Iray Starter Scene: Post Your Benchmarks!

145791030

Comments

  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 2,702
    edited December 1969

    brian said:
    So if you could build a dedicated rendering machine for this purpose (iray rendering), would you focus on the processor, the ram, or the graphics card. For example:

    http://www.scan.co.uk/3xs/configurator/custom-built-graphics-cad-workstation-pc-uk-3xs-gw-ht10

    If you had a little extra to throw at this machine, would you:

    Upgrade the processor to Intel Core i7 5960X 8-core with HT overclocked to 4.0GHz
    Stick another 4GB NVIDIA Quadro K4200 in it
    Instead of 2 GPUs, just put one in (K5000 or K5200)
    Up the ram to 64gb

    Or something else?

    Um - in general, yes.

    I f you're going to do your own build - this is a nice MB: ASUS X99-E WS LGA 2011-v3 Intel X99 - room for four double-slot gpu cards; 64 GB with an I7 cpu or 128 GB with a Xeon.

    I've been running mine for several months now. I don't know if the quadro cards really bring that much more for Iray for the cost; I'm still looking at the titan X and the 980 ti and waiting to see where the prices end up in a month or so.

  • NyghtfallNyghtfall Posts: 445
    edited December 1969

    CPU + GPU: 3 minutes, 46 seconds to process 5000 iterations and reach 89% convergence.

    Specs:

    3.5 GHz Core i7-4770K
    32 GB RAM
    6 GB Geforce GTX 780
    Windows 7 Pro 64-bit

  • SedorSedor Posts: 1,709
    edited December 1969

    GTX 980Ti (Reference Design):

    3 minutes, 8 seconds (GPU only)

  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    Iray, dedicated Graphics card for the monitors (it dose not need to be a watt-hog), Then more GPU cards with all the CUDA cores you can get. (the CUDA cores need to be a minimum version number of v2.5 or later, look closely at the specs). Also the RAM on the cards dose not add up, so they must each have lots of gigs each.

    3delight, eight CPU cores running at 4GHz (stock) is not enough for the newer HD figures, upgrade options are severally limited as of this post. I need at least sixteen CPU sockets with eight-core CPUs each running at at least 4GHz, yea right, lol. Older content with 'Alt-shaders' is not as bad.

    I've been looking to upgrade my i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz (4 cores), 24GB DDR3 RAM, 1 x Titan 6GB ... My main issue with my current rig is limiting me to 1 GPU (motherboard + cooling + power supply), and want to improve my render times using both 3Delight and iRay so figured that it's time to make a big investment in something that will last me at least 5 years... Most of the scenes I render have 3 - 8 characters, indoor scenes and I'm finding take about 4GB - 5GB of VRAM. I understand how to reduce overall VRAM using Texture Atlas and other techniques...

    - i7 5960X - 8 Cores
    - EVGA X99 FTW Motherboard
    - 32GB DDR4 RAM
    - 2 x EVGA Titan X 12GB
    - 2 x EVGA Titan 6GB (old cards from another system)
    - Corsair 540 Carbide case
    - Corsair 1500W power supply
    - NZXT Kraken X61 cooler

    I'm thinking to use one of the Titan X as my primary card driving a single 4K monitor, and use all 4 GPU's for iRay rendering - is this a good idea? I'm finding the 4K monitor chews about 1GB of VRAM on the primary monitor GPU.

    The 5960X is probably overkill, but I'm hedging my bets a little as still think I will use 3Delight and other multi-core intensive tasks... I may consider a mild overclock to 4GHZ depending on the quality of the CPU I get and voltage I need across 8 cores to keep things stable and heat under control... Otherwise, I'll probably just use standard clocks...

    Interested in people's thoughts...

  • ScytharScythar Posts: 124
    edited December 1969

    91% @ ca. 11mins
    finished i think bout 14 mins (was afk for too long :( )

    my specs:
    CPU only
    intel xenon E5-2650 v2 @2.60GHz (8-core) X 2 (so 16 cores in total, hyperthreading)
    32 GB ram
    windows 7 pro 64bit system

  • PA_ThePhilosopherPA_ThePhilosopher Posts: 825
    edited December 1969

    Do you all know if there exists a test scene for animation? I would like to see some benchmarks for iRay on an animation clip.

    If there is enough interest, perhaps someone could start a new thread?


    Davide

  • SainsySainsy Posts: 50
    edited December 1969

    Iray, dedicated Graphics card for the monitors (it dose not need to be a watt-hog), Then more GPU cards with all the CUDA cores you can get. (the CUDA cores need to be a minimum version number of v2.5 or later, look closely at the specs). Also the RAM on the cards dose not add up, so they must each have lots of gigs each.

    3delight, eight CPU cores running at 4GHz (stock) is not enough for the newer HD figures, upgrade options are severally limited as of this post. I need at least sixteen CPU sockets with eight-core CPUs each running at at least 4GHz, yea right, lol. Older content with 'Alt-shaders' is not as bad.

    I've been looking to upgrade my i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz (4 cores), 24GB DDR3 RAM, 1 x Titan 6GB ... My main issue with my current rig is limiting me to 1 GPU (motherboard + cooling + power supply), and want to improve my render times using both 3Delight and iRay so figured that it's time to make a big investment in something that will last me at least 5 years... Most of the scenes I render have 3 - 8 characters, indoor scenes and I'm finding take about 4GB - 5GB of VRAM. I understand how to reduce overall VRAM using Texture Atlas and other techniques...

    - i7 5960X - 8 Cores
    - EVGA X99 FTW Motherboard
    - 32GB DDR4 RAM
    - 2 x EVGA Titan X 12GB
    - 2 x EVGA Titan 6GB (old cards from another system)
    - Corsair 540 Carbide case
    - Corsair 1500W power supply
    - NZXT Kraken X61 cooler

    I'm thinking to use one of the Titan X as my primary card driving a single 4K monitor, and use all 4 GPU's for iRay rendering - is this a good idea? I'm finding the 4K monitor chews about 1GB of VRAM on the primary monitor GPU.

    The 5960X is probably overkill, but I'm hedging my bets a little as still think I will use 3Delight and other multi-core intensive tasks... I may consider a mild overclock to 4GHZ depending on the quality of the CPU I get and voltage I need across 8 cores to keep things stable and heat under control... Otherwise, I'll probably just use standard clocks...

    Interested in people's thoughts...


    Hi Necro Boy

    I have a new system on order and should be here Friday

    1 Corsair Carbide 330R Titanium
    1 Asus X99-DELUXE DDR4 MoBo
    1 Intel Core i7 5960X s2011 v3
    1 Corsair H100i GTX Hydro Cooler
    1 4x8 2666MHz CMK32GX4M4A2666C16
    2 12GB EVGA GTX Titan X SC PCI-E

    Not dissimilar to your set up. I will try and run some tests over the weekend an post them here. Should give you a flavour :-)

  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    brian said:

    Iray, dedicated Graphics card for the monitors (it dose not need to be a watt-hog), Then more GPU cards with all the CUDA cores you can get. (the CUDA cores need to be a minimum version number of v2.5 or later, look closely at the specs). Also the RAM on the cards dose not add up, so they must each have lots of gigs each.

    3delight, eight CPU cores running at 4GHz (stock) is not enough for the newer HD figures, upgrade options are severally limited as of this post. I need at least sixteen CPU sockets with eight-core CPUs each running at at least 4GHz, yea right, lol. Older content with 'Alt-shaders' is not as bad.

    I've been looking to upgrade my i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz (4 cores), 24GB DDR3 RAM, 1 x Titan 6GB ... My main issue with my current rig is limiting me to 1 GPU (motherboard + cooling + power supply), and want to improve my render times using both 3Delight and iRay so figured that it's time to make a big investment in something that will last me at least 5 years... Most of the scenes I render have 3 - 8 characters, indoor scenes and I'm finding take about 4GB - 5GB of VRAM. I understand how to reduce overall VRAM using Texture Atlas and other techniques...

    - i7 5960X - 8 Cores
    - EVGA X99 FTW Motherboard
    - 32GB DDR4 RAM
    - 2 x EVGA Titan X 12GB
    - 2 x EVGA Titan 6GB (old cards from another system)
    - Corsair 540 Carbide case
    - Corsair 1500W power supply
    - NZXT Kraken X61 cooler

    I'm thinking to use one of the Titan X as my primary card driving a single 4K monitor, and use all 4 GPU's for iRay rendering - is this a good idea? I'm finding the 4K monitor chews about 1GB of VRAM on the primary monitor GPU.

    The 5960X is probably overkill, but I'm hedging my bets a little as still think I will use 3Delight and other multi-core intensive tasks... I may consider a mild overclock to 4GHZ depending on the quality of the CPU I get and voltage I need across 8 cores to keep things stable and heat under control... Otherwise, I'll probably just use standard clocks...

    Interested in people's thoughts...


    Hi Necro Boy

    I have a new system on order and should be here Friday

    1 Corsair Carbide 330R Titanium
    1 Asus X99-DELUXE DDR4 MoBo
    1 Intel Core i7 5960X s2011 v3
    1 Corsair H100i GTX Hydro Cooler
    1 4x8 2666MHz CMK32GX4M4A2666C16
    2 12GB EVGA GTX Titan X SC PCI-E

    Not dissimilar to your set up. I will try and run some tests over the weekend an post them here. Should give you a flavour :-)


    Hi, thanks, it would be great to know how you went :)

  • LasserineLasserine Posts: 22
    edited December 1969

    Is 8min 15 seconds a good time on CPU/GPU? Everything was default.
    i7-4790k GPU Nvidia 560 w/448 cores. CPU was running at 72c not sure if that is too hot or not.

  • SainsySainsy Posts: 50
    edited June 2015

    Asus X99-DELUXE DDR4 MoBo
    Intel Core i7 5960X s2011 v3 8 cores 3ghz
    32gb DDR 4 Ram
    2 * 12GB EVGA GTX Titan X

    With Acceleration
    2 * GC 1.31
    1 * GC 2.40
    CPU only 5 min (1654 84%)

    With SLI on
    2 * GC 1.51

    Post edited by Sainsy on
  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    brian said:
    Asus X99-DELUXE DDR4 MoBo
    Intel Core i7 5960X s2011 v3 8 cores 3ghz
    32gb DDR 4 Ram
    2 * 12GB EVGA GTX Titan X

    With Acceleration
    2 * GC 1.31
    1 * GC 2.40
    CPU only 5 min (1654 84%)

    With SLI on
    2 * GC 1.51

    Thanks for posting your scores... Very nice.

    Did you have Optix acceleration on or off?

    How are you finding your new rig? I'm tossing up the 5960x versus the 5930K - not sure whether the extra 2 cores is really worth it - hard decision given the cost difference...

  • SainsySainsy Posts: 50
    edited December 1969

    Had Optix on. Regarding the 5960, not sure as hard to compare. I felt that I wanted something that would last me a while, and could afford the extra. If you can't then I guess this is a good place to cut back. Good luck

  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    brian said:
    Had Optix on. Regarding the 5960, not sure as hard to compare. I felt that I wanted something that would last me a while, and could afford the extra. If you can't then I guess this is a good place to cut back. Good luck

    I'm the same - thinking something that will last. Thanks for posting the benchmark. Helps me make my decision to buy easier :)

  • 3dbug3dbug Posts: 66
    edited December 1969

    I'd like to run this test using my GTX660ti (2MB), but can't get GPU to show up as a render function (even in the most ridiculously small scenes using only a sphere with a shader applied), I think due to a possibly outdated Cuda driver (I've got 5.0, I think).

    In order to try and make this work, I am wondering:

    (1) What is the minimum version driver I need to make use of my Cudas?
    (2) Will that specific driver work on Mac OS 10.8.3?
    (3) Do I have to install a "CUDA toolkit" with that, or just a (the) new driver to make things work?
    (4) If I mistakenly install a Cuda driver not supported by my system, would my display go dark (requiring me reboot using an install CD in order to revert and reinstall the last driver that didn't make my display go blank)?

    Answers to any or all of these questions would be most appreciated!

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,238
    edited July 2015

    I'd like to run this test using my GTX660ti (2MB), but can't get GPU to show up as a render function (even in the most ridiculously small scenes using only a sphere with a shader applied), I think due to a possibly outdated Cuda driver (I've got 5.0, I think).

    In order to try and make this work, I am wondering:

    (1) What is the minimum version driver I need to make use of my Cudas?
    (2) Will that specific driver work on Mac OS 10.8.3?
    (3) Do I have to install a "CUDA toolkit" with that, or just a (the) new driver to make things work?
    (4) If I mistakenly install a Cuda driver not supported by my system, would my display go dark (requiring me reboot using an install CD in order to revert and reinstall the last driver that didn't make my display go blank)?

    Answers to any or all of these questions would be most appreciated!If the CUDA cores themselves are not a version 2.0 or later, it will not work. My 8600GT had CUDA, it was just to limited to work. Posted that stuff a long time ago, here and in other threads. (runs off to find them)
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/785620/
    (EDIT)
    OK your in the Green, v3.0 cores. It has been mentioned that 4GB is preferred for working with Iray, 2GB sounds rather limited, especially if it is also running your monitors (the driver can eat up 512MB by it's self). As for Mac drivers, hmmm. I'm not a mac user.


    I believe iRay also needs a min VRAM of 4GB.

    No, it doesn't, if the scene fits into the VRAM.

    Correct. We have been recommending 4GB because 2GB is walking a fine edge with one figure in the scene while 4GB fits most typical scenes. (3-4 figures with clothes and hair plus an environment.) But if you are careful you can get away with 2GB. (SIngle monitor, turn off Aero, use Texture atlas, etc.)
    I see drivers listed around for other macs, tho not specifically yours with a GTX660ti. And most impotently, no followup indicating weather it worked or not, lol.
    I'm sorry, I don't think I can help.
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • 3dbug3dbug Posts: 66
    edited July 2015

    Thanks! The scene only has a primitive in it (so it should render in GPU mode) and I've got the 5.0 Cuda driver installed, so I'm confused as to why the GPU render option doesn't come up. Any ideas?

    Post edited by 3dbug on
  • 3dbug3dbug Posts: 66
    edited July 2015

    double post

    Post edited by 3dbug on
  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,238
    edited July 2015

    Thanks! The scene only has a primitive in it (so it should render in GPU mode) and I've got the 5.0 Cuda driver installed, so I'm confused as to why the GPU render option doesn't come up. Any ideas?

    CUDA Driver 6.0 minimum needed for Iray. I know, complicated list of different version numbers for different stuff, can be very confusing for me at times.
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/785620/
    Hardware needs to be minimum 3.0, The driver minimum 6.0
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • 3dbug3dbug Posts: 66
    edited December 1969

    Cool. So, I need to update. Glad I might be able to then make use of my 1320 cudas. Any idea if the update (if it's incompatible with my system) would make my monitor go blank?

  • 3dbug3dbug Posts: 66
    edited December 1969

    Installed a more recent version of Cuda (6.5.18) and it's working. Awesome speed difference. The update didn't create a blue screen of death or any problems with my monitor. Thanks for the help!!

  • hacsarthacsart Posts: 928

    Gave up after 84% convergence at 42 minutes... AMD A10-6800K rendered in CPU only mode. 

  • LindseyLindsey Posts: 1,623

    Lux Render, another PBR (Physically-Based Rendering) could take hours for an acceptable image.  Don't be discouraged and keep Iray as a render option even if only in CPU mode.

  • PippenPippen Posts: 226

    Ok, here my normal PC

    GPU (GTX 970 4GB) & CPU (Intel Core i7-4790K) Total Rendering Time: 6 minutes 22.47 seconds

    And for fun the temps :)
    CPU with all 4 Cores & HT max 75 °C (167 °F)
    GPU max 70 °C (158 °F)

    a little hot but ok :)

    Thanks for posting your results. I have the 970 with i7-3930K.  I was curious how mine might perform. Time to install 4.8!!

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100

    Asus X99-DELUXE DDR4 MoBo
    Intel Core i7 5960X s2011 v3 8 cores 3ghz
    32gb DDR 4 Ram
    2 * 12GB EVGA GTX Titan X

    With Acceleration
    2 * GC 1.31
    1 * GC 2.40
    CPU only 5 min (1654 84%)

    With SLI on
    2 * GC 1.51

    As previously noted in several of the threads, NVIDIA recommends turning off SLI when using Iray. :) Thanks for showing that number. 

  • hacsarthacsart Posts: 928
    Lindsey said:

    Lux Render, another PBR (Physically-Based Rendering) could take hours for an acceptable image.  Don't be discouraged and keep Iray as a render option even if only in CPU mode.

    I can see that as a valid point, but by way of comparison, my 4 year old version of 3d Studio Max, with an older version of Vray, can turn out stuff pretty quickly (this image at 1680x1050 took just over an hour on the same system I did the iray test on. ) Now I know vray is not an unbiased renderer, and that it does things a wee bit differently, but I had hoped for that sort of performance from iray. I love Daz for what it does, though, and one can get some truly nice renders out of it with 3Delight.  

     

    06_11.jpg
    1680 x 1050 - 1M
  • fastbike1fastbike1 Posts: 2,654

    I7-4770K 3.5Ghz, 32 GB Ram. GTX780 3Gb. 3 minutes 46 seconds to 100%..

  • AlienRendersAlienRenders Posts: 654

    Total Rendering Time: 2 minutes 55.7 seconds

    CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX TITAN X): 5000 iterations, 27.879s init, 145.590s render

     

    I also have an FX-8350 and R9 290 in the same machine. They were not used in the render.

    BTW, does anyone have a scene file for LuxRender. It appears I can use both my video cards to render with Lux, but the output looks pretty bad with this scene file.

     

  • jakibluejakiblue Posts: 5,761

    oh boy. I didn't get a particularly good result, I don't think. 

    ASUS laptop: Nvidea 610m gb, 8 gb ram, i7 2.30ghz

    Modified scene with the two spheres taken out: 38min to get to 90%

    :sigh:

     

  • ScavengerScavenger Posts: 2,662
    edited July 2015

    Well, that sucked.

    full scene GPU only checked
    57 minutes 7.13 seconds
    hit 5000 samples and quit. Convergence at 90-92%

     

    At which point I removed sphere's 8 & 9...which didn't do much, each of the next I killed at 30 minutes.

    GPU only checked
    @30 minuts 88.86% converged, 2612 interations 93%

    GPU & CPU
    30 min, 88.58% 2422 interations

    GPU & CPU
    instancing op:speed
    33min 3707 interations 91.82% cibverged

     

    2012 iMac 4x 3.4 GHz  i7 hyper threaded (functional 8 cores) ; Ram 16 Gig NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2Gig VRam  

    EDIT: Ah.. I see if I'd read a bit more on the first page, I would have seen Spooky comenting on a similar computer.

    Post edited by Scavenger on
  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 2,702

    New numbers - I've added a GTX 980 TI - 6 minutes 57.2 seconds for the full scene, at 8,494 iterations - gpu only.

    Previous runs (from page 1):

    Took a while.

    System - Windows 7 Pro, 6-core 3.5 GHz I7 (12 threads) and a GT 740 (4 GB, 384 cores)

    Both: 18 Minutes 11.26 Seconds - 3335 Iterations CPU, 1419 Iterations GPU 4754 Iterations total
    CPU: 23 Minutes 26.54 Seconds - 4747 Iterations
    GPU: 52 Minutes 55.48 Seconds - 4723 Iterations

    Note how close the iteration count is for the three results. Also, I'd like to point out that the 740 is also driving two monitors with resolutions of 1920 X 1080.

    These numbers are for the modified scene, without spheres 8 and 9 (I hit the 5,000 iteration point before finishing with them present).

Sign In or Register to comment.