Loading...
> >

pascal + iray news of the day

13

Comments

  • fixmypcmikefixmypcmike Posts: 19,709

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/53771/iray-starter-scene-post-your-benchmarks

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    Thomas Windar said:

    Arabella 7, Jade Scalp Hair, Something Wicked Set. No other items in. 

    W:1600 H:1200 dimensions.
    Base Render settings, no Optix. HDRI map.
    Reached 98% convergence in 3 minutes 12 seconds. 
    And While I was using the PC and had 2 monitors active.

    A quick setup. 

    Thanks a lot for testing this out. This is awesome results.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    there is a speed  comparrison thread with a default scene somewhere

     

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 6,084

    @SickleYield, I think had a test scene in one of the threads here, or probably available at her deviantART account, too

  • XamevaXameva Posts: 19

    I was just about to buy a desktop today with a GTX 980Ti. If someone could post GTX 1070 benchmarks as soon as possible that'd really be appreciated.

  • Thomas WindarThomas Windar Posts: 272
    Fixmypcmike said:

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/53771/iray-starter-scene-post-your-benchmarks

    Thanks, I'll post the result when I come back from work.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,132
    nicstt said:
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    there is a speed  comparrison thread with a default scene somewhere

     

    ..until your scene exceeds the VRAM, then all those CUDA cores mean squat..

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    kyoto kid said:
    nicstt said:
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    there is a speed  comparrison thread with a default scene somewhere

     

    ..until your scene exceeds the VRAM, then all those CUDA cores mean squat..

    indeed

    ... But we've agreed on this elsewhere. :)

  • HavosHavos Posts: 5,629
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    Not bad, but I had hoped for better than that. I pretty consistently get a 10 times speed increase over CPU alone on my GTX970, and I had hoped a 1080 would do better than that.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Havos said:
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    Not bad, but I had hoped for better than that. I pretty consistently get a 10 times speed increase over CPU alone on my GTX970, and I had hoped a 1080 would do better than that.

    Yup, if I only got that, I'd be returning it; 980ti does considerably better than that. and costs less; so I'd be interested in seeing folks post comparrison between their system on old graphics card (970 and 980ti for preference), and what they get with a 1080.

    As it stands, Xeons are looking like the way to go.

  • Thomas WindarThomas Windar Posts: 272
    Havos said:
    Thomas Windar said:

    It appears that from my initial testing, the GTX 1080 is around 6~10 times faster than CPU rendering with an i7-6700K. 

    Is there some proper way to test this? Like a certain scene I could render and we'd check how fast it reaches 1000 Iterations?

    Not bad, but I had hoped for better than that. I pretty consistently get a 10 times speed increase over CPU alone on my GTX970, and I had hoped a 1080 would do better than that.

    Depends what CPU you are comparing it with. If I was to consider my old CPU, this card is 35 times faster, but that means nothing.

    I posted the results on the test scene thread. That will be the most accurate way of testing the performance when we all have the same scene. 

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016

    Finally Terradome 3 scenes are quick to render. Gigabyte GTX1080 G1 Gaming-8GD.

    Rendering Time: 6 minutes 35.82 seconds

    1163 iterations, 6.716s init, 383.256s render

    image

     

    MountainLake01pic01.jpg
    1908 x 1014 - 492K
    Post edited by Artini on
  • RobotHeadArtRobotHeadArt Posts: 917
    Artini said:

    Finally Terradome 3 scenes are quick to render. Gigabyte GTX1080 G1 Gaming-8GD.

    Rendering Time: 6 minutes 35.82 seconds

    1163 iterations, 6.716s init, 383.256s render

    image

     

    I noticed Terradome renders way faster just with the new Iray... although I get the minecraft water reflection in my test render like you did too.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,401

    Greetings,

    RobotHeadArt said:

    I noticed Terradome renders way faster just with the new Iray... although I get the minecraft water reflection in my test render like you did too.

    Unrelated to the 10?0 speeds, does that 'minecraft water' effect (love the description!) go away or reduce if you subdivide the water?

    --  Morgan

  • outrider42outrider42 Posts: 3,679
    Well what a shock, out of the blue with no warning. I wonder how long it will stay in beta.

    Now does it render exactly the same? Or are there some changes to how it handles something, like sss in 4.8. Is memory usage the same? If it is faster in CPU mode, then something has to be changed.

    I have the now old 4.9 beta. How do I go about getting the new beta? Does it replace the old beta?
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,132
    edited October 2016

    ...well I just ran a test render on the CPU on a scene I rendered a few days go in 4.8 and there was a noticeable difference in render time.  The 4.8 version took 1 hr 29m 29s, in 4.9.3.117 it took 51m 44s. I made no changes to the file or the render settings just loaded the scene and clicked ""render".

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • BeeMKayBeeMKay Posts: 7,019

    In DIM, change your settings to "public built" and you should see the update for DS4.9, also with the 4.9-Beta updates for various plugins, if you own them.

    outrider42 said:
    Well what a shock, out of the blue with no warning. I wonder how long it will stay in beta.

     

    Now does it render exactly the same? Or are there some changes to how it handles something, like sss in 4.8. Is memory usage the same? If it is faster in CPU mode, then something has to be changed.

     

    I have the now old 4.9 beta. How do I go about getting the new beta? Does it replace the old beta?

     

  • ZKuroZKuro Posts: 718

    I would also like to try my 1070 at last, and then, I loaded the DS beta, and when it's loaded, I just see a grey plane or whatever on the viewport sections.

    I can't see the move/zoom/pane... etc of the camera, nor the selection of the cameras, or the type or render. And If I render I just see the same grey plane. I never get to see the grid or the icons to navigate.

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016

    Have you updated Nvidia drivers for your 1070 card?

    Windows or MacOSX? As far as I know, it does not work on Macs, yet.

     

     

    Post edited by Artini on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 109,459
    zkuro said:

    I would also like to try my 1070 at last, and then, I loaded the DS beta, and when it's loaded, I just see a grey plane or whatever on the viewport sections.

    I can't see the move/zoom/pane... etc of the camera, nor the selection of the cameras, or the type or render. And If I render I just see the same grey plane. I never get to see the grid or the icons to navigate.

    Is the viewport actually open? It should ahve a tab with the name at the top of the space. If not, Window?>Panes(Tabs)>Viewport and drag the top of the frame (not the tab) to the top of the space to dock it as a new group in the central well, you should see a line in the highlight colour when you are in the rigyt place to drop it.

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016
    outrider42 said:
    ... I have the now old 4.9 beta. How do I go about getting the new beta? Does it replace the old beta?

    Yes, the old beta will be replaced with the new one.

     

    Post edited by Artini on
  • ZKuroZKuro Posts: 718
    Richard Haseltine said:
    zkuro said:

    I would also like to try my 1070 at last, and then, I loaded the DS beta, and when it's loaded, I just see a grey plane or whatever on the viewport sections.

    I can't see the move/zoom/pane... etc of the camera, nor the selection of the cameras, or the type or render. And If I render I just see the same grey plane. I never get to see the grid or the icons to navigate.

    Is the viewport actually open? It should ahve a tab with the name at the top of the space. If not, Window?>Panes(Tabs)>Viewport and drag the top of the frame (not the tab) to the top of the space to dock it as a new group in the central well, you should see a line in the highlight colour when you are in the rigyt place to drop it.

    I thought that would come open, thank you Richard!!! now to dock and try my 1070!!

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016

    Another test of Terra Dome 3 - Life On Mars scene and Atlantida Copter http://www.daz3d.com/atlantida-copter

    Rendering Time: 8 minutes 54.21 seconds

    GeForce GTX 1080: 721 iterations, 19.706s init, 510.541s render

    image

    LifeOnMars02pic01.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 552K
    Post edited by Artini on
  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016

    Another one - Penthouse Suite Level 1: http://www.daz3d.com/penthouse-suite-level-1

    Only let it render up to 60%. Rendering Time: 54 minutes 52.68 seconds

    GTX1080: 2748 iterations, 18.789s init, 3264.831s render

    image

    PenthouseSuite01pic01.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 635K
    Post edited by Artini on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,132

    ...that's a lot of reflective surfaces in theat lat one. Interior shots still seem to take more time than exterior ones.

    Are the lights all emissive?

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    kyoto kid said:

    ...well I just ran a test render on the CPU on a scene I rendered a few days go in 4.8 and there was a noticeable difference in render time.  The 4.8 version took 1 hr 29m 29s, in 4.9.3.117 it took 51m 44s. I made no changes to the file or the render settings just loaded the scene and clicked ""render".

    I had a scene render two minutes faster 18 versus 16 using a 980ti, so tbh, I'm not impressed with the new 10 series cards, seems to me all hype, and little substance - certainly if considering the outlay.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,132

    ...the advantage with the 1070/1080 is having 8 GB instead of 6 and not having to pay over 1,000$ for a Titan X. The only other Nvidia GPU with 8 GB is the 2,500$ Quadro M5200.  AMD's had an R9 Radeon GPU with 8 GB for a while which costs less than a 980Ti, but that is useless for Iray.

    Back when there were rumbles about a the forthcoming Maxwell 970 and 980, there was a lot "talk" they would be both "upgraded" to 8 GB.  Was very disappointed when they came out, especially with the price of the 980Ti. 

    8 GB is reasonably sufficient for a fair percentage of my scenes. Just have to remember not to "downgrade" to Windows 10 or the 1070 and 1080 become 6 GB cards.

  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016
    kyoto kid said:

    ...that's a lot of reflective surfaces in theat lat one. Interior shots still seem to take more time than exterior ones.

    Are the lights all emissive?

    Yes, all lights are emissive - around 30 of them, according to Iray Light Manager PRO
    http://www.daz3d.com/iray-light-manager-pro

    For me it was a big upgrade, to get GTX1080. Previously I had GTX670 with 2 GB of VRAM, so I have not attempted to render such a big scenes before.

    image

    PenthouseSuite01pic01Lights.jpg
    453 x 1032 - 142K
    Post edited by Artini on
  • ArtiniArtini Posts: 10,595
    edited October 2016

    Another view of the Penthouse Suite. Waited only up to 31% of completion.

    Rendering Time: 36 minutes 26.75 seconds

    GTX1080: 1588 iterations, 41.177s init, 2133.150s render

    image

    PenthouseSuite01pic02.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 723K
    Post edited by Artini on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,132
    edited October 2016
    Artini said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ...that's a lot of reflective surfaces in theat lat one. Interior shots still seem to take more time than exterior ones.

    Are the lights all emissive?

    Yes, all lights are emissive - around 30 of them, according to Iray Light Manager PRO
    http://www.daz3d.com/iray-light-manager-pro

    For me it was a big upgrade, to get GTX1080. Previously I had GTX670 with 2 GB of VRAM, so I have not attempted to render such a big scenes before.

    image

    ...yeah, that many emissive lights would slow rendering down something fierce.  I was wondering where you got that nice display and then saw it was the Iray Light Manager, a tool I do not yet have. 

    On my system (CPU mode) with that many emissive lights plus all that reflection going on, maybe 10 or 12 hours.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
Sign In or Register to comment.