Loading...
> >

Thinking about getting a proper GPU for rendering? Be Warned!

tkztkz Posts: 149
edited June 2017 in The Commons

I'm currently at step 4... but already seeing 5 through 7 on the horizon.

Step 1) Buy a top GPU for faster renders... 
Step 2) Discover the improved quality possible in a reasonable amount of time
Step 3) Crank the settings and resolution - render at 1/2 - 1/3 the speed per production file.
Step 4) Buy a second top GPU for faster render times
Step 5) Improve the settings and resolution again, start exploring animations
Step 6) Realize how frames per second translates to rendering time... create lower quality preset for rendering animations.
Step 7) Start shopping around for a bigger PSU, and a case with better air flow, so that you can add more gpus 

Post edited by tkz on
«1

Comments

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,722
    edited June 2017

    I am waiting to for 32 core CPUs to be cheaper but will still have dual GPUs. I want 4K frames, however, simple frames that render faster. I guess iRay is out of the question even if frame is simplified material-wise? 

    Post edited by nonesuch00 on
  • GatorGator Posts: 1,319
    nonesuch00 said:

    I am waiting to for 32 core CPUs to be cheaper but will still have dual GPUs. I want 4K frames, however, simple frames that render faster. I guess iRay is out of the question even if frame is simplified material-wise? 

    Not at all - I render at 4K with Iray.  Doing it with twin Titan X Pascal cards, but now a 1080 Ti will do the same job (minus 1 GB RAM, which isn't an issue with simple frames).

    Depends on what you want, a simple scene with 1 Genesis 3 figure can render in 10 minutes.

    If you mean low res textures, that probably won't impact render time much but use less VRAM.

  • hacsarthacsart Posts: 2,034

    Step 8: - Buy Nvidia Stock in the hopes of getting some of your investment back..
    Step 9:  Negoitate industrial power rates with your electric company.
    Step 10: Complain that its still not fast enough!

  • Daz Jack TomalinDaz Jack Tomalin Posts: 13,813

    Actually one step that will get you is if you have a modest 1500VA~900W UPS, you'll need to replace that as well as you start adding more gear in there.

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,722
    scott762_948aec318a said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    I am waiting to for 32 core CPUs to be cheaper but will still have dual GPUs. I want 4K frames, however, simple frames that render faster. I guess iRay is out of the question even if frame is simplified material-wise? 

    Not at all - I render at 4K with Iray.  Doing it with twin Titan X Pascal cards, but now a 1080 Ti will do the same job (minus 1 GB RAM, which isn't an issue with simple frames).

    Depends on what you want, a simple scene with 1 Genesis 3 figure can render in 10 minutes.

    If you mean low res textures, that probably won't impact render time much but use less VRAM.

    OK, yeah, thanks. I just want like a claymation look but with the iRay correctness for materials. Oh occasion some segments might have glass, water, and other materials that make the renders take longer but I will have to sort of edit around those situations when possible.

  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787
    edited June 2017

    I actually went through a few steps before getting to your Step 1.

    Step 1) Read threads like this.

    Step 2) Realize I would need to buy a new motherboard to run multiple GPUs.

    Step 3) Realize that I would also need a new CPU, power supply, more RAM, and probably water cooling(I might be able to keep my case...).

    Step 4) Contemplate the thousands of dollars this would cost and compare it to my income.

    Step 5) Decide that I really do like 3DL...

    Post edited by Zylox on
  • tkztkz Posts: 149

    And also.... The progression from buying your first asset to checking the daz store every day (and by every day I mean 4 times a day) for what's on special.... becoming familiar with every single asset in the whole DB... and then finally to the discovery of the daz deals extension... The jury is still out if I'm better off for installing that extension.... :D

    And to add a step 6) to your prelimnary addiction steps > Start thinking up new ways to generate revenue from rendering so that you can legitimize more power....

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,319
    nonesuch00 said:
    scott762_948aec318a said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    I am waiting to for 32 core CPUs to be cheaper but will still have dual GPUs. I want 4K frames, however, simple frames that render faster. I guess iRay is out of the question even if frame is simplified material-wise? 

    Not at all - I render at 4K with Iray.  Doing it with twin Titan X Pascal cards, but now a 1080 Ti will do the same job (minus 1 GB RAM, which isn't an issue with simple frames).

    Depends on what you want, a simple scene with 1 Genesis 3 figure can render in 10 minutes.

    If you mean low res textures, that probably won't impact render time much but use less VRAM.

    OK, yeah, thanks. I just want like a claymation look but with the iRay correctness for materials. Oh occasion some segments might have glass, water, and other materials that make the renders take longer but I will have to sort of edit around those situations when possible.

    Depends on the complexity of the object, and how clear you want it.  Curved specular materials can take quite some time/number of samples to get rid of the grainyness.  Flat glass objects and water typically don't seem to be too bad.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,401

    Greetings,

    Yeah, step 4 for me is going to have to wait until I can get a larger case...my current case can't fit two cards in it at once.  My PSU can handle it (the 1080Ti is a lot more power-friendly, fwiw) but the case is too tight.  I'll be going with a 1080 and a 1080Ti eventually...

    I render 4K most of the time also, even with the single GPU.  It's so incredibly much faster...

    --  Morgan

     

  • ArgleSWArgleSW Posts: 148
    tkz said:

    I'm currently at step 4... but already seeing 5 through 7 on the horizon.

    Step 1) Buy a top GPU for faster renders... 
    Step 2) Discover the improved quality possible in a reasonable amount of time
    Step 3) Crank the settings and resolution - render at 1/2 - 1/3 the speed per production file.
    Step 4) Buy a second top GPU for faster render times
    Step 5) Improve the settings and resolution again, start exploring animations
    Step 6) Realize how frames per second translates to rendering time... create lower quality preset for rendering animations.
    Step 7) Start shopping around for a bigger PSU, and a case with better air flow, so that you can add more gpus 

    I use a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with a Intel i7 5860k and 16GB RAM DDR4. I render with GPU Only and OptiXPrime Acceleration enabled. With complex scenes I get incredibly fast render times. Within 30 minutes I get nearly final renders @ 7000x4000 resolution (often with 2-3 HD morphed characters, several environment props, HDRI light and mesh lights in the scene. I found when I just use GPU and forget the CPU, everything runs smoother and faster for me. With the CPU off, I can also use my PC in the background doing other tasks while rendering. Save your money and don't waste it on a $1000 CPU.

  • tkztkz Posts: 149
    edited June 2017

    *removed.

    Post edited by tkz on
  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942
    edited July 2017

    *Removed. See intended message below. Thanks

    Post edited by ArtAngel on
  • tkztkz Posts: 149
    ArtAngel said:

    wish people would show stats on what they owned vs what they surmised

    Not sure I follow what you mean...

  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942
    tkz said:
    ArtAngel said:

     

    Not sure I follow what you mean...

    Sorry for that and this long reply and thank you for at least responding. That post was was unfinished and was supposed to be a draft. meant to save as draft and finish message later.

    I went with two titans xp's in one case and a 1080 ti in the other. I just wish people would show stats on what they owned vs what they surmised. I see lots of conflicting opinions (elsewhere) but it seems like scott762_948aec318a knows what he's talking about. I, personally, am totally  confused as to which is better and I have an opportunity to start fresh because my new computer died twice and so did a 3 TB harddrive.

    I spent forever searching forums (feel cross-eyed) and trying to make a decision as to which suits Daz better. Dual Titan xp's or 1080ti and cannot find any data anywhere as to the stats of what Daz 4.9 will render the fastest on. I was going to put Daz on both machines but Ilike most people here I own a ton of content and don't want to clog up both machines with Daz. I started installing Daz on the dual machine and it died for the second time in three months (CPU went dead). During this time I lost a new 3 TB drive of manually downloaded Daz content which means I haven't rendered squat yet. Falcon has rebuilt the thing twice (which takes almost a month because they are in Oregan and I'm in California ... so I'm nervous about making the wrong choice because I know what reinstalls and lost metadata looks like. I don't mind doing some renders and helping others decide which card actually performs better down the road, but right now I'm not sure which one to use for Daz. I was hoping this forum would have some insight about what difference there might be if one was doing a crowd in a large scene. I plan to use the other machine for rendering  large 3D Video trailers and audio recordings. I had no problem doing 2D videos or audio on the old machines but Daz just kept breaking on me so I figured I'd dedicate one machine to it.  Any advice would be hugely appreciated.

    Just an FYI side note, I was told that windows 10 and new WD large TB drives do not play well together.

  • HaslorHaslor Posts: 408
    edited July 2017
    Jack Tomalin said:

    Actually one step that will get you is if you have a modest 1500VA~900W UPS, you'll need to replace that as well as you start adding more gear in there.

    So right, you don't want to be int he middle of a render and have your system hickup.

    tkz said:

    I'm currently at step 4... but already seeing 5 through 7 on the horizon.

    Step 1) Buy a top GPU for faster renders... 
    Step 2) Discover the improved quality possible in a reasonable amount of time
    Step 3) Crank the settings and resolution - render at 1/2 - 1/3 the speed per production file.
    Step 4) Buy a second top GPU for faster render times
    Step 5) Improve the settings and resolution again, start exploring animations
    Step 6) Realize how frames per second translates to rendering time... create lower quality preset for rendering animations.
    Step 7) Start shopping around for a bigger PSU, and a case with better air flow, so that you can add more gpus 

    I wonder if you have forgotten a few steps,

    Get a Better/Faster CPU, faster the CPU the more data it can push from RAM to the GPU.

    Get an PCI-e M.2 SSD drive and point DAZ Studio's Cache to that drive. The faster you can Write to you Cache drive, the better due to DAZ Studio saving the image to the cache directory as it builds it.

    Get Better and faster RAM and make sure it is compatible with your System Board and is All the same Make and Model. (Not all RAM is created Equal).

    Bigger Power Supply

    Ensure that there is enough Power from the wall for the Computer. (See Jack's Point of a Bigger UPS).

    So how serious are you about makeing the Most Uber machine?

    Post edited by Haslor on
  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942

    @Haslor This post helped me, so thank you. I googled how to find cpu (attached instructions screenshot in case anyone else needs to know how) and was wondering which is better for Daz.

    1080tiCpu.JPG
    702 x 480 - 55K
    TitanCpu.JPG
    847 x 482 - 56K
    cpu-find.JPG
    800 x 329 - 43K
  • ArtAngelArtAngel Posts: 1,942

    Sorry for double post and being off topic but this is what happened last time. Anyone know what I am doing wrong that the post gets submitted yet stays as a draft?

    Draft Issues.JPG
    2766 x 732 - 120K
  • tkztkz Posts: 149

    @ArtAngel Off topic? Those are pretty on point for pains that those coming after us (and us) are/will be going through... :) I went with a 1080ti, and have a second one in the mail... would be happy to discuss stats / differences to the Titan XPs when it gets here.

    @haslor - already have an NVME 950 and 32GB 2800 speed ram... the CPU hasn't become a bottle neck (I don't htink), and I should be able to fit my second gpu under the current PSU with about 100W to spare at peak with stock cpu speed... 

    Some of the replies in this post already led me to discover that I was using bad settlings... and I'm not very bright for doing 100+ renders at 1080p only to realize that I should have been working in 4k. Thankfully I've figured out how to batch render a set of scenes in one go.... and with batch files already saved, restarting my 300 render series (now for the 3rd time) at the half way point is starting to lose its sting a little... however, I do really hope this is my last restart for getting V1 of the production run done... and luckly i don't find many of my poses needing any fixes... 

    I just wish I could post some of my renders for feedback on lighting, but sadly they are for a revamp of my sex education site...  although clothed, they are about as suggestive as it gets. :( 

  • HaslorHaslor Posts: 408
    ArtAngel said:

    @Haslor This post helped me, so thank you. I googled how to find cpu (attached instructions screenshot in case anyone else needs to know how) and was wondering which is better for Daz.

    The i7-6950X is great, I think it will access 128GB of memory; 10 Cores / 20 Threads

    the i7-7700K is capable of 64GB; 4 core / 8 threads

    So... if cash is not the stumbling block, the 6950X would be my choice at thsi time.

    Here are two other ideas.

    Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X 8-Core 3.6 GHz LGA 2066 140W BX80673I77820X Desktop Processor

    Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake-X 10-Core 3.3 GHz LGA 2066 140W BX80673I97900X Desktop Processor

     

     

     

  • ricswikaricswika Posts: 132
    edited July 2017

    Any thoughts on the rendering speed of a basic $699 1080TI verses an overclocked $839 GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hydro Copper (I have a water cooled system).

    The cost of the hydrocopper 1080TI is 120% of the base version, but the differences in clock speeds are tiny.

    Basic 1080TI, Cost: $699, Real Base Clock: 1544 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1667 MHz; 11010 MHz

    Hydrocopper 1080TI, Cost $839, Real Base Clock: 1556 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1670 MHz; Memory Clock: 11016 MHz

    Unless I am getting at least 120% of the speed with the faster board, I don't see any reason to go for the overclocked version. Seems like a waste of money unless you will actually see more speed.

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    Post edited by ricswika on
  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 14,708

    From what I've read over clocking shortens the life of the product. True or not I'm not willing to chance it with a $600 item.

  • ricswikaricswika Posts: 132
    frank0314 said:

    From what I've read over clocking shortens the life of the product. True or not I'm not willing to chance it with a $600 item.

    That is why I am running a water cooled system, with a huge radiator and about 11 fans on the radiator. Sadly, I don't know that much about overclocking and usually just run at normal speed for stability and as you noted, longer life.

    However, from what I have read, there is software that will throttle the GPU clock speeds to keep the temperatrues below some safety threshold. What I don't know is how much of an actual boost in render speed you will gain? And how much of a 'shortening of the life' would there be?

  • tkztkz Posts: 149

    From what I have gathered, the OC is somehwat built in to the new 10 series cards... as long as you can keep them cool enough to not throttle. You can always push that OC further, but they boost on their own as much as they can until they hit throttle temps.

    @ricswika - I would love to hear the results on that as well.... I was on the fence for which one to get as a second GPU for quite some time. Based on the gaming benchmarks, it looked like a very minimal gain... defintely not worth the price hike on it's own. If you don't get one with a loud pump, noise should be a lot better... but i've heard conflicting results. I was also warned not to get a FE because of how loud it is... and although loud at full load, its no where near as bad as I was expecting.

    Would a 6,8 or 10 core make that much difference? I had my 6700k (4 core / 8 thread - base  4.0) OC'd to 4.5, and that barely put a scratch into render times..... is it worth getting a crazy core for another scratch? Or does the CPU become a bottleneck when adding more gpus?

  • Daz Jack TomalinDaz Jack Tomalin Posts: 13,813
    ricswika said:

    Any thoughts on the rendering speed of a basic $699 1080TI verses an overclocked $839 GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hydro Copper (I have a water cooled system).

    The cost of the hydrocopper 1080TI is 120% of the base version, but the differences in clock speeds are tiny.

    Basic 1080TI, Cost: $699, Real Base Clock: 1544 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1667 MHz; 11010 MHz

    Hydrocopper 1080TI, Cost $839, Real Base Clock: 1556 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1670 MHz; Memory Clock: 11016 MHz

    Unless I am getting at least 120% of the speed with the faster board, I don't see any reason to go for the overclocked version. Seems like a waste of money unless you will actually see more speed.

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    If you have a proper wc loop in your system, I'd see no reason to get an aircooled card.. obviously cost will be slightly more (as you're seeing) but you have the advantage of lower temps and noise.

  • SpitSpit Posts: 2,342
    Zylox said:

    I actually went through a few steps before getting to your Step 1.

    Step 1) Read threads like this.

    Step 2) Realize I would need to buy a new motherboard to run multiple GPUs.

    Step 3) Realize that I would also need a new CPU, power supply, more RAM, and probably water cooling(I might be able to keep my case...).

    Step 4) Contemplate the thousands of dollars this would cost and compare it to my income.

    Step 5) Decide that I really do like 3DL...

    Hah! This is about where I'm at.

    One thing that bugs me is that most talk about zooming GPUs AND zooming CPUs AND gobs and gobs of RAM while using iRay only. That seems like overkill to me.

    However, I'm someone who actually LIKES 3DL, but has already spent $$ on iray specific stuff so for me getting a modestly faster CPU than the i5 I have, double my ram to 32 gigs, then get one decent nVidia GPU that would allow me to do the occasional iRay render would be good enough.

    I'm just not sure where to begin so keep putting it off. So now I'm stuck with Studio 4.8 b/c I'm not messing with this pc anymore.

     

     

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,319
    Jack Tomalin said:
    ricswika said:

    Any thoughts on the rendering speed of a basic $699 1080TI verses an overclocked $839 GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hydro Copper (I have a water cooled system).

    The cost of the hydrocopper 1080TI is 120% of the base version, but the differences in clock speeds are tiny.

    Basic 1080TI, Cost: $699, Real Base Clock: 1544 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1667 MHz; 11010 MHz

    Hydrocopper 1080TI, Cost $839, Real Base Clock: 1556 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1670 MHz; Memory Clock: 11016 MHz

    Unless I am getting at least 120% of the speed with the faster board, I don't see any reason to go for the overclocked version. Seems like a waste of money unless you will actually see more speed.

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    If you have a proper wc loop in your system, I'd see no reason to get an aircooled card.. obviously cost will be slightly more (as you're seeing) but you have the advantage of lower temps and noise.

    At best you'll get the % performance difference between the clocks, but performance depends on memory too so may not be as much.  Percentage wise that's a very small difference.

    With air cooling, you'll probably run in to what I ran in to, that I wasn't getting 100% boost clock speeds.  It will depend on your setup, I had Nvidia cards that have the stock cooling.  The top card would only run about base speed, as it's pulling hot air from the card below.  I ordered a few hybrid cards, hoping the two will be able to run near max boost speed 100% of the time rendering.

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,319
    ArtAngel said:
    tkz said:
    ArtAngel said:

     

    Not sure I follow what you mean...

    Sorry for that and this long reply and thank you for at least responding. That post was was unfinished and was supposed to be a draft. meant to save as draft and finish message later.

    I went with two titans xp's in one case and a 1080 ti in the other. I just wish people would show stats on what they owned vs what they surmised. I see lots of conflicting opinions (elsewhere) but it seems like scott762_948aec318a knows what he's talking about. I, personally, am totally  confused as to which is better and I have an opportunity to start fresh because my new computer died twice and so did a 3 TB harddrive.

    I spent forever searching forums (feel cross-eyed) and trying to make a decision as to which suits Daz better. Dual Titan xp's or 1080ti and cannot find any data anywhere as to the stats of what Daz 4.9 will render the fastest on. I was going to put Daz on both machines but Ilike most people here I own a ton of content and don't want to clog up both machines with Daz. I started installing Daz on the dual machine and it died for the second time in three months (CPU went dead). During this time I lost a new 3 TB drive of manually downloaded Daz content which means I haven't rendered squat yet. Falcon has rebuilt the thing twice (which takes almost a month because they are in Oregan and I'm in California ... so I'm nervous about making the wrong choice because I know what reinstalls and lost metadata looks like. I don't mind doing some renders and helping others decide which card actually performs better down the road, but right now I'm not sure which one to use for Daz. I was hoping this forum would have some insight about what difference there might be if one was doing a crowd in a large scene. I plan to use the other machine for rendering  large 3D Video trailers and audio recordings. I had no problem doing 2D videos or audio on the old machines but Daz just kept breaking on me so I figured I'd dedicate one machine to it.  Any advice would be hugely appreciated.

    Just an FYI side note, I was told that windows 10 and new WD large TB drives do not play well together.

    LOL thanks...  I'm no expert, but know enough to be dangerous.  laugh

    The dual Titan Xp system will be way better for DAZ & Iray, IIRC from what Sickleyield has posted here Iray scales very well.  With two cards you get near 2x performance. 

    I have another thread about building a beefy system for Daz & Iray...

    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/179126/lots-of-exciting-hardware-coming-very-soon-building-a-beastly-daz-studio-machine#latest

    I haven't found any great answers on the performance, but Sickleyield has a good thread on it with a starter scene benchmarks.  At the time I didn't see any Titan Xp entries.  I have two systems for rendering, one with two Titan X Pascals which I compose scenes on, and one with two Titan X Maxwell cards.  Primary reason for the Titan of the 1080 Ti would be the extra RAM, it's also a little faster.  I'm replacing my Titan X Maxwell cards with some 1080 Ti Hydro (water cooled) cards.  I RDP into that box and kick off saved scenes, I noticed without the system driving a monitor it uses much less VRAM.  For my use, I should be able to render all the scenes composed from my main computer.

  • ricswikaricswika Posts: 132
    edited July 2017
    Jack Tomalin said:
    ricswika said:

    Any thoughts on the rendering speed of a basic $699 1080TI verses an overclocked $839 GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hydro Copper (I have a water cooled system).

    The cost of the hydrocopper 1080TI is 120% of the base version, but the differences in clock speeds are tiny.

    Basic 1080TI, Cost: $699, Real Base Clock: 1544 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1667 MHz; 11010 MHz

    Hydrocopper 1080TI, Cost $839, Real Base Clock: 1556 MHz / Real Boost Clock: 1670 MHz; Memory Clock: 11016 MHz

    Unless I am getting at least 120% of the speed with the faster board, I don't see any reason to go for the overclocked version. Seems like a waste of money unless you will actually see more speed.

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    If you have a proper wc loop in your system, I'd see no reason to get an aircooled card.. obviously cost will be slightly more (as you're seeing) but you have the advantage of lower temps and noise.

    I ordered the 1080TI Hydrocopper SC, but didn't spring for the SC2 or FTW3 for a few more clock cycles and bucks. I probably won' push it too hard. The watercooling gives me peace of mind.

    Post edited by ricswika on
  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,574

    Another step Hire electrician to install dedecated circuit for system

  • tkztkz Posts: 149

    I just can't wait to get enough skill that I get over this hump of - "damn - that's so much better... I should start my whole render set from scatch to use this!" stage....

Sign In or Register to comment.