DAZ Studio Pro BETA [Project Iradium] - version 4.8.0.9!

1246725

Comments

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    I've had two instances of the screen going black for a few seconds and then when it returns, there are a number of messages saying that there was a "time out" error of some sort and Studio closes. Is that due to a scene being too large for the video card to handle? The scene had a lot of objects and textures, but none were particularly high-res and there was no figure in the scene.

    Thanks in advance for any help.

    Likely Windows and Iray competing for resources, and causing a driver crash.
  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Khory said:
    Question about f/stop in in Iray. Does it only effect light levels or does it also effect depth of field?
    Both, though each part is in a different place. F/stop under the camera is DOF, f/stop in the tone mapper is light. In a physically correct camera they should be set the same. Since 3delight does need the DOF ability as well it is set up the way it is. Keeping them the same is not enforced.
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 14,998
    edited December 1969

    ACross said:
    Interesting.

    I have two cameras in the scene I'm working on now. In the Viewport, Camera 2 is selected with the scene "texture Shaded." In the Aux Viewport, Camera 1 and Nividia Iray are selected.

    When I tried to render the scene, DS rendered Camera 1, (Aux Viewport,) not Camera 2.

    I've never had this happen before, though I can't be certain I've had both cameras in the two viewports before, either.

    Testing this, I hid the Aux Viewport and started a render. The correct camera was used. I unhid the Aux Viewport and started another render, and it's still using the correct camera.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    EDIT: Still doing it, and this time the Aux Viewport was Perspective view. Switched drawstyle to Hidden Line and it still wants to render that view. I'll reboot after this render is done and see if it's still there.

    I've rendered the aux viewport a few times, until I realized that it was 'active'...the last thing clicked on before hitting "Render'. It doesn't help that the camera (Render) is on the toolbar right above it, so my habit of a lazy slide the cursor up and click without really looking doesn't help. Clicking anywhere in the main viewport and hitting Ctrl-R always renders the correct viewport, for me.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,044
    edited March 2015

    How many unique generation 6 HD figures, cloths and hair, can you cram into 4GB?

    Looks like there is a tad more to that question, that I would still like to know.

    GPU 1 (GeForce 8600 GT) with CUDA compute capability 1.1 cannot be used by iray.

    So even with two primitive cubes with no textures maps at all, and a single light, it still cant do it, lol.

    Also, the GPU is running the desktop, so everything there also consumes Vram, including the View-port i guess.

    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 11,645
    edited December 1969

    Has anyone been running into problems where the render just... stops progressing?

    I'm trying to figure out if there's some specific material or complexity level or... what.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 14,998
    edited December 1969

    Has anyone been running into problems where the render just... stops progressing?

    I'm trying to figure out if there's some specific material or complexity level or... what.

    I had that the other night...and then after sitting for quite a while, it suddenly sped up and finished a minute or so later...it was sitting for like 20 minutes. It was a scene with just colored primitives--one of them faceted glass, though, no textures to speak of, a single point with an IES profile and caustics on...I think it was sitting there calculating the caustics.

    Same scene rendered in Luxrender showed a long time of not doing much to clear anything up, but the caustics....

    But anything that involves calculating complex light paths can cause that sort of 'pause'.

    I don't really know of any easy way to determine whether it is calculating something like complex caustics or just stuck...other than waiting

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 11,645
    edited December 1969

    Hmm. I'm trying to render something using bot genesis... maybe I'll try just leaving it alone for an hour and hoping for the best.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,044
    edited July 2015

    How many unique generation 6 HD figures, cloths and hair, can you cram into 4GB?

    Looks like there is a tad more to that question, that I would still like to know.

    GPU 1 (GeForce 8600 GT) with CUDA compute capability 1.1 cannot be used by iray.
    So even with two primitive cubes with no textures maps at all, and a single light, it still cant do it, lol.

    Also, the GPU is running the desktop, so everything there also consumes Vram, including the View-port i guess.


    CUDA v1.1 cards do not work with Iray, regardles of the amount of ram.
    System requirements The current system requirements for Iray Interactive:
    The plugin libirt needs to be loaded in neuray before this render mode is available. See the mi::neuraylib::IPlugin_configuration interface for methods to load plugins. Available on Windows x86 64 bit, Linux 64 bit, and Mac OS X 64 bit. GPUs of the Fermi and Kepler generations are supported by Iray Interactive, i.e., with CUDA Compute Capability 2.0 and higher. The following device configurations are supported: Arbitrary combinations of Compute Capability 2.x devices
    Compute Capability 3.0 devices only
    Compute Capability 3.5 devices only

    Note:
    The following device configurations are not supported:
    Mixing Fermi- and Kepler-based devices
    Combining Compute Capability 3.0 and Compute Capability 3.5 devices
    Switching at runtime between different GPU generations, for example, switching from a Compute Capability 3.0 to a Compute Capability 2.0 device. Driver requirements: The driver needs to support CUDA 6.0.
    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are, only that they have it or not. :ohh:
    (EDIT) I found a chart that dose, and I added some color to it.
    Red is no-go for Iray.
    Iray_Cuda_GPUs_001color.png
    1112 x 879 - 35K
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 11,645
    edited March 2015

    For what it's worth, I _think_ the problem I ran into was a bunch of uber shaders.

    While the scene rendered with just those surfaces, I think that once I added some figures something hit a breaking point (trying to convert shaders AND handle figures, maybe?)

    Guesswork, but (knock on wood) seems to be rendering fine (if slowly) now.

    Edit:
    Nope, that didn't work. But what seems to be the culprit, finally (after a day of banging on it)... OptiX Prime Acceleration. Switch that on and my card goes BWERK. Aaah.

    Post edited by Oso3D on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited December 1969


    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are

    Because you're not looking in the right spots. ;)

    https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus

  • barbultbarbult Posts: 8,633
    edited December 1969

    The Render Settings for Iray have a Tone Mapping section, The Exposure Value in that section seems to be calculated inconsistently when ISO is changed. The following settings should give equivalent exposure (and indeed, the rendered images all look the same), but Exposure Value is different:

    DAZ Default setting - Shutter Speed 128, F/Stop 8, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and f/stop - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 16, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13 (EV is still 13 as expected)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 8, ISO 25 = Exposure Value 9 (should be 13?)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 512, F/Stop 8, ISO 400 = Exposure Value 17 (should be 13?)

    Is this a bug, or is there something about the displayed EV I don't understand?

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,044
    edited March 2015

    Vaskania said:

    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are

    Because you're not looking in the right spots. ;)

    https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpusthanks! I was also looking at the Watts as well.
    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-730/specifications
    I remember some craze about 'Sharing' system ram way back, tho I'm not seeing anything about that mess now. Is hoping the snake oil has decreased. I noticed a Gt 730 with 4GB ram, and took a double take, (Didn't them only have 2GB or 1GB, lol).

    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited March 2015

    /edit
    nvm
    Reworking things

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969


    I remember some craze about 'Sharing' system ram way back, tho I'm not seeing anything about that mess now. Is hoping the snake oil has decreased. I noticed a Gt 730 with 4GB ram, and took a double take, (Didn't them only have 2GB or 1GB, lol).
    The 740 and 730 were originally released with about 1GB RAM, but both are now available with 4GB RAM.

    Note virtually all NVIDIA cards report 4GB or more RAM, as long as you are not looking for Dedicated VRAM (On the NVIDIA Control Panel) and it is fair as they can use that RAM for normal use, just not CUDA use.

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited March 2015

    barbult said:
    The Render Settings for Iray have a Tone Mapping section, The Exposure Value in that section seems to be calculated inconsistently when ISO is changed. The following settings should give equivalent exposure (and indeed, the rendered images all look the same), but Exposure Value is different:

    DAZ Default setting - Shutter Speed 128, F/Stop 8, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and f/stop - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 16, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13 (EV is still 13 as expected)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 8, ISO 25 = Exposure Value 9 (should be 13?)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 512, F/Stop 8, ISO 400 = Exposure Value 17 (should be 13?)

    Is this a bug, or is there something about the displayed EV I don't understand?


    /edit
    Had something backwards. See this post: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/785726/
    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • barbultbarbult Posts: 8,633
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:
    barbult said:
    The Render Settings for Iray have a Tone Mapping section, The Exposure Value in that section seems to be calculated inconsistently when ISO is changed. The following settings should give equivalent exposure (and indeed, the rendered images all look the same), but Exposure Value is different:

    DAZ Default setting - Shutter Speed 128, F/Stop 8, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and f/stop - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 16, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13 (EV is still 13 as expected)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 8, ISO 25 = Exposure Value 9 (should be 13?)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 512, F/Stop 8, ISO 400 = Exposure Value 17 (should be 13?)

    Is this a bug, or is there something about the displayed EV I don't understand?


    Yea those should all roughly be equal (I'm going by a shutter speed calc). The problem is, 128, 32, and 512 aren't real world shutter speeds. They should be 125, 30, and 500.

    If you have an android device, this is what I'm using https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.reidwolcott.expocalc&hl=en
    Set the Current Exposure settings to the daz defaults (again, you have to use 1/125 because 128 isn't accurate). Then change the 'calc fstop' and 'calc iso' settings to get the equivalent shutter speed for the changed settings.

    The app doesn't go as low as ISO 25, so just take the 1/60 that ISO 50 spits out and halve it. You end up with 1/30.
    The issue is the calculated EV. It makes no sense for it to differ like that (9, 13, 17) for the same exposure.

  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 4,229
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:
    ACross said:
    Interesting.

    I have two cameras in the scene I'm working on now. In the Viewport, Camera 2 is selected with the scene "texture Shaded." In the Aux Viewport, Camera 1 and Nividia Iray are selected.

    When I tried to render the scene, DS rendered Camera 1, (Aux Viewport,) not Camera 2.

    I've never had this happen before, though I can't be certain I've had both cameras in the two viewports before, either.

    Testing this, I hid the Aux Viewport and started a render. The correct camera was used. I unhid the Aux Viewport and started another render, and it's still using the correct camera.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    EDIT: Still doing it, and this time the Aux Viewport was Perspective view. Switched drawstyle to Hidden Line and it still wants to render that view. I'll reboot after this render is done and see if it's still there.

    I've rendered the aux viewport a few times, until I realized that it was 'active'...the last thing clicked on before hitting "Render'. It doesn't help that the camera (Render) is on the toolbar right above it, so my habit of a lazy slide the cursor up and click without really looking doesn't help. Clicking anywhere in the main viewport and hitting Ctrl-R always renders the correct viewport, for me.
    I tried clicking in the main viewport. It didn't make any difference.

    After I hid the Aux Viewport, it rendered the main viewport. I unhid the Aux Viewport, clicking on the tiny triangle above it, and hit render and it still rendered the Main viewport. I made changes to the image and hit render, and it was the Aux Viewport again! I hadn't touched the Aux Viewport since the last render, which was the Main Viewport.

    Until last night, it had never tried to Render the Aux Viewport when the two viewports were different.

    I rebooted the computer, and haven't seen that behavior since. It may have been a memory issue. Before the reboot, I'd gotten several script error popups from Firefox, You know, where a script stops running, but FF spent lots of computer resources trying to run it anyway. Slows everything down on the computer when that happens.

  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 4,229
    edited December 1969

    Has anyone been running into problems where the render just... stops progressing?

    I'm trying to figure out if there's some specific material or complexity level or... what.

    I've had that problem, too. One image in particular just won't finish rendering. I've tried rendering different groups with in the scene to find which object is the problem, and everything renders fine in those groups. But I can't render the entire scene. And when it stops, I can't cancel the render, either. I had one render last night that hit 89.20% convergence in two hours, 94.something in three hours... I left it while I watched CSI:Cyber and when I came back it was still at 94.something. I tried canceling the render, but DS wouldn't respond. I had to force the program to close. CPU only, (no graphics card.)

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited March 2015

    barbult said:
    Vaskania said:
    barbult said:
    The Render Settings for Iray have a Tone Mapping section, The Exposure Value in that section seems to be calculated inconsistently when ISO is changed. The following settings should give equivalent exposure (and indeed, the rendered images all look the same), but Exposure Value is different:

    DAZ Default setting - Shutter Speed 128, F/Stop 8, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and f/stop - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 16, ISO 100 = Exposure Value 13 (EV is still 13 as expected)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 32, F/Stop 8, ISO 25 = Exposure Value 9 (should be 13?)

    Same exposure changing shutter speed and ISO - Shutter Speed 512, F/Stop 8, ISO 400 = Exposure Value 17 (should be 13?)

    Is this a bug, or is there something about the displayed EV I don't understand?


    Yea those should all roughly be equal (I'm going by a shutter speed calc). The problem is, 128, 32, and 512 aren't real world shutter speeds. They should be 125, 30, and 500.

    If you have an android device, this is what I'm using https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.reidwolcott.expocalc&hl=en
    Set the Current Exposure settings to the daz defaults (again, you have to use 1/125 because 128 isn't accurate). Then change the 'calc fstop' and 'calc iso' settings to get the equivalent shutter speed for the changed settings.

    The app doesn't go as low as ISO 25, so just take the 1/60 that ISO 50 spits out and halve it. You end up with 1/30.


    The issue is the calculated EV. It makes no sense for it to differ like that (9, 13, 17) for the same exposure.
    Ok, digging some things out, the values are actually correct. Unless I'm shooting HDR w/ bracketing, I aim for [email protected] 100 and became accustom to watching the slider in my view finder rather than doing the math.

    Think of ISO 100 as the baseline.
    Use this chart to get the correct fstop and shutter speed for the desired ev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
    Increasing or decreasing the ISO (doubling/halving respectively) is going to +1/-1 to the ev.

    So if you take 1/500 and f/4.0 at ISO 100, you'll get EV 13. Now up the ISO to 400 and you'll get EV 15 (ISO 100, 200, 400- 400 is +2 EV from 100).

    /edit
    Using your specific examples...

    Daz Default: 1/128 (125), F8, ISO 100 = EV 13

    1/32 (30), F16, ISO 100 = EV 13

    1/32 (30), F8 = EV 11 .. ISO 25 (100..50..25) = 11-2ev = 9

    1/512 (500), F8 = EV 15 .. ISO 400 (100..200..400) = 15+2ev = 17

    The (#) are the real world numbers since the ones in the example wouldn't exist.

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • SpitSpit Posts: 2,156
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:

    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are

    Because you're not looking in the right spots. ;)

    https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus

    Interesting. Mine is not on the list (GeForce GT-545). It came with some CUDA cores, but apparently no CUDA driver. Updating the nVidia driver fixed that according to my Studio log files (I copied before and after sessions to a separate text file to keep for reference). Log files also indicate (if I'm interpreting correctly) that my GPU is not available for solo rendering without the CPU also involved (blended mode). That may be due to having only 1G dedicated memory.

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited March 2015

    Spit said:
    Vaskania said:

    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are

    Because you're not looking in the right spots. ;)

    https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus

    Interesting. Mine is not on the list (GeForce GT-545). It came with some CUDA cores, but apparently no CUDA driver. Updating the nVidia driver fixed that according to my Studio log files (I copied before and after sessions to a separate text file to keep for reference). Log files also indicate (if I'm interpreting correctly) that my GPU is not available for solo rendering without the CPU also involved (blended mode). That may be due to having only 1G dedicated memory.


    It only has 144 cuda cores anyways as it's a gaming card and not really designated towards rendering.
    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-545-ddr3/specifications

    [strike]I believe iRay also needs a min VRAM of 4GB.[/strike] 4GB is what's recommended (see Spooky's post below).

    Post edited by Vaskania on
  • FixmypcmikeFixmypcmike Posts: 17,300
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:

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

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

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:

    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.)

  • VaskaniaVaskania Posts: 5,920
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:

    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.)
    Gotchya. Thanks for the correction guys.
  • StorypathStorypath Posts: 10
    edited December 1969

    So testing the new render options to compare, came across something odd. My scene had only a single, distant light source for simplicity, and for some reason Iray refused to do anything with it. At first I thought it wasn't rendering at all, but then looking closer realized it had just rendered everything in different shades of black. Deleting the light source sort of worked, though now the scene looks like it was set at night. All the settings on Iray are set to default. Any ideas?

  • SpitSpit Posts: 2,156
    edited December 1969

    Vaskania said:
    Spit said:
    Vaskania said:

    Disturbingly, the GeForce website dose NOT specify what CUDA version cards are

    Because you're not looking in the right spots. ;)

    https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus

    Interesting. Mine is not on the list (GeForce GT-545). It came with some CUDA cores, but apparently no CUDA driver. Updating the nVidia driver fixed that according to my Studio log files (I copied before and after sessions to a separate text file to keep for reference). Log files also indicate (if I'm interpreting correctly) that my GPU is not available for solo rendering without the CPU also involved (blended mode). That may be due to having only 1G dedicated memory.


    It only has 144 cuda cores anyways as it's a gaming card and not really designated towards rendering.
    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-545-ddr3/specifications

    [strike]I believe iRay also needs a min VRAM of 4GB.[/strike] 4GB is what's recommended (see Spooky's post below).

    Oh, I definitely know that. I was driving hubby nuts by running around the place yelling 'I have 144 CUDAs' the other day. LOL
    It works fine, though. Done several (tiny scene) iray renders already.

  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 4,229
    edited March 2015

    Storypath said:
    So testing the new render options to compare, came across something odd. My scene had only a single, distant light source for simplicity, and for some reason Iray refused to do anything with it. At first I thought it wasn't rendering at all, but then looking closer realized it had just rendered everything in different shades of black. Deleting the light source sort of worked, though now the scene looks like it was set at night. All the settings on Iray are set to default. Any ideas?

    Which Environment mode? (I think the default is "Dome + Scene")

    If there is a sun in your Environment, where is it located in relation to the the scene. I moved the sun into negative values before and then it's below the scene and won't provide any light.

    Here is a trick, original poster unknown (to me,) that may help:

    Open up the “Aux Viewpoint” tab and change the “drawstyle” to “Nvidia Iray” to see a preview of the Iray render. In the Environment settings, make sure Dome Orientation X, Dome Orientation Y and Dome Orientation Z are all set to 0. Then move the dome using the Dome Rotation slider.

    Can you see light on the scene as you change the location of the sun?

    Post edited by L'Adair on
  • StorypathStorypath Posts: 10
    edited December 1969

    ACross said:
    Storypath said:
    So testing the new render options to compare, came across something odd. My scene had only a single, distant light source for simplicity, and for some reason Iray refused to do anything with it. At first I thought it wasn't rendering at all, but then looking closer realized it had just rendered everything in different shades of black. Deleting the light source sort of worked, though now the scene looks like it was set at night. All the settings on Iray are set to default. Any ideas?

    Which Environment mode? (I think the default is "Dome + Scene")

    If there is a sun in your Environment, where is it located in relation to the the scene. I moved the sun into negative values before and then it's below the scene and won't provide any light.

    Here is a trick, original poster unknown (to me,) that may help:

    Open up the “Aux Viewpoint” tab and change the “drawstyle” to “Nvidia Iray” to see a preview of the Iray render. In the Environment settings, make sure Dome Orientation X, Dome Orientation Y and Dome Orientation Z are all set to 0. Then move the dome using the Dome Rotation slider.

    Can you see light on the scene as you change the location of the sun?

    That may have been it. If it was looking for a light source that wasn't there, that would explain the darkness. I'll try setting it to Scene Only and see what happens.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,044
    edited March 2015

    Vaskania, thanks for the link, I lost my charts... :blank: ah a while ago :red: in highschool.

    Vaskania said:

    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.) Thank you. That was the kind of info that was lacking. My pathetic 43 watt 8600GT can't even count that high using all it's CUDA cores.

    So a 4GB card could do about half my kind of stuff consistently, the six figure line-ups may be pushing it to far (depending on how many HD's, and number of color scale cubes).

    And forget about stuff like "Wrong Gate address", 28 daz dragons, Farewell LN, etc. The kind of stuff I do rarely.

    So, Watt budget (50 watts full tilt), 4+GB, and non-obstructive in a recording studio when it is just on desktop and Sonar. (scratching chin)

    39.gif
    18 x 18 - 987B
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,044
    edited March 2015


    I remember some craze about 'Sharing' system ram way back, tho I'm not seeing anything about that mess now. Is hoping the snake oil has decreased. I noticed a Gt 730 with 4GB ram, and took a double take, (Didn't them only have 2GB or 1GB, lol).
    The 740 and 730 were originally released with about 1GB RAM, but both are now available with 4GB RAM.

    Note virtually all NVIDIA cards report 4GB or more RAM, as long as you are not looking for Dedicated VRAM (On the NVIDIA Control Panel) and it is fair as they can use that RAM for normal use, just not CUDA use. And that is why I still have this 43 watt 8600GT. Trying to get accurate info on the ram is nearly impossible, unless the card is going for more then a few hundred USD. It did not consume 200 plus watts on the desktop. Some older cards either idled or went full throttle, no in between, and the desktop alone would keep the thing at full throttle. As well as the deceptive advertising about the cards with limited vram detailed specs allot of places. hence my skepticism regarding the 730 and 740.

    Do they really have that on the card, or dose it suck it from system ram, lol. Example GT 730 pic. Where, do they fit 4GB of RAM chips on that card, given the ram-density of chips at the time? And a better question regarding the RAM address traces. If the chip was launched with 2GB max, did it ever have the address traces to even function with more vram? It at least looks tempting for driving my monitors, with possibly a second card for Iray, possibly. I wounder if the MSI 8600GT heat-pipes will fit on that, hmm.
    (EDIT)
    I'm liking this card more and more, after seeing the current onslaught of backwards-blowing heat-sinks, and fins going the wrong way. The air in my computers goes from the front, straight to and out the back, not up and down or side to side. And it dose not do loop-d-loops, lol.

    GeForce_GT_730_4GB_DDR3.png
    570 x 327 - 161K
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
Sign In or Register to comment.