Iray Starter Scene: Post Your Benchmarks!

13468944

Comments

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    edited April 2015

    OK, with cinbench, the thing was using GPU core 0, 3, 4, and 5. And none of them ever pegged out. Same with Iray, except it randomly chose Core 0 and 1.
    This thing is clearly not firing on all cylinders.

    So I have ZERO confidence in the numbers. Omitted Sphere 8 and 9 for the first run, And I did have the other two tools open as well.
    GPU only, no OptiX Acceleration.
    1.0 IRAY rend info : CUDA device 0 (GeForce GT 730): 5000 iterations, 23.951s init, 3113.453s render
    Total Rendering Time: 52 minutes 20.23 seconds

    Now I had done a few things with the old 8600GT, as it was incredibly week, and appeared to only have a single functioning core. Granted, it was Iray CUDA incapable, it did effect the usability of the View-Field. I killed AA completely, and I set PhysX to CPU only. To the best of my knowledge I don't use anything that involves that Gaming PhysX thing, So I would like to completely disable it all together. And I can only guess, that PhysX junk was turned back on with the new GT730. I've yet to look at what the config is set to, I was chasing down a non-existent power issue.

    Thanks Daz for that Obnoxious sound in the View-Field, now how do I turn that off (Without putting the old card back in the computer).

    Also I'm not thrilled by that 115F temp. Time to have some fun with a hot-glue gun. :coolsmile:

    NotJustCore0_HomeStretch_crop1.png
    1125 x 1113 - 237K
    NotJustCore0_AlsoNotAllCores_003_Crop1.png
    1434 x 1093 - 156K
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • prixatprixat Posts: 1,145
    edited December 1969

    Before you start putting glue all over the coils, try making a profile in the nVidia 3D settings for Studio to have Vsync on.
    (You could do the same with nVidia Inspector) That may work if the problem is not with the PSU.

    I'm not sure what cores you're seeing on the GPU, it's not built that way!

    The 'GPU Engines' in AIDA refer to any device capable of GPU compute, that will be just the 2 engines, the CPU and the 730.

    The Cinebench score looks about right, nVidia sacrificed everything to get the power levels down, especially CUDA performance.
    The old 500 series cards give better Iray speeds with half the number of cores!
    That was back in the day when CUDA was CUDA, men were men and sheep were scared. :lol:

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    edited April 2015

    prixat said:
    Before you start putting glue all over the coils, try making a profile in the nVidia 3D settings for Studio to have Vsync on.
    (You could do the same with nVidia Inspector) That may work if the problem is not with the PSU.

    I'm not sure what cores you're seeing on the GPU, it's not built that way!

    The 'GPU Engines' in AIDA refer to any device capable of GPU compute, that will be just the 2 engines, the CPU and the 730.

    The Cinebench score looks about right, nVidia sacrificed everything to get the power levels down, especially CUDA performance.
    The old 500 series cards give better Iray speeds with half the number of cores!
    That was back in the day when CUDA was CUDA, men were men and sheep were scared. :lol:

    The utility showing cores, is a MS tool. And no I'm not convinced it's reading as correct, as I am equally convinced the card is not firing on all cylinders.

    For once, a card that dose as well with OpenGL, as it did with ActiveX. The old card would only use core 0, according to that MS tool, the new one is all over the place, lol. GPUz doesn't even show 'Cores', just a one second average of sorts.

    Here is what the thing looks like idling on the desktop. All I need to do to open up that MHz throttle, is open Daz Studio, lol. I also need to look at some controls. The screen-caps was from me messing with Where the fan control sensors were (I think I got it figured out now, considering max temp of 70c and it's running at 47c under load, sort of).

    "O" I was making a baffle with the hot glue, not fussing around with inductors, lol.
    (EDIT)
    I think the MS tool is looking at Driver dispatch threads, not the GPU itself, It would explain quite a bit of the behavior. Selected Core 0 and 1, and it looks better.
    (EDIT 12Apr2015)
    I think I have a partial answer to the GPU load, It's Timing out with “interactive” on the GPU, and “interactive” on CPU and GPU.
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/802093/

    PCI_AirGuide_strakes_IMG_2447hs.jpg
    1536 x 1152 - 1M
    Test03_NewCooler_002_Crop1.png
    1554 x 976 - 214K
    Test03_NewCooler_StartingDazStudio_001.png
    1850 x 502 - 29K
    Test03_NewCooler_Idoling_001.png
    1167 x 507 - 16K
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • KnittingmommyKnittingmommy Posts: 7,542
    edited December 1969

    First some background on me and my machine:

    So, I'm a relative newbie with Daz Studio. I found Daz Studio back in August of last year and was using an three year old Acer Laptop which was really slow rendering and would literally grind to a standstill if you there were a lot of elements in a scene and you wanted to move something. So, for Christmas I built a new desktop with rendering in mind. I set a budget with the idea that I could get a good system while getting some of the more inexpensive items that still do a good job. That would give me time to save up for more expensive graphics cards that I could purchase later if I found that I really liked playing with 3D graphics and wanted to stick with it. Since I was building a system from scratch, there were certain aspects that I desired immediately that had to do with my comfort rather than getting top of the line graphics rendering capabilities.

    My husband has been using Blender and has an I7 processor in his desktop. He has a lot of fans in his unit and the whole system is LOUD especially when rendering something. Since his office is in our bedroom there are times when his computer is running all night and all I hear is the grind of his processor when it kicks in during a heavy load on the processor.

    I wanted a really quiet system so there were things I added to my system that added to the price. Money I could have used for a better graphics card, but a quiet system was more important to me.

    So, here are the specifics of the system I put together with the possibility to upgrade later as I have the money. It is definitely a hobbyist type of machine as that is all I am at the moment. I only stumbled into all of this with the idea of doing my own book covers in the future.

    AMD FX-8350 FX-Series 8-Core Black Edition Processor
    GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard (dual graphics card slots so I can add another better graphics card later.)
    16GB DDR3 1866MHZ PC3 14900 8GBx2 memory (extra slots to add more memory later)
    Corsair Hydro Series High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler H60 (I really love how quiet this is while keeping everything at optimal temps)
    Corsair RM Series 850 Watt ATX/EPS 80PLUS Gold-Certified Power Supply (also selected for the quiet factor)

    I have to say that, even when I'm rendering a heavy scene with a lot of elements, I can't even hear my computer, its so quiet, and I have to look to make sure it is still running.

    All of that said, here are my rendering times for Sickleyield's benchmark setup with speed as the desired method of optimization in the render settings:

    1st render with spheres 8 and 9
    90% reached at 33 minutes 02 seconds Final render at 40 minutes 15.64 seconds

    2nd render without spheres 8 and 9
    90% 20 minutes 6 seconds Final render at 38 minutes 16.33 seconds

    Both renders reached all 5000 iterations according to the log.txt file.

    I'll be the first to admit I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to 3D graphics. I'm just having fun learning about it and coming up with some pretty decent stuff. I'm just a writer who loves playing around with computers and graphics.

    I don't have the fastest times out there, but I'm not the slowest either. Overall, I think my computer's times are pretty decent for a hobbyist machine.

    I've really enjoyed running the benchmark and following along with this thread. I've learned a lot about Iray. Thank you Sickleyield for setting this up. I have to admit the first time I tried a render with Iray when the beta first came out was a total disaster. Just running this benchmark and reading all of the posts has really helped me learn what to do with Iray. I even found your tutorial on youtube and have that marked on my todo list so that I can follow along step by step.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    edited December 1969

    Nice setup and score Knittingmommy. I had looked at the different "H60" cooling setups, and decided to stick with heat-pipes here for the time being (for many reasons). The H60 is a good choice, and from what I read elsewhere, you'll be happy with it. Just keep an occasional eye out for coolant dripping, and you should be fine.

    The "NV30FlowFX" dose not always suet everyone.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BUvTomA7M
    I bet the husband is taking a second look at his cooling setup, :coolhmm: :lol:

  • KnittingmommyKnittingmommy Posts: 7,542
    edited December 1969

    First some background on me and my machine:

    AMD FX-8350 FX-Series 8-Core Black Edition Processor
    GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard (dual graphics card slots so I can add another better graphics card later.)
    16GB DDR3 1866MHZ PC3 14900 8GBx2 memory (extra slots to add more memory later)
    Corsair Hydro Series High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler H60 (I really love how quiet this is while keeping everything at optimal temps)
    Corsair RM Series 850 Watt ATX/EPS 80PLUS Gold-Certified Power Supply (also selected for the quiet factor)

    Ooops! I forgot to put my graphics card in there. I'm running a Saphire Radeon r7 260x graphics card and the test was CPU only as the Iray doesn't access the Radeon GPU as of yet

  • KnittingmommyKnittingmommy Posts: 7,542
    edited April 2015

    Nice setup and score Knittingmommy. I had looked at the different "H60" cooling setups, and decided to stick with heat-pipes here for the time being (for many reasons). The H60 is a good choice, and from what I read elsewhere, you'll be happy with it. Just keep an occasional eye out for coolant dripping, and you should be fine.

    The "NV30FlowFX" dose not always suet everyone.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BUvTomA7M
    I bet the husband is taking a second look at his cooling setup, :coolhmm: :lol:

    While he is impressed with how quiet my setup is, the noise of his computer doesn't seem to bother him. I don't know if he will rethink the cooling setup when he has to go buy a new fan, though, as he grumbles a lot because he has already gone through several fans (they keep dying) and I believe he is running his system with at least two fans and possibly three. I only need the one water cooled fan and it is working great with no problems so far.

    So far, I like my setup and it suits me just fine. He insisted on running a test in Blender on both machines when I first got it. I think he was mildly surprised that his machine was only slightly faster. He expected my computer to be much slower because the processors work differently and the I7 works better with the way Blender renders. I bought my AMD because the research I did gave me the impression that it would work well with the Daz Studio render engines and it was almost half the price. Unfortunately, I can't run any benchmarks on his computer with Daz and Iray because he has his desktop setup as a strictly Linux box and I haven't gotten around to trying to get Daz Studio running in Linux yet. It is on my todo list, but very far down on the list.

    Post edited by Knittingmommy on
  • luci45luci45 Posts: 2,227
    edited December 1969

    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

  • Dumor3DDumor3D Posts: 1,316
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Wooooo Hooooooo!!!!! Congrats Luci!

  • luci45luci45 Posts: 2,227
    edited December 1969

    Dumor3D said:
    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Wooooo Hooooooo!!!!! Congrats Luci!

    LOL, thanks. Now I have to learn Iray. 3Delight is just as slow on the new one as the old one. Both CPUs are i7s.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Dumor3D said:
    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Wooooo Hooooooo!!!!! Congrats Luci!

    LOL, thanks. Now I have to learn Iray. 3Delight is just as slow on the new one as the old one. Both CPUs are i7s.I've come to the same realization, especially with some of the newer HD figures 'Face-plant' times with spot renders. Eight integer units (ALU) clocking in at 4GHz (8 cpu cores at 4GHz), is just willfully inadequate for such stuff. I need at least fifteen times that, minimum, even with the newer 3delight render modes.

    As a border off-topic comparison, I had just looked at some glass a few days ago, and a simulation that took a week for sixteen computers back in the 90's (simulating interconnect parasitics), on the same exact glass was done before my finger had released the mouse button. That is just insane. :coolcheese: Hell-yee-aa! :lol:

  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Was that with Optix Acceleration on or off?

    On my Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz and GTX Titan 6GB I got these results with Optix on:

    GPU only: 4 minutes 31.45 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 4 minutes 36.57 seconds

    I was considering a GTX Titan X - not sure now...

  • luci45luci45 Posts: 2,227
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Was that with Optix Acceleration on or off?

    On my Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz and GTX Titan 6GB I got these results with Optix on:

    GPU only: 4 minutes 31.45 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 4 minutes 36.57 seconds

    I was considering a GTX Titan X - not sure now...

    That's without Optix Acceleration. About 30 sec less with it. My i7 is slower than yours, 3-something ghz.

    I bought the card for the 12GBs for larger scenes. Combinations of other cards are faster; it's all about the CUDAs I guess.

  • necro__boynecro__boy Posts: 15
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Was that with Optix Acceleration on or off?

    On my Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz and GTX Titan 6GB I got these results with Optix on:

    GPU only: 4 minutes 31.45 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 4 minutes 36.57 seconds

    I was considering a GTX Titan X - not sure now...

    That's without Optix Acceleration. About 30 sec less with it. My i7 is slower than yours, 3-something ghz.

    I bought the card for the 12GBs for larger scenes. Combinations of other cards are faster; it's all about the CUDAs I guess.

    Ah.. Thanks... The Titan X is back on the cards :)

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 8,101
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    But it does have 12 Gig of RAM - definitely a bonus

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    edited December 1969

    Luci45 said:
    Luci45 said:
    Just got my new computer today with a Titan X. Not as fast as two 980s but pretty good.

    GPU only: 4 minutes 12.24 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 3 minutes 50.14 seconds

    Was that with Optix Acceleration on or off?

    On my Intel i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz and GTX Titan 6GB I got these results with Optix on:

    GPU only: 4 minutes 31.45 seconds
    GPU + CPU: 4 minutes 36.57 seconds

    I was considering a GTX Titan X - not sure now...

    That's without Optix Acceleration. About 30 sec less with it. My i7 is slower than yours, 3-something ghz.

    I bought the card for the 12GBs for larger scenes. Combinations of other cards are faster; it's all about the CUDAs I guess.ah, not sure if that is a typo, or if I'm missing something. Two cards with 6GB video-RAM each, only gives you 6GB of ram to work with in Iray for the scene. The RAM, dose not add with Iray.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,323
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,

    ah, not sure if that is a typo, or if I'm missing something. Two cards with 6GB video-RAM each, only gives you 6GB of ram to work with in Iray for the scene. The RAM, dose not add with Iray.
    The Titan X has 12GB of video memory. It's nuts. I wish I had the disposable income for that...

    -- Morgan

  • rumpotrumpot Posts: 68
    edited December 1969

    I am trying to test with this wrong forum, but I only get CPU only . Any suggestions?

  • SedorSedor Posts: 1,731
    edited May 2015

    Finally I was able to let the render run.

    GPU only (GTX Titan X, GTX 980, 2x GTX Titan) rendering time: 1minute 35seconds

    Post edited by Sedor on
  • strezoiualexandrustrezoiualexandru Posts: 35
    edited December 1969

    My test :
    My system is : amd fx 8350, 4000 h clock speed, 12 gb ddr3 1333mh, ssd hard drive. Gtx 750 TI

    Log :
    Total Rendering Time: 8 minutes 40.47 seconds
    Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.0 IRAY rend info : Device statistics:
    Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.0 IRAY rend info : CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 750 Ti): 4260 iterations, 24.529s init, 493.987s render
    Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.0 IRAY rend info : CPU (7 threads): 740 iterations, 22.604s init, 495.233s render

  • edited May 2015

    Hello, I am having issues getting iray to work, and would like to know if somebody could just tell me straight up, whether or not it will allow for any GPU work at all. the previous two attempts have resulted in 100% CPU use, and 0% GPU. Here are the two parts in question:

    CPU: Intel Core i5 4690K @ 3.7GHz

    GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 780.... ugh, it's claiming ridiculous memory, but I'm pretty sure it's 2GB, if I recall correctly.
    Driver version 9.18.13.5286. I want to say it's Kepler architecture, again I may be wrong, it's been a while since I dug around.

    How do I get it to use the GPU and CPU together? I'm getting annoying 40+ minute render times for simple scenes with minimal lighting.

    Thanks in advance for any advice or information,
    Madcat

    UBER IDIOT MODE: DEACTIVATE
    Forgot to check off the GPU in the advanced tab of randering. :P

    well now, Dan won't render with anything other than a pasty featureless skin, but that's an issue for another thread.

    idiocy abound. I'm going to stop writing things here, because every time I do, I find a fix a few moments later.

    Post edited by madcat1030_b716f369a5 on
  • insumoinsumo Posts: 1
    edited May 2015

    I downloaded the test file and noticed the Iray environment was turned on. Does'nt that override the light setup in the scene? When I render with it turned off (set to scene only) the result has the correct lights and shadows, etc. When it’s on it’s does not look correct per the lighting configuration, It’s very dark and the lighting colors are quite different. I’m testing with CPU/Radeon and thinking about upgrading to a Nvidia. I'm assuming it was done that way to create the appropriate challenge for the GPUs/CPUs. Anyway, I'm testing both ways.

    test.png
    400 x 520 - 220K
    Post edited by insumo on
  • AwakeDreamingAwakeDreaming Posts: 4
    edited December 1969

    Benchmarked my new build

    i7 4930K
    32GB RAM
    GTX 970 4GB

    CPU+GPU+OptiX Prime Acceleration: 3mins 35secs.
    GPU+OptiX Prime Acceleration: 3mins 41secs
    CPU+GPU: 5mins 20secs
    GPU Only: 5mins 48secs
    CPU Only: 25mins 31secs

    It would seem that the CPU barely makes a dent in the times, despite being a 6 core i7, and the Optix Prime Acceleration makes quite a difference.

    Im running this benchmark in Windows 7.
    I wanted to run it in OSX 10.10. but I keep getting this error:

    WARNING: /src/pluginsource/DzIrayRender/dzneuraymgr.cpp(256): Iray ERROR - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.3 IRAY rend error: CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 970): an illegal instruction was encountered (while launching CUDA renderer)
    WARNING: /src/pluginsource/DzIrayRender/dzneuraymgr.cpp(256): Iray ERROR - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.3 IRAY rend error: CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 970): Failed to launch renderer
    WARNING: /src/pluginsource/DzIrayRender/dzneuraymgr.cpp(256): Iray ERROR - module:category(IRAY:RENDER): 1.2 IRAY rend error: CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 970): an illegal instruction was encountered (while de-allocating memory)

    Not sure why its doing that, it only seems to happen with the default bree texture and with a few other textures and shaders. Hope DAZ gets it fixed :down:!

  • ScarletX1969ScarletX1969 Posts: 420
    edited December 1969

    Cypherfox said:
    Greetings,
    ah, not sure if that is a typo, or if I'm missing something. Two cards with 6GB video-RAM each, only gives you 6GB of ram to work with in Iray for the scene. The RAM, dose not add with Iray.
    The Titan X has 12GB of video memory. It's nuts. I wish I had the disposable income for that...

    -- Morgan

    Yeah, unless you do 3D for a living or just got a $1000 lying around somewhere, you can forget about owning a Titan X...lol. But 4 - 6GB is usually enough unless you are rendering big scenes, which at that point you should either layer or just invest in an upgrade.

    Speaking of upgrades, built a new rig with the following

    Intel i5 - 4460 3.2GHz
    GeForce GT 740 (x2)
    GeForce GTX 960

    I didn't even render this with the CPU because of prior evidence that the CPU really didn't contribute much.

    With one 740 - render time: 15 mins, 17 secs
    With the 960 - render time: 6 mins, 12 secs
    With all three - render time: 5 mins, 10 secs

    Obviously having one card in addition to a main card would probably have been a better route to go, but I can't argue much. I still like this setup.

    But so much contributes to render time. I don't know if I'll every be ambitious enough to render a large scale scene but I would like to not have the limitation being that it has to be able to fit onto my 4GB card(s). Oh well...as the Joker says in DCU Online..."You spend your money, you takes your chances!" :)

  • KharmaKharma Posts: 2,598
    edited December 1969

    I see several people posting their render times and refering to 2 or more video cards plus cpu in their render time...I was under the impression that iray will not combine the vram on multiple video cards and will only use one card to render and if the project does not fit in the ram for that card it will revert to the cpu only...is this incorrect and it will combine vram from multiple cards?

    I am in the process of researching for a new desktop (my old one is about 10 years old, still running XP) and my laptop only has a 2gb nvidea card so I want to understand all the info correctly before I go ahead

  • ScarletX1969ScarletX1969 Posts: 420
    edited December 1969

    Kharma said:
    I see several people posting their render times and refering to 2 or more video cards plus cpu in their render time...I was under the impression that iray will not combine the vram on multiple video cards and will only use one card to render and if the project does not fit in the ram for that card it will revert to the cpu only...is this incorrect and it will combine vram from multiple cards?

    I am in the process of researching for a new desktop (my old one is about 10 years old, still running XP) and my laptop only has a 2gb nvidea card so I want to understand all the info correctly before I go ahead

    Iray will recognize all the cuda cores installed in your machine and use those to contribute to rendering time. But it will only use the vram of one card, it does not combine vram of multiple cards. That would be nice though. Maybe it's possible in development?

    Those Titan cards have 12GB of RAM....but are expensive though.

  • edited June 2015

    PC: AMD Phanom 965 X4, 12G RAM

    GPUs 2 x GTX 580 (1.5G model)

    Total render time (GPUs only): just passed 4 minutes (the window disappeared, where to find the log file?)

    Post edited by hififrank_266f96e8fa on
  • SainsySainsy Posts: 50
    edited December 1969

    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?

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,283
    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?

    As mentioned by many others, OC-ing and serous crunching doesn't mix well. I would keep the CPU and all other guts at 'Stock' clocks.

    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.

  • SainsySainsy Posts: 50
    edited December 1969

    Thanks zarcondeegrissom - that's really useful, particularly the OC bit. Early days for me, but am already a big fan of Iray - so will use what you say there and start investigating more. Thanks again.

Sign In or Register to comment.