Choosing a new Nvidia Card for iRay Rendering

ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
edited May 2015 in Daz Studio Discussion

Hi!, I'm planning to buy a new videocard for take advance of iRay capabilities, finally, I'm tired of use all kind of external engine renders and rework materials, locating textures and applying manually, I did that in the past and my actual workflow time is very limited.

Unfortunately I bought a second hand gamer PC but it uses AMD Radeon, so iRay does not compute with such card, obviously.

I'm planning a Bank Heist for my new videocard, but that is not important, the question is, looking the image below, what is the most important for iRay in terms of requisites, the Cuda Cores quantity or the memory bandwidth?


I hope some savvy expert can help me with that, in my country both cards are super expensive, I can't do mistakes with a bad choice.

PD: the bank heist was a joke...

Captura.PNG
738 x 725 - 69K
Post edited by Zilvergrafix on
«1345678

Comments

  • barbultbarbult Posts: 9,249
    edited December 1969

    DAZ has recommended a minimum of 4GB of video RAM.

  • StratDragonStratDragon Posts: 2,778
    edited December 1969

    cards with more cuda cores tend to have higher bandwidth but more video RAM the better
    GTX GPU's are from what I'm reading better for gaming but the GTX Titan has neatly 2900 cuda cores and 6GB RAM so if your going to rob a bank get that. Hell, get five of them.
    http://www.nvidia.com/gtx-700-graphics-cards/gtx-titan-black/

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 41,936
    edited May 2015

    Memory determines how big a scene you can render
    Cores and their clockspeed determine how quickly it will render.
    As far as I know bandwidth is relatively unimportant - unlike a game, a render is not constantly changing what it s working on and nor is it trying to output a rapidly-changing sequence of frames to the display.

    Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    Thanks for your tips!
    very appreciated!

  • thd777thd777 Posts: 599
    edited December 1969

    I have an ASUS GTX780ti 3Gb. It is an awesome card and can do some quite complex scenes. I have three cards in my system and the GTX780ti is the fastest, even faster than the newer GTX 980 4Gb (The third card is an older 400 series card that just drives the monitors). If possible use on-board graphics or a cheap card to drive your display. That way you have all the memory for rendering.
    Also make sure the box has good cooling and a substantial power supply (I have a 1050W PSU).
    Ciao
    TD

  • stem_athomestem_athome Posts: 350
    edited May 2015

    Please Note:

    The second graphics card shown (the 4GB) is a dual GPU card. That means the memory is split between the 2 GPU, so there will only be 2GB available for scenes.
    It is like having 2 cards, each with 2GB memory.

    Post edited by stem_athome on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 41,936
    edited December 1969

    This site has been recommended for weighing your options http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

  • barbultbarbult Posts: 9,249
    edited December 1969

    This site has been recommended for weighing your options http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

    Thanks for that link! That’s really helpful.
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    Please Note:

    The second graphics card shown (the 4GB) is a dual GPU card. That means the memory is split between the 2 GPU, so there will only be 2GB available for scenes.
    It is like having 2 cards, each with 2GB memory.


    Good to know that! very useful observation.
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    thd777 said:
    I have an ASUS GTX780ti 3Gb. It is an awesome card and can do some quite complex scenes. I have three cards in my system and the GTX780ti is the fastest, even faster than the newer GTX 980 4Gb (The third card is an older 400 series card that just drives the monitors). If possible use on-board graphics or a cheap card to drive your display. That way you have all the memory for rendering.
    Also make sure the box has good cooling and a substantial power supply (I have a 1050W PSU).
    Ciao
    TD

    yep, still reigns GTX780Ti above the newer ones, it is going my first on the list of possible models to consider.
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    This site has been recommended for weighing your options http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

    adding to bookmarks, thanks Richard!
  • jaebeajaebea Posts: 429
    edited December 1969

    I just bought the GTX970. 4g ram and 1664 cuda cores. Was $359. Certainly not the lowest price but I wanted to buy it at a local store. I have a 1st generation i7 cpu and 16g of regular ram. It rendered a scene with alot of foliage pretty fast. I know I'm going to have to upgrade my motherboard and cpu pretty soon in order to move to win 8.1. There is new technology coming out that I can't use without at least a 4th generation intel cpu (looking at i7-5820) and win 8.1 because of bandwidth.

  • SixDsSixDs Posts: 1,516
    edited December 1969

    As mentioned the ROG 760 is a dual GPU and each GPU is allocated half of the total memory. But the specs shown also fail to point out other instances of multiplying by 2 (or failing to divide by two). You have highlighted the difference of 384 vs 512 bit memory buses. But the ROG 760 adds both memory buses to get the 512 - in other words, the real bus width is 256 bits (/2). You really need to watch the marketing BS.

    BTW, are those prices in US$?

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,281
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,
    Just to note, I bought this GeForce 4GB card specifically and solely for 3D rendering.

    The CPU is relatively underpowered 4-core Windows box and I have on-board video and a GeForce 8800 GT for normal display needs; it's sitting next to my Very Nice development grade 8 core iMac. I don't even bother using the CPU mode in Iray, I just target the 740, and it goes twice as fast as the exact same scene on the iMac in CPU-only mode. (My iMac doesn't have an nVidia GPU.)

    4GB of RAM means that medium complexity scenes work just fine. I actually do a render, look at how much video memory is being used (using GPU-Z), and then go back and subdivide objects in the scene until I'm near to maxing out my GPU memory, but not over.

    -- Morgan

  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    SixDs said:

    BTW, are those prices in US$?

    Nope, prices are in MXP currency
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,164
    edited May 2015

    Remember that we are overdue for new video cards, specifically ones with higher memory. Since there is a notebook video card with 8GB of video memory that came out almost a year ago I'm really surprised that there hasn't been any desktop ones with 8GB by now. Normally desktop cards lead notebook cards. The only thing I can think of is that the manufacturers don't want to eat into Titan sales, although not sure it would since people buying Titans would still buy Titans I would think as they still have advantages over the x80/x90 series cards.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,164
    edited December 1969

    ...As far as I know bandwidth is relatively unimportant - unlike a game, a render is not constantly changing what it s working on and nor is it trying to output a rapidly-changing sequence of frames to the display.

    Unless working on vfx/animation editing also.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Unless working on vfx/animation editing also.

    Then the line becomes very blurred...because, what's a game, when boiled down to the basics? An animation done on the fly...

  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited May 2015

    thd777 said:
    I have an ASUS GTX780ti 3Gb. It is an awesome card and can do some quite complex scenes. I have three cards in my system and the GTX780ti is the fastest, even faster than the newer GTX 980 4Gb (The third card is an older 400 series card that just drives the monitors). If possible use on-board graphics or a cheap card to drive your display. That way you have all the memory for rendering.
    Also make sure the box has good cooling and a substantial power supply (I have a 1050W PSU).

    In fact...that's the one I bought today, but I fail on the Power Surge, mine is 800W and only have two 6-pin molex connectors, the card uses DOUBLE 8-pin connectors, I played the tweaker guy bridging the wires but does not work due to some surge protection, maybe the PSU can't handle the amperage or something like that.

    even playing GTA-V and the PSU reboot.

    Cost: $9,999 MXP or equivalent to $655 USD :shut:

    ZlyNewVideoCard.PNG
    1201 x 899 - 2M
    Post edited by Zilvergrafix on
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    Because of that---Still using my Radeon...until paycheck arrives and will buy the new +1000W PSU

    ZlyStillInUseRadeonHD6870.PNG
    1235 x 913 - 3M
  • edited December 1969

    I don't wish to detract from the knowledgeable suggestions made by other forum members, but would suggest that folks looking for hardware recommendations read the gaming magazines such as Maximum PC ( http://www.maximumpc.com/ ) and Computer Power User ( http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ ). Pushing pixels around a screen in games is not a lot different than pushing them around doing 3D. They regularly test all manner of hardware and showcase new stuff. Reading them religiously every month allows me to stay current and I upgrade according to their recommendations. I'll also be upgrading my graphics card soon and have chosen the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 960 2GB-GDDR5 card. It was picked as being the best compromise between money and power...or best 'bang for the buck'.
    It's $280 bucks up here in Canada. That's about three cents in the rest of the world. My older hardware gets downgraded to my internet computer as my graphics box is NOT online. Stuff I don't need anymore goes to 'Computers for Schools' in my community. They're a volunteer group who build computers for schools from older, donated components. The only thing I don't donate are my old harddrives. I destroy them by drilling completely through the discs in several places then throwing them in the scrap metal bin at work.

    Bob

  • SuperdogSuperdog Posts: 765
    edited May 2015

    I've been using GTX760 4GB VRAM x 4 for my Octane renders and this speeds things along nicely (when Octane works properly!) The cards are pretty cheap and even though 2 x 780's would be equivalent I think only the 3GB 780 models are still available now. 960 4GB cards are the latest NVIDIA lower priced cards so they're the best option on a low budget. That is until 980 8GB cards are available.

    Does iRAY offload textures to system RAM like Octane does now? If so, then VRAM should be less of a problem.

    In case someone asks, if your mobo can accept 4 GPU's then the limit NVidia placed on only using 3 x 760's SLI is irrelevant for unbiased rendering - at least for Octane it is. For some reason NVidia decided to only allow 4 x 780's (not 760's or 770's) in SLI but SLI isn't required for unbiased rendering. Not sure if any of this applies to the 9xx range.

    Post edited by Superdog on
  • th3Digitth3Digit Posts: 16,631
    edited December 1969

    Yes is funny, DS iray hates me yet my GTX 760 is quite sufficient for Octane render in Carrara using out of core textures.
    Not so much Octane render DS as I only have 1.2 and no intention to upgrade at this point, though it does handle some DAZ scenes Carrara cannot and LAMH geometry.
    On the otherhand iray nearly always reverts to CPU render for me and 3delight is quicker!

  • SuperdogSuperdog Posts: 765
    edited May 2015

    Yes is funny, DS iray hates me yet my GTX 760 is quite sufficient for Octane render in Carrara using out of core textures.
    Not so much Octane render DS as I only have 1.2 and no intention to upgrade at this point, though it does handle some DAZ scenes Carrara cannot and LAMH geometry.
    On the otherhand iray nearly always reverts to CPU render for me and 3delight is quicker!

    I'm using the 760's with a very fast Win 8.1 Intel PC which seems to handle animation rendering using Octane plugin 1.2 pretty well. But I have an older Win 7 AMD PC with a 780 3GB which is virtually unusable when trying to render the same animation scene using OcDS. Even though the scene uses only about 1.5GB of VRAM.

    In my experience it's the combination of fast computer and GPU that really let's these unbiased renderers shine. I think that even with a Titan X on an older PC it would still have trouble keeping up with rendering animation using Octane. Perhaps this is to do with how fast the PC can shunt information around rather than the amount of VRAM or the speed of the GPU? A bit like installing a V8 in a VW.

    Post edited by Superdog on
  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,281
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,

    ...
    Pushing pixels around a screen in games is not a lot different than pushing them around doing 3D.
    ...
    So I'm going to take issue with this, a little bit. There's a SIGNIFICANT amount of derision in the gaming community towards certain cards that have 4GB (or more) of memory that use the same architecture as 2GB cards, under the theory that the card manufacturers are just playing 'spec games', thinking that folks will blindly buy a card with more memory even though it won't actually improve game performance.

    And they're right, it won't improve game performance, but 2GB vs. 4GB is a CRITICAL difference when you're doing on-GPU rendering, and so you have to take certain pieces of the gaming industry's opinions with a big, huge grain of salt... What's good for pixel-pushing in gaming is not necessarily just fine for doing high quality rendering using the GPU.

    -- Morgan

  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    IMHO, Gaming and 3D rendering are different worlds, I've used Quadro Card with Skyrim,GTAV and some shaders are not visible and the game looks dull, gaming uses a ton of illumination and realtime shaders that DazStudio, at this date, can't reproduce on viewport, and it is nothing wrong, just it is not the same concept.

  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 665
    edited December 1969

    I don't wish to detract from the knowledgeable suggestions made by other forum members, but would suggest that folks looking for hardware recommendations read the gaming magazines such as Maximum PC ( http://www.maximumpc.com/ ) and Computer Power User ( http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ ).

    Thanks for the websites links, in fact I'll search my new PSU inside those sites.
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Cypherfox said:
    Greetings,...
    And they're right, it won't improve game performance, but 2GB vs. 4GB is a CRITICAL difference when you're doing on-GPU rendering, and so you have to take certain pieces of the gaming industry's opinions with a big, huge grain of salt... What's good for pixel-pushing in gaming is not necessarily just fine for doing high quality rendering using the GPU. -- Morgan

    But they are wrong about that, too, just because their current favorite game isn't using all the card's memory doesn't mean the next one won't use it all...game companies learned that lesson several years ago (anyone remember about a week after the release when Crisis's numbers went flat...?). Most major releases coincide with the 'improved' card releases, these days...and it always seems like they are bumping up a step or three.

  • edited December 1969


    Thanks for the websites links, in fact I'll search my new PSU inside those sites.

    Ensure you get a 'modular' power supply. This means that the power leads plug into the unit rather than being integral with it. you only use the cables you need and don't have to wrestle with a bunch of extras that you don't.
  • edited May 2015

    Regarding reviews and recommendations from Gamer magazines (didn't want to clog the thread with a bunch of quotes),
    You've all made some excellent observations that I have to agree with (reluctantly swallowing my damned ego).
    My question now becomes, where else can we turn? I read the leading graphics and 3D magazines but they aren't very 'techie' and the few reviews I do see I find suspect as I don't really trust their journalistic integrity. As a long time professional photographer and graphic artist (almost 40 years) I've become too used to seeing 'our' media trumpet the wares of whomever pays the most for advertising. Adobe is the worst when it comes to buying reviews.
    I've asked (a lot!) over the years for the computer magazines to include some 3D and graphics in their card tests and sometimes they'll include a Photoshop script or Premiere Pro render but that's it.

    How about if we all ask the admins to have Daz officially approach the magazines and ask them to do something for us. Maybe a graphics computer special? They do all kinds of things and I'm sure this could go over well.

    Post edited by bobbbjmbnklbhjklbgjkh on
Sign In or Register to comment.