Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
i7-8086K @ 4 Ghz (16 cores)
2x GeForce 980 GTX NO DRIVERS installed yet
2019-09-23 00:47:34.440 Total Rendering Time: 26 minutes 1.43 seconds
drivers installed
2 minutes 26.31 seconds
Very strange. In this topic many results with 2:00 - 2:10 on 1080ti. Maybe you have a regular 1080 without 'Ti'
also Fwiw the i7-8086K is a 12-core 8700K variant. Not a 16-core part.
It seems that NVIDIA computer driver was replaced by "Studio Driver" does anyone tried yet? Any performance change on Daz 4.12?
Daz log file keep warning to change my card 2080 ti (that is detached from the monitor) to TCC mode. That is impossible on Game Driver, it is possible with Studio Driver or is just a useless warning?
It's only supported on some GPU's.. so it's not driver related, and sadly, not supported on 2080Ti's.
Based on past testing (just substitute "Studio" wherever you see "Creator Ready" mentioned - Nvidia switched branding several months later) it makes no performance difference. Nvidia's Studio drivers are basically just a different release pipeline for their standard GeForce ones (the actual code base between the two is identical from version to version.) In theory, they provide a more stable user experience for creative app users (as opposed to gamers) for people who rely on automatic driver updates since Studio driver releases only happen after a given driver base version has been thoroughly tested on specific existing apps. Standard GeForce drivers get released asap any time new apps/features get added to the code base with little regard for whether existing apps get negatively effected.
It's a useless warning on anything other than a Quadro/Titan card. And even then, it's of limited use (slight increase in usable VRAM and/or rendering speed at the loss of display output functionality as well as temperature/resource monitoring and fan speed control in many apps like Task Manager and Corsair iCue.)
For those wanting to know, both the latest official Daz Studio 4.12 release (4.12.0.086) and the latest Beta (4.12.0.085) ship with the SAME version of Iray as all recent previous beta releases (see here for a detailed breakdown.) So if you've benchmarked your hardware on any Beta release from the past several month or so you should see NO rendering performance differences with either of these latest releases.
Ryen 3600: Total Rendering Time: 15 minutes 36.27 seconds
Thank you for your answers, I just downloaded the latest Game Driver 436.30, everything seems to be working.
mine took 35 seconds for 2x rtx2080
2019-10-04 06:10:40.544 Total Rendering Time: 32.88 seconds
2x2080Ti. No CPU. No OPA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-10-04 06:13:12.003 Total Rendering Time: 32.13 seconds
2x2080Ti. With CPU. No OPA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-10-04 06:14:47.416 Total Rendering Time: 32.1 seconds
2x2080Ti. With CPU. With OPA
On the contrary to what people said that 2080Ti+4.12 settings should be without OPA, I've found that with OPA it's an ant faster.
10/18/2019
Let me start by saying I think make, model, chips, drivers, cooling, and OC'ing probably account for a lot of the variance we see in results. I think cooling is a lot more important here than a lot of people realize. I would go deeper into it, but I know if I say the sky is blue, someone will feel compelled to reply that it isn't, but rather it's green instead. The thing is, we might both be right because we're each looking at it from completely different scenarios: I might be in sunny Philadelphia (I'm not), while they're hunkered down in Michigan as a tornado bears down on them (I hope not).
Scene 1 old benchmark (95% convergence):
RTX 2080 Ti (no CPU/no OPA): 57.23 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (CPU/OPA on): 53.38 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (CPU on): 53.22 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (OPA on): 56.6 seconds
Scene 2 newer benchmark (95% convergence):
RTX 2080 Ti (no CPU/no OPA): 3 minutes 31.10 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (CPU/OPA on): 3 minutes 11.30 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (CPU on): 3 minutes 12.8 seconds
RTX 2080 Ti (OPA on): 3 minutes 30.78 seconds
Machine:
Asrock X299 Extreme4
Intel i9 9940X 14 Cores/28 Threads
DDR4 64GB Ram XMP-3200
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB Ram (EVGA Black card)
CPU/GPU Independent Cooling: 2x NZXT Kraken liquid coolers (X62 280mm)
Only modest OC--on scene 1, I ran about 4.2 GHz on CPU and 2GHz on GPU
GPU temps never run over 47 degrees on short renders like this. On longer ones, they rarely go over 50.
On scene 1, best time came from CPU and GPU render.
On scene 2, best time came from CPU, OPA on, and GPU render.
Takeaway: Your Mileage May Vary.
FYI @iSeeThis @Wanderer the OptiX Prime Acceleration checkbox in Daz Studio 4.12+ is completely functionless. Iray's developers removed its underlying functionality with the introduction of RTX support and forgot to tell Daz about it - hence why it's still there at all (and is no longer in the most recent Beta.)
Of course temps will effect the results. So will overclocks, as most gaming cards are overclocked in the factory, and users are able to adjust them as well. Clockspeeds can have an even bigger effect. But in general, all cards of the same GPU will be very close to each other in performance. Like just a scant few percent. Plus these benchmarks are pretty quick, it takes time for a card to get warm, and in some cases, like the 2080ti in particular, it can be nearly done with the bench before it even gets fully warmed up. Like the SY bench, I bet you can finish that bench before reaching reaching peak operating temperatures.
@RayDAnt That's interesting, but I stand by my figures as true. I could run them again, and I might get completely different results. I'm not really sure if it matters on a short bench like these as we see there isn't really much difference. I know it doesn't really prove anything, but the log is attached.
@outrider42 Yeah, I'd like to see a benchmark scene that takes 40-60 minutes for these cards to finish to get an idea of how things look that far out across several different specs.
Thanks @outrider42, good info. I'd ask where that bench is, but I'm guessing a forum search will tell me just as easily.
@Wanderer My bench is in my sig. As for the other, I'm on mobile, but I still have it bookmarked. https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/344451/rtx-benchmark-thread-show-me-the-power#latest
@outrider42 I'm trying to get your bench, but for some strange reason, when I click the download scene file button, no download begins--it just takes me to this page: https://www.daz3d.com/gallery/. Any idea why that is?
@outrider42 No worries, I just right-clicked and chose save link as... that seemed to work fine. But the button did not.
@Wanderer, its something the site does. I don't know why. Maybe I'll put it on sharecg someday.
@RayDAnt Hey, just thought you'd like to know what I found while digging through my own logs just now--without the OPA box checked:
"2019-10-19 02:16:39.360 WARNING: ..\..\..\..\..\src\pluginsource\DzIrayRender\dzneuraymgr.cpp(305): Iray [WARNING] - IRAY:RENDER :: 1.0 IRAY rend warn : The 'iray_optix_prime' scene option is no longer supported."
@outrider42 Results of running your bench with CPU/GPU (stats already given above): 3 minutes 53.33 seconds at 88.65% convergence due to hitting max samples.
Yeah. See this post for a full analysis of the ramifications of that.
Not quite. OptiX Prime is still in this and every build (to date) of Daz Studio. It's just been demoted to an automated fallback in the case that a GPU doesn't support hardware based raytracing acceleration (ie. non-RTX) since Iray lost its own original "built-in" raytracing mechanism alternative with the conversion to the full OptiX API.
The big issue in this thread is that the numbers in these "tests" are inconsitant due to one big variable. Computers are different and the logfile contains not only the actual render time, but also includes the scene load time. Most of the mobo's used for testing multiple cards have only 16 or 20 PCIe lanes available. Not enough when 32 are required for two cards running 16x. Other factors for longer load times are how many channels of system RAM you are using (many use single channel), whether you are using SATA or NVMe drives or simple HDD drives, CPU type and core count, whether you can run full NVLink 2.0 or partial NVLink (like in a 2080) for multiple cards, and a variety of other factors. These can add many seconds to the "render times" people are posting, depending on computer configuration. It's not just about which card(s) you have.
Those of us running Xeon workstations with multiple CPU's and 80+ PCIe lanes available (not including chipset lanes) and 4 channel RAM are seeing much lower figures for the same cards. So I am sure a better methodology is required for any of this "data" to be relevant to hobbyists DAZ users.
I've upgraded ... gota change the sig
Hardware: z840 HP Workstation, Dual Xeon E5-2699v4 22-core (88 threads total), (16) 1x64GB DDR4-2400 ECC LR RAM, 4-channel/cpu (1Tb total RAM), (1) 2Tb Samsung 970 EVO NVMe SSD, (4) WD Black 6Tb HDD, (3) nVidia Titan RTX 24Gb GPU's across NVLink, 1125W PSU
Fyi if you want benchmark figures immune from all the un-accounted-for variance factors you've CORRECTLY described here, you can check out this alternative benchmarking thread. Both the test scene itself and the methodology for reporting its results were designed from the ground up to take these same specific confounding factors into account (referred to collectively as "Loading Time" and found as the last colunm of date in each CPU/GPU combination's individual results chart) thereby eliminating them from skewing final results.
RTX 2070 Super Jetstream + GTX 760 4GB (no cpu)
Total Rendering Time: 1 minutes 3.94 seconds
1950X+1080Ti (Old benchmark)
Total Rendering Time: 1 minutes 36.99 seconds
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080:
2 min 30 secs