|
Skybase
2D/3D Generalist
|
I'm running a Macbook Pro Retina 15 inch, late 2013 model. And so far FF6.0 has seen a slight increase in render speed! Since we're all obsessed with testing stuff here are some numbers:
Note, I disabled progressive rendering for speed. Images are at 600x600 default size. These numbers shouldn't be used to judge everything. My experience of this program is different than yours.
Filter: Futurism by Kochubey
FF6 Render time: 7.85 seconds
FF5 Render time: 8.46 seconds
Sixties Swirl by Kochubey
FF6: 3.95 seconds
FF5: 5.35 seconds
That's true improvement though considering we've staggered with the render times for the last couple years. Hopefully FF can continue to develop.
I also noticed FF6.0 on the Mac now gives me crisp fonts on the retina display and pinch to zoom is default. So far, the program's been running very smooth.
This post is more like just praise.  Not that I have any bug reports to share yet since I honestly haven't run into issues so far. So that's pretty much what it is. Thanks for the upgrade. It's incredible. |
| Posted: May 13, 2016 11:29 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
LexArt
LexArt
Posts: 256
|
Thanks for making this thread and do the testing, good to know, will make myself the same tests and put it here
although I think that 600x600 is not much difference, it may be more difference when you make higher resolution results
|
| Posted: May 14, 2016 4:57 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Indigo Ray
Adam
|
It's been stable for me, so far (like FF5). On my laptop with i5 processor, running Windows 7 (64-bit), I found that:
-Rendering times for FF6 - 32bit are ~identical to FF5
-FF6 - 64bit sees ~11% reduction in rendering times compared to FF5
Not bad! I tested Futurism, Sixties Swirl, and Hipster Background by Kochubey, none of which are "fast" filters. I made sure to disable progressive rendering in all versions.
|
| Posted: May 14, 2016 5:39 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
Thanks for making this, good to know, I will also measure it to see what benefit I may get from 64 bit version
Also think that it may be good to also have a 2000x2000 result to see how much difference there is with a higher resolution
|
| Posted: May 15, 2016 12:49 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Skybase
2D/3D Generalist
|
2000x2000 test
Sixties Swirl by Kochubey
FF6: 39.74
FF5: 45.37
oooo.
|
| Posted: May 15, 2016 9:27 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Indigo Ray
Adam
|
I just rendered the default preset of "Blocky" by Vlad (a slow filter because of Ambient Occlusion) at 2000x2000. FF5, FF6 x86, and FF6 x64 rendered in almost exactly the same time. There was no reduction in rendering time.
 |
| Posted: May 15, 2016 11:46 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Skybase
2D/3D Generalist
|
It appears the speedup is variable. Although it's consistently about 11% faster on my side. Not sure what's going on but I consider this "it's kinda faster".
|
| Posted: May 16, 2016 6:06 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
trilobyte
Posts: 12
|
Thanks for sharing the scores, that's very encouraging. The speedup will vary a bit, depending on coountless variables related to the kinds of operations being performed by the filter. Back when the rest of the world went 64-bit a number of years ago, I ran a bunch of tests on a large number of applications and found that the improvement averaged 10-15% across all applications.
WHere I imagine that the real benefit will come in is the ability to tap into all the RAM. In previous versions, I found that FF was fairly unstable when working on larger texture reders 4Kx4K and up - the app either exploded and crashed or just stalled out and did nothing.
I've just returned to the studio and am installing the FF6 beta tonight to start playing around. I"m really looking forward to being able to use this with large file sizes!
|
| Posted: June 15, 2016 11:24 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
trilobyte
Posts: 12
|
Quick update... WOW! For a simple test, I went to a starfield filter that I tried to use for a poster project last year. I wanted to render a 10,800 x 14,400 pixel starfield to use as a background, and of course FF5 was unable to create the image. FF6 not only worked, but got the job done in under 10 minutes (2.7GHz 12-core Mac Pro 6,1).
I'm really looking forward to putting this through its paces.
|
| Posted: June 15, 2016 11:35 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
3DCGMODELER
3DCG
Posts: 28
|
All I have to say is Wahooo ya 64 bit....
Ok FF6 is faster not buy much but it is so much more responsive, bang bang done.
Uses all the ram it wants, I told FF6 to use all the ram and speed is wow fast.
Of course my workstation is water cooled and the after burners do kick in but not for long. As for the render times they are a little faster.
It's a Plus for Shure..
And FF will get better now that they finally went 64bit..
Now Please go GPU rendering, Please... FF would be so da* fast with GPU rendering, you would have render times so MUCH faster....
I know baby steps, baby steps, I can wait....
Michael Modeling/Texturing?Animations
Spokane WA USA
intel i7-980 OC to 4.7ghz,Gigabyte MB,132gig ram,GTX Titan-Z, GTX-1080,water cooled |
| Posted: July 10, 2016 8:26 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
| Quote |
|---|
3DCGMODELER wrote:
Ok FF6 is faster not buy much but it is so much more responsive, bang bang done. |
Good to know, please could you be so kind to make some benchmark test (I mean to just measure the speed taken to render) with some filter that you like.
| Quote |
|---|
3DCGMODELER wrote:
And FF will get better now that they finally went 64bit..
Now Please go GPU rendering, Please... FF would be so da* fast with GPU rendering, you would have render times so MUCH faster.... |
I absolutely agree and I think the same, now that finally is 64 bit, now the best next step is to make it with GPU acceleration, it would be a really huge advance and would make it really MUCH faster and would surely sky rocket the popularity and usefulness of FF and would be a real joy and pleasure to use it
|
| Posted: July 11, 2016 2:56 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
