2 disk it used 7%.
It's a high value for an HDD, but maybe 20% for a standard SSD, maybe even lower.
So m2 disk has no advantage, a standard SSD will give the same values.
But if you render to HDD you will make the mistake of your life.
The processor and RAM do not need to be very powerful during rendering.
These are the render results of course.
The factors we mentioned are very important when working in a packed scene.
The 2 most important things you need when rendering. 6GB or above GPU and SSD
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
Will love to see what other people with 3090, 3080TI, 3080, and 3070 users get.
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
|
I'm currently rendering out some updated scenes of my current project so my system is tied up right now. But once there is some time I'll run the test. I have an RTX 3090.
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
This will help us understand what is difference with light load.
Take your time.
👍
|
|
By ckalan1 - 3 Years Ago
|
I thought you might like to hear the Voice that was created using a website called Murf.ai. MURF The lipsync was done with Acculips. There was no editing of the lips.
I rendered this with a GTX 1080 TI. I will purchase an RTX 3090 when iClone 8 is released.
Craig
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit CPU AMD Ryzen 9 RAM 32.0GB Motherboard Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. X570 AORUS PRO WIFI (AM4) 49 °C Graphics R240HY (1920x1080@60Hz) PanasonicTV0 (1920x1080@60Hz) R240HY (1920x1080@60Hz) 3071MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (Gigabyte) 52 °C 3071MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (EVGA) 42 °C SLI Disabled Storage 476GB Crucial_CT512MX100SSD1 (SATA (SSD)) 32 °C 931GB Crucial CT1000MX500SSD1 (SATA (SSD)) 1863GB TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 (SATA ) 34 °C 465GB Crucial CT500MX500SSD1 (SATA (SSD)) 465GB Hitachi HDP725050GLA360 (SATA ) 34 °C 5589GB Seagate Backup+ Hub BK SCSI Disk Device (USB (SATA) ) 44 °C 5589GB Seagate Backup+ Hub BK SCSI Disk Device (USB (SATA) ) 46 °C Optical Drives HL-DT-ST BD-RE WH16NS40 Audio Realtek High Definition Audio
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
Very Nice to Hear the AI voice. :)
What's your render Frames per second for 4K render?
e.g. Mine was 8 Frames Per Second
|
|
By ckalan1 - 3 Years Ago
|
I do not know how to show the fps render speed while I am making a video. Is there a setting that I need to turn on? When I playback real-time in the view window it says FPS: 48.12
I have only been using iClone for 15+ years. There is still so much I have no clue about. Can't wait for the update. That should be interesting.
Craig
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
I am using Iclone from 1 year and I know nothing. (Still doing basics)
I calculated by just total time in seconds 72 with total frames 576 Frames (as shown in Iclone while rendering).
I used stop watch from android phone clock app to just calculate :) .
So 576/72 = 8 AKA 8 frames rendered per second.
Please correct me in my crude way calculation. ☺️
|
|
By General Picture Animation - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Did you animate the body manually or with mocap?
|
|
By ckalan1 - 3 Years Ago
|
I used part of the Stand and Chat from the Spunky Moves. It works pretty well.
Craig
|
|
By General Picture Animation - 3 Years Ago
|
|
The movement was very natural but see what happens if you slow it down a bit... it will probably pick up the graceful timing of pro animation, which is more natural than natural. :D
|
|
By ckalan1 - 3 Years Ago
|
I will give that a shot. Thanks for the tip
Craig
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
I ran the test.
System specs:
Processor: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-11900F @ 2.50GHz 2.50 GHz Installed RAM: 128 GB System type: 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor OS: Windows 10 Pro, Version 20H2 GPU: NVIDIA RTX 3090 Driver version: 472.47 VRAM: 24 GB
****
Drives used in test:
SSD: Samsung 860 (or 870) EVO 4 TB drive
HD: Toshiba 2 TB drive
Project: DH Sample.iProj (as provided)
* Rendering to 4K AVI (uncompressed) @ 24 fps (576 frames)
Target SSD: 1:28 = 88 sec (6.54 fps)
Target HD: 2:50 = 170 sec (3.39 fps)
Target Network (HD): 7:09 = 429 sec (1.34 fps)
I included the network target because that is what I actually do: I render to another PC on the network (which is inefficient, it seems)
I normally don't render to 4k, but in this test with a simple scene what you render to can make quite a difference.
I primarily use image sequences in my pipeline, so I did a test with that as well:
* Rendering to 4k PNG sequence:
Target SSD: 5:00 = 300 sec (1.92 fps)
Not so good, as you can see...:unsure:
Anyway, this has been quite enlightening for me.
|
|
By yepkoo - 3 Years Ago
|
Good system is very good for your work scene.
However, I opened a thread about this a long time ago.
iClone is limited by the maximum system resources it will use while rendering.
Maybe the iC8 is different but the system doesn't have to be perfect when rendering in iC7.
|
|
By 4u2ges - 3 Years Ago
|
576 frames of 4K uncompressed AVI would result in Gbs of data writing.
So this is not a "true" iClone render test.
Portion of the test is... just testing your system IO speed.
Copy resulted render file to the same drive and time it.
Then deduct that time divided by 2 (given read/write is at the same speed) from iClone render test.
That would give you a more or less true GPU render speed.
You can say I will render to MP4, it would be very small render output file and does not impact IO at all.
But here you have another burden - a compression which puts a toll on a render speed (one area which might need to be improved- only RL can tell).
And again amount of VRAM does not affect render speed. It is a speed of VRAM and GPU architecture plays a major role.
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
animagic (2/13/2022)
I ran the test.
* Rendering to 4k PNG sequence:
Target SSD: 5:00 = 300 sec (1.92 fps)
Not so good, as you can see...:unsure:
Anyway, this has been quite enlightening for me.
Image test for me is slow too.
@4u2ges
You are absolutely right about SSD io speed. Maybe Animagic biggest improvement could be his SSD
Guys can we test same thing but MP4 too?
@Animagic
@yekoo
@4u2ges
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
Same test in MP4
AMD 5950, 2080 Super Card, Win 11, Windows/IClone SSD different than Target SSD of video both WD SN850
4K MP4 576 Frames @ 96 Seconds so 6 Frames Per second
4K AVI Uncompressed 576 Frames @ 72 Seconds so 8 Frames Per Second
1080 Render test
1080p Mp4 test 576 Frames @ 42 Seconds
1080p AVI uncompressed @ 42 Seconds
around 14 Frames per second.
Drive speed is a factor in 4K and non Factor in 1080p in above test
But Drive speed is absolutely a BIG factor irrespectively which is clear from test by @animagic. :)
Edit: Looking forward to get crushed in a Heavy Scene. Will Make another thread for it later.
Enlighten me @all
|
|
By 4u2ges - 3 Years Ago
|
I got another one for you.
"New" users might not know and "Old" users sometimes forget...
But the screen resolution and view-port size would impact your render speed enormously and would influence the quality of the render in a way.
I got an old i7 2600K CPU, 32 GB of RAM and a pair 1080Ti (second is for Iray render only). All drives are SSD
And I ALWAYS render with Full Screen.
So those are my numbers for your project:
2K, 4K is render Frame Size
ON 2K, ON 4K, is my screen resolution
All renders with "Optimize with Full Screen Render" checked
2K ON 2K MP4 - 40 sec
2K ON 2K AVI - 43 sec
4K ON 2K MP4 - 129 sec
4K ON 2K AVI - 145 sec
2K ON 4K MP4 - 123 sec
2K ON 4K AVI - 127 sec
4K ON 4K MP4 - 92 sec
4K ON 4K AVI - 119 sec
Funny isn't that with full 4K screen 4K frame renders faster than 2K. Don's know if anyone gets the same but that's how it is on my system.
However the quality of 2K rendered on 4K is better than 2K on 2K.
Although on this particular project it is less noticeable than on some dynamic project with a lot of straight lines (like walls, buildings...) moving across the screen under certain angles.
Worse yet if you have some small GI emissive lights in various forms in a project and then they flicker like crazy on your render and you wonder why...
That is when you will learn to appreciate anti-aliasing (by enabling super-sampling, or rendering on hi-res screen and enabling "Optimize with Full Screen Render").
So the bottom line is, do not always chase for the fastest render time for every other project.
When I choose how to render and knowing about most of the quirks of RL render engine, I'd rather go for the slower, but quality render.
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
Glad to understand the quirks more thanks to 4u2ges. Yours is a 10 star post.
I didn't try optimise full screen and I will do that later today.
All my previous results were on a 4k screen. I will try optimise full screen and update and also try super sampling. 😃
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
@4u2ges
I am blown by two Things Hardware encoder and Fullscreen optimisation
So quick render of 1080p on 4K screen was around 28 seconds
Without above two settings it was 42 seconds
But as you explained 1080p rendered on 4k screen is WOW
Similarly 4k render on 4k screen is not good as compared with 1080p on 4k with fullscreen.
@4u2ges I will create another thread with updated project now to get better Benchmarking tests done now that you have rectified my mistakes and getting best quality renders.
Cheers take care
|
|
By sungod - 3 Years Ago
|
Super Sampling 3x3 has noticable quality increase together with full screen optimisation for 1216 x 2160 on 4K screen.
And also for normal 4k and 1080p
Infact Supersampling is a must for the benefits in quality vs speed.
And final renders it's now important.
1Frame per second is speed withSuper sampling MP4 Hardware encoder and 1216 x 2160 .
With this Said I will create another thread with more parameter checked as suggested by @4u2ges
|
|
By 4u2ges - 3 Years Ago
|
Very good Sungod. Glad it helped! :)
Looking forward.
|