Cinebench render-time results

[andrei.barbuta]

I see that everyone is posting their Cinebench results as they get from the program, but I am more interested in knowing the exact time it took to render.
Because I can then tell exactly how much time (seconds, minutes, hours or days) I can save by upgrading to a new system.
I searched for a conversion tool from Cinebench results to exact time but can't find one. It seems that it shouldn't be hard to have one built.
I really am puzzled why Maxon doesn't display the lenght of the process since this is useful in real world comparisons.
Any thoughts on this?

 

[now i see it]

Use Cinebench scores to rate another system relative to your system.
Example:
If a new 12 core Mac Pro gets a Cinebench score of 14 and your current system gets a Cinebench score of 7, the new 12 core will render 2X faster.

If 4 computers that have a Cinebench score of 4 each, render an animation together via Maxon's NET render, their cumulative Cinebench (render speed) score = 16.. which is a little bit faster than one new 12 core Mac Pro.

Owning the fastest Cinebench rated workstation that you can afford is key to your sanity using Cinema 4D (or any other multithreaded 3D app) as you will always be doing countless little test renders on your workstation during your project.

But no matter how fast your workstation is, the fastest available today is still "slow" when rendering high quality renderings or animations. You will still be waiting around like its 1995. You will still be batch rendering overnight with today's fastest workstations. And you will soon wish that your new $5200 computer is 10X faster than it is.

Even if you get the fastest 12 core workstation available today, you will soon wish you had 2 of them to NET render animations... then 4 of them... then 8 of them, etc....because rendering literally kicks your ass. I heard DreamWorks uses 1000 computers in its render farm (and I bet they wish they had 2000)

 

[andrei.barbuta]

Yes, I know that pretty well. You can never have enough render nodes. )
Thank you for the solution to figuring out how to convert the time, I kept my mind focused on a more complex solution to realize what was pretty obvious.
As for the batch renders I plan on buying renderBoxx, it seems pretty great, they're scalable and you can put them in server racks.
But for the tweaks yes you do those on your workstation and not deliver them to the render farm so a Mac Pro with 12 cores it's a rather good thing to have.

 

[mism]

I'll have to check my Cinebench time when I get home, it was pleasantly fast. I know that a test render, one frame at 720p, with area shadows and blurred reflections took:

MacBook Pro 2.33 core 2 duo 3GB RAM: 1 hr 10 mins
2009 Mac Pro 8 core 2.26GHz 8GB RAM: 11 mins
2010 Mac Pro 12 core 2.66 GHz 8GB RAM: 6.25 mins

 

[eponym]

Barefeats has been compiling cinebench scores.

So based on the relative speeds, the fastest 2010 12-core will render 3x faster than the base model 2010 quad.

 

[andrei.barbuta]

So I did a test.
My Mac Mini 2.53Ghz 4GB RAM rendered the cinebench 11.5 test with a score of 1.45 points. The duration was 4 min 40 sec. Painful I know!
That means that a 12 Core 2.93Ghz Westmere Mac Pro is 10 times faster then my Mac Mini. Resulting in a render duration time of only 28 sec.
DAMN!!!!! So for all trollers out there, this is why you get a Mac Pro, so you can break through the space-time continuum. ))

 

[alphaod]

Mine takes 44 s for a score of 9.69

That's a 8c 2.66GHz Gainestown.

 

[mism]

OpenGL: 29.42fps
CPU: 13.82 pts
Time, from clicking 'run' to end of render for CPU test: 31.7 seconds

2.66 12 core, 8GB RAM, ATI 5870.

Oddly I got just over 30fps the first time I ran the OpenGL test, since then I've done a software update although it didn't include anything that would appear to affect OpenGL or the graphics card.