One more question. Will the veins be a separate dial/morph?

Thank you again.

Michael/Victoria 4 don't have the sep/sea files.I'd like to try and keep everything to at least one directory, so how do I do that with these? 

V4 and M4 and their morphs packs can't be installed via Connect due to the way their morph technology work. You'll need to install them via DIM or manually using the zip files.

Very well done! I always purchase these just to marvel at the extremes of the human physique. Will this character be morphable 9via a dial) or a preset?

Thanks. He comes with morphs for body and head separately for Genesis 8 Male figure (also you can choose to start with a preset Colossus character). So you can adjust the body morph percentage as you prefer, or mix him with the other characters of your library.

Hi all,

the probleme was solved with divamakup tutorial (i got an "explosion" of a custom G2F Moph).

Praticaly, i just had to specify if it was a head or body morph. 

Sorry for "mis-praticing"  !!

still, awesome script indeed !!

@jukingeo, I don't have that outfit, but I believe you can just parent the back crest to G8F. From the promos, it looks like parenting it to the Upper Chest, or Lower Neck will help it move with the figure, up to a point. You'll probably still have to reposition it after posing the figure. I don't know if there are any bones in the object. If so, those will help with posing the crest. If not, there should be a least one morph, twisting the cloth.

Okay, that is certainly odd behaviour, jukingeo. I don't use Windows 10, so hopefully the issue isn't some idiosyncrasy associated with that. Let us assume for the time being that it is not. A few questions, first.

How was your new drive physically connected to the PC? Was it installed in a spare drive bay and connected to a spare SATA port on the motherboard? Was it connected as an external drive?

How did you complete the transfer from your C: drive to your new drive? Drag and drop in explorer?

(the existence of that second content library folder on the new drive is troublesome, since Windows shouldn't even allow two folders to have the same name like that)

There are a couple of other things that I would like you to check, but I'd like to know exactly what was done (the devil is in the details) vis-a-vis my two questions prior to going further.

When making morphs I (and I assume many others) produce several incremental morphs (via Zbrush for example) to get the final morph looking just right. Currently, as far as I know, there is no way to select some morph dials and combine them in to one new morph. The process is quite possible but currently involves zeroing out all morphs except for the target morphs and exporting (in Base Rez) the figure/object and then reloading the figure/object, deleting the individual morphs and then loading the new combined morph. Tedious to say the least! It would be great to be able to select some dials and create a new morph from them whilst having the option to delete the originals in the process.

Now I know that this means someone could accidentally include a commercial morph in to a morph which they then sell as their own. However this is already true and the reality is that anyone making a morph for commercial sale must take every effort to ensure that they are not breaking copyright. A script/plugin for combining morphs, in a "single click", for personal use would be very handy.

Why did I think this was gonna happen? Oh, right. Daz....lol.

Frankly SB, if I were you, I'd hang it up. Save yourself the grief and frustration. You don't owe anyone anything, especially us. But it was a gallant effort.

Laurie

 

Have to agree. IMNSHO if DAZ really wanted a product to transfer morphs, it would have been a reality a long time ago. You SB, were like Obi-Wan Kenobii, our "only hope".of this happening

Daz is offering such a tool, out of the box, 

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/referenceguide/interface/action/index/dztransferutilityaction/start

 

That is to transfer rigging, not morphs. Not even close to the same thing.

Laurie

https://www.deviantart.com/sickleyield/journal/Tutorial-Transferring-Character-Morphs-G1G2G3G8-409437916

I'm in the process of moving Daz to a new computer. On my older computer, I have created a number of my own categories and groups, and I've also added and/or fixed metadata on a number of products. I'm trying to migrate this information, but I'm running into all kinds of issues.

Here's what I've done:

• exported meta-data from my old machine by going through content database maintenence
• transferred the user data to the new machine
• and re-imported meta data through content database maintenance

And here's what's worked and what hasn't:

• The user-created categories transferred just fine, and files I had placed in those categories are showing up in the user-created categories like I want them to. However, these files (which had been moved out of lost & found) are also appearing in Lost & Found.
• The metadata I've added has transferred inconsistenly. Information I added (using the Edit Metadata function) under "Type" didn't transfer at all, and metadata I added to "Compatability" has transferred in a few products, but not in most
• Weird orphan references are randomly appearing in smart content and my content library on the new computer, and I'm not sure how to remove most of them.

Really, really hoping someone can help!

I do wonder, though, how people are generating the scenes they render if they need to render many still images each month (animation is course another matter). I'd think that actually preparing the scenes would fairly quickly become the bottleneck, once a render was short enough to be a needed screen-break.

That's where I'm at. I added a 2070 last month to my 1080ti. Now using the render queue plug in I can set up several scenes to render. They run while I'm asleep and at work but I simply don't have the time to set up enough to keep my rig busy for that full 18 hours. 

If I could I'd be able to produce 2 different VN's simultaneously rather than alternating.

While keeping your machine busy for 18-24 hours a day is a worthy goal, keep in mind that the main goal here is to increase your overall productivity.  I'm sure that having both of those cards has increased the responsiveness of your Iray viewport, so you aren't waiting as long for the viewport in Iray mode to resolve to see if your lighting looks good etc before doing a full render.  Anything that allows you to make better use of your time spent on the machine definitely helps the production pipeline.

Also, with a faster render pipeline, well sometimes you won't see problems in your scene until your image starts to resolve in a full render, so the faster you can get a render to begin to resolve, the faster you can see the issues that may need correcting, and the faster you can hit that cancel button so that you can fix said issues.

This is where having a decent amount of CPU cores and system memory comes in I think.  It takes time for the system to prepare the scene info for the graphics cards.  Waiting 3-4 minutes before the render iterations to actually start can be an eternity sometimes.  My old system had 8 cores, and my current system has 4 cores, but with a separate graphics card for the viewport.  My older system seemed to prep the graphics cards faster, but with the new system the viewport and system in general is much less laggy when a render is baking, as the 1080 Ti is 100% dedicated to rendering, and isn't driving a monitor or anything.  Tradeoffs I guess. 

My old system had dual 1080s, 64 GB of RAM, and 8 cores.  My current system has half the cores and half the ram, but at least I can use the integrated graphics on the CPU/APU to drive my 4K monitor.  My old system being a laptop, well when it died, I lost the use of those 1080s, which is why I now will NOT recommend spending thousands of dollars on a high end laptop.  They are glorious until when they die, at which point the graphicss chips and such become unusable to you.  I did get a fair amount of use out of that system though.  BTW the BIOS bricked that system due to flaws in the BIOS, and I can't even get into the BIOS screen anymore, and it won't boot at all.  Fortunately my drive info was still OK, so I transplanted that drive into my newer system

My current system is a 'bridge' system to hold me over until 7nm Threadripper drops, or maybe something else if 7nm Threadripper doesn't happen.  It'll become a HTPC once I build my new system.  Since it has a tiny motherboard, well it only has 1 PCIe slot, but it suits my needs for now..

I miss having dual 1080s (that machine died).  The 1080 Ti isn't as fast as a pair of 1080s, but at least it can handle larger scenes, which means I'm not having to render scenes in two passes as much as I needed to before.  These days though I'm often just doing individual art pieces, but I also do story based work off and on.

Anyways, I digress.  At the moment, my dream system involves a 7nm Threadripper (if those ever come out) and 4 RTX Titans.  If I could figure out how to squeeze a cheap AMD card into said new system I'd do that too, with said AMD card driving the 4K monitor, as that works quite well actually on my current system with the Vega integrated graphics.  If they ever made a Threadripper chip and board and chip that accomodated integrated graphics, that'd be awesome!  The 7nm Ryzen APUs aren't due until next year, but maybe at that point we'll have an 8 core Ryzen APU. 

I may end up settling for a 2950X Thradripper though, if new options end up being a long ways off.  A 7nm EPYC workstation may eventually be another option, but I suspect that 64 core EPYC won't be cheap.  This thread is about unlimited budget, but my own budget has limits of course.

I could go the Intel route, but choose not to.  All of those software vulnerabilities are beginning to stack up, with new ones showing up every couple of months.  Hence, the performance hit from said vulnerability mitiagations is getting larger and larger.  Plus, if Intel chips are THAT flawed, and since AMD has comparable chips now, well it's a no brainer for me.  When Google and Apple both recommend disabling hyperthreading on Intel based systems, you KNOW there's a problem...

I suppose I could use a PCIe ribbon cable and/or a riser to bifurcate one of the x16 slots to do this, but that'd require a custom case or something.  Or maybe an open air system... Not keen on the open air system thing.  I have kitties, and kitties like to attack cables...

7nm Ryzen looks interesting with that 'rumored' 16 CPU chip that's been leaked a few times now, but Ryzen AM4 boards don't have enough PCIe slots or lanes for what I need.  That being said, that 16 core chip has a pretty impressive Cinebench r15 score...

AMD has hinted that quad hyperthreading (4 threads per core) is just around the corner with future EPYC CPUs.  That'll be 2020/2021 at the earliest, but yeah - 64 cores, 256 threads - I wonder how fast a CPU only render would be with THAT chip...

 

BTW, The AMD Computex Keynote is on Monday (5/27) at 10 AM Taipei Taiwan time.  That'll be Sunday night for you Western Hemisphere types.  Might be good popcorn viewing, it'll be livestreamed!

 

Ryzen 3000 CPU's, at least the high end ones running on X570 Mobo's will support PCIE gen 4 so you won't need x16 for GPU's on them.

Furthermore one of the major benefits of running things the way I do, which you don't seem to understand, is I don't need to use Iray viewport. I set up a bunch of scenes each night and render them all and any that don't turn out simply get fixed and rendered the next day.

The X570 boards, as well as pretty much all of the other AM4 boards, mostly have only 2 PCIe 16 SLOTS.  Using both of those slots will drop the speed to X8, but as you point out, yeah it'll be PCIe 4.  That's not the problem

The problem is the SLOT COUNT.  Most of the Threadripper boards have 4 PCIe 16 slots, (some will run at x8, that's almost a non-issue for rendering).  That allows for 4 graphics cards to be used on the board, if the slots are properly spaced, without any special risers or ribbon cables or anything.  THAT is what I"m looking for.  Otherwise, the 16 core Ryzen 3850X (whatever it ends up being designated) would be an awesome choice.

I'm looking to build a 4 GPU system, and AM4 Ryzen boards just aren't set up for that.

? So what? You can't fit 4 GPU's in any case on the market. There isn't the airflow even if they fit. If you want 4 GPU's in a rig you are going to need to mount them outside the case on risers or you'll thermal throttle.

You mean besides this case..:

https://www.avadirect.com/2nd-Gen-AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-X399-Chipset-4-way-GPU-Tower-Workstation-PC/Configure/12242324

Or these:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-OTOY-OctaneRender-192

Actually, there are a number of 'full tower' cases that'll work, and a number of quad GPU solutions for Intel, as well as as few for AMD.  As for throttling, well that's what liquid cooling is for.

The hard part is finding a motherboard with properly double spaced x16 slots for the GPUs.

Google 'quad gpu workstation'.  You'll even see an 8 GPU solution on the first page of that google search.  There ARE some 8 GPU solutions out there as well, although most if not all of those are rackmount solutions.  Here's a dual socket EPYC system that can accomodate up to 8 GPUs:

https://www.aspsys.com/servers/Supermicro-2U-Ultra-Server-2023US-TR4-p3196.htm

That being said, I'm good with just 4 GPUs.  With liquid cooling of course, probably with separate loops for each pair of GPUs and maybe a third loop for the CPU. 

Ebay makes me nervous, but heres a prebuilt quad RTX 2080 Ti with Threadripper 2990WX prebuilt liquid cooled system:

https://www.ebay.com/i/312207464316?chn=ps

It's more than a bity pricey though.  I'm sure you could DIY and drop that $22,999 price tag a bit...

Of course, if you buy Quad RTX Titans, that would be around $10,000, and then add $300 apiece for the water blocks, and a bunch more money for everything else... I think you could build a Quad RTX Titan + Threadripper 2990WX water cooled system for less than $23K though...

*facepalm*

You're showing off a bunch of cases with no airflow and you don't seem to understand what I wrote.

As to multiple loops in a single box? 3 pumps/reservoirs, 3 rads plus fans and tubing in a single box? LOL. I've seen rigs like that in custom modded set ups but none of the artists who create them would sell one for as little as $23k. The parts plus the labor would cost nearly that much. Anyone offering to ship something like that is definitely trying to defraud you.

In regards to rack mounts with multiple GPU's, yes, there are lots of those around. But they're meant for pro cards not for commercial ones, which run at much lower clock speeds and therefore produce much less heat. Also no one cares how much noise they make, the one you use as an example has 8 80mm fans that are setup to run at full speed at all times. You would find working in the vicinity of such very distracting.

As I said, DIY.  Except for store bought systems and laptops, I generally build my own systems.  I also void the warranties on my laptops regularly to upgrade the ram and storage by breaking the warranty seal to open up the case to upgrade said components.  Although I seem to remember some lawsuit or something that found in favor of allowing for self upgrades...

Setting up a liquid cooled system isn't all that hard to do once you get the hang of it, as long as you are meticulous.  And since GPUs get hammered pretty heavily when rendering, yeah keeping the temps down is a good thing to do, and water cooling does that quite nicely.

But if you are content with air cooling, more power to ya!

Setting up a water cooled system properly so it runs long term without leaking or constant fiddling is actually pretty hard. Even the people who do it a lot find it quite challenging.

Setting up 3 loops in a single box? I'd guess no one would do that except for a show piece not meant to run for more than 3 or 4 days.

The actual reality is there is very little difference between water and air cooling except that water cooling takes longer to reach operating temp. There have been tests that show this. Water in a loop serves to store a large amount of heat but once that loop reaches the point where it is dissipating as much heat as it is taking in, thermal equilibrium, the cooled components aren't operating at substantially lower temps than air cooling would provide. And water coolers have the added power, and therefore heat, from the pumps and extra fans to deal with in the system. 

That's a nice theory, but in practice CPU temps and GPU temps often peak at much lower temps with ADEQUATE water cooling, unless you skimp on the flow rates, radiator sizes and such.  Pump redundancy is also a good idea, so if one pump in the series fails, you'll still have some cooling, and if you are using the system at the time you'll probably notice the temps slowly climbing.  Good luck with your air cooling though!

Thermodynamics! The hardware produces a set amount of heat. How much cooling is immaterial.

There are two possibilities for the cooling. First the cooling can dissipate the heat the hardware creates and will reach thermal equilibrium after some time. Or it can't and the temp of the cooling liquid, even air coolers use liquid in the heat pipes, will reach the same temp as the hardware and no more thermal transfer will occur. Generally speaking the hardware will thermal throttle or shut down before this but that would be the end result as far as the cooling is concerned. 

How long it takes to reach thermal equilibrium may result in some minor differences in the final temperature of the hardware but the cooler will either work or it won't. There is nothing magical about water. Custom loops in some cases work better at cooling simply because big radiators with multiple high pressure fans can dissipate a lot of heat but putting 3 such loops in one box would simply never work. I think there's a couple of cases on the market with mounts for 3 360mm radiators but you'd never fit 9 tubes (minimum), 3 pump/resevoirs and all the associated cabling.. And that completely ignores where the case would get the intake to feed 9 high pressure fans.

It would simply waste an enormous amount of money and power for no gain. Putting the GPU's on risers and letting them cool using their factory fans would be cheaper and many times more efficient cost, power and labor wise.

This is Photorealism. Vray.

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Kayd2B

Unfortunately, with Iray you can’t achieve a truly realistic performance and the problem is the shaders. With the Vray for example you got a shader for the skin, a brand new one for the hair, a 2side shader, sss shader, AO, noise textures, color modes, etc.

IRay need better support in the shaders deparment.

The only thing is that this is a specilized head bust, not an import of a Daz character, right?

I think that would change things a little.  It would be like when people will say that Siren in Unreal Engine 4 is photoreal, thus Unreal can make characters Photo Real.  But, in actual gameplay terms it never is the case because the performance demand of a Siren-like character in-game would overspill the engine's capaxcity for a useable in-game character.

Likewise, an accurate head bust like this would not likely have the flexible engine poseability and morph interactivity that a Daz character would.   It probably has a much higher computation demand on an engine rendering it.  So, it probably serves as a better lighting benchmark when all is said and done.

This is not to diminish the shader, rather to further examine the idea.  Maybe if you imoport a Daz character into Maya/3DS Max, and in there then apply the Vray shaders, it would be a better example of how Vray is better than Iray at giving photoreal. 

Allora, questo prodotto è Merchant

https://www.daz3d.com/genesis-3-female-body-morph-resource-kit-3

Questo no

https://www.daz3d.com/genesis-2-female-morph-resource-kit-ii

Allora perchè lo metti nella stessa serie?!?

Primo perchè sn due prodotti per due figure diverse e posso fare (da PA) come voglio in realtà...cioè uno farlo comeMR e altri 300 no....e poi erchè uno è un DAZ original e l'altro no ;) 

Capisco che Thorne fa come vuole, ma almeno dai un aspetto differente ai prodotti. Cosi è facile che uno si confonda.

Una curiosità, ma solo a me le notification non funzionano più. Ogni volta che apro il panel sul forum, mi da sempre le stesse.

No, devi book mark i nuovi topic che ti interesano e cancelalre le vecchie notifiche cosi da avere le nuove sempre all'apertura

.PSD is a native Photoshop Image format (as Richard wrote) and would have nothing to do with actual morphs working.

.PSD could be a source for new normal maps, or bump maps, etc and some might like call this a morph in appearance, but it's not a morph in the Daz-usage sense.

... I'm good with just 4 GPUs.  With liquid cooling of course, probably with separate loops for each pair of GPUs and maybe a third loop for the CPU...

People often want to cram multiple cooling loops into one case, but it's not really necessary for proper cooling and it probably raises complexity, cost, and servicability for the entire system.

In your example, you'd have to design three or more systems, each complete with pump, reservoir, and radiator for each loop, plus associated tubing, power, and sensor wiring going every which way.  Prebuilt systems only eliminate the reservoir from that design, and anything you build from scratch will need a reservoir for each loop.

Of course, this is the "no limited budget" thread, so you could do all of that under the guiance for this thread. 

But all that extra equipment might be impractical or even outright impossible to fit into the case, particularly the added reservoirs and radiators.

And really, we just need to remember the #1 reason for having any cooling system.  First of all, not all heat is harmful.  Only excessive heat is harmful.  And excessive heat is (or at least should be) defined as that heat which will cause damage to the components over an unacceptably short period of time.  For me, that time is 3-5 years.  For you, it might be a different value, within the parameters of reality and physics, of course.

But the upshot is that we really only want to/need to transfer excessive heat to a less harmful place than in the components themselves.  Transferring "all heat" is neither productive nor efficient, nor will it necessarily extend component life in any significant way, therefore I submit to you that it's completely unnecessary to even attempt this unless you are conducting studies on the law of thermodynamics or you just "want to", both of which are perfectly valid reasons in my book.

Some components can even do just fine without liquid cooling at all, and others don't even need a heatsink or fan to avoid excessive heat.

I guess I'm just saying that sometimes it's perfectly okay to stop when we've reached "good enough".  We just need to be reasonable in our definitions of "good enough".

Now if you have more devices that you want to include in the water loop, then you'd probably be better off including more radiator surface area (whether it's done by a bigger radiator with more surface area (my preference) or more than one radiator) and (if appropriate), a bigger pump and bigger reservoir so as to increase the overall size of the cooling "system".  This would be more efficient than building separate loops. 

If running a cooling loop through 4 GPUs and a CPU is found to be not effective in removing harmful heat from the last device in the series, then I propose to you that the radiator surface area is not adequate to the total heat being generated.  Furthermore, I suggest to you that all devices will eventually be impacted, even if they are not last in the series.

Carry on. 

To the point, baked morphs allowed, or product required?

BTW, all I did was turn down Osuine a bit to 60-70%. I then added a small amount of Victoria 8, 25%. It is pretty clear to me that the girl has some kind of HD shape in the promos, so I added Victoria 8 HD, 100%. 

The texture is straight up Osuine. The 2nd pic I added more red to her cheek by blending in the SSS texture in that area. I used Osuine blue eyes, and I turned down the white level on the sclera because it is too bright otherwise.

And that is it. I think its pretty close. It is possible the artist is using a different DO as the secondary shape. I am pretty confident it is a Daz DO, because of the HD morph. Though I suppose it could be a PA's HD shape. It must be someone who can balance Osuine's face.

THANK YOU outrider42! Nailed it!

Why did I think this was gonna happen? Oh, right. Daz....lol.

Frankly SB, if I were you, I'd hang it up. Save yourself the grief and frustration. You don't owe anyone anything, especially us. But it was a gallant effort.

Laurie

 

Have to agree. IMNSHO if DAZ really wanted a product to transfer morphs, it would have been a reality a long time ago. You SB, were like Obi-Wan Kenobii, our "only hope".of this happening

Daz is offering such a tool, out of the box, 

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/referenceguide/interface/action/index/dztransferutilityaction/start

 

That is to transfer rigging, not morphs. Not even close to the same thing.

Laurie

Well, this is a somewhat disappointing development from a personal perspective.

Previously, just for "fun", I attempted to recreate this character from scratch, first starting out with a base G8F. After much trial-and-error and painstaking morph sliding, I ended up with a rather nice character that, unfortunately, did not really bear any credible resemblance to the target. Okay then, I says, plan B. I start with Osuine herself and once again proceed to play with morph sliders. This time, after a great deal of trial-and-error once again, I do succeed in creating a sort of, somewhat close facsimile, but still not completely convincing. I suppose that I should console myself by saying that I gained all of that valuable experience in character creation using morph sliders, rather than "Note to self: Keep It Simple, Stupid!".

Anyway, well done, outrider. I think that is about as close as anyone needs to get, without becoming obsessive.

So, I just finished up this paired pose, and only then noticed I forgot to zero out a rotation on the root node of the figure on the left. Unfortunately, I have made a whole bunch of adjustments to the hip node of that figure, and now--when I zero out this adjustment--my figure reorients itself in space, and the pose is broken. Is there a way to salvage this? Some way to zero out this rotation, but still keep my figure in the same orientation in space (only rotated of course) or do I have a whole lot of finagling ahead of me to get this pose back together?

Hi, everybody. Sorry for my English.
I put all the data in one table.

Using multiple graphics cards

Based on the results of the data, I made a table with which you can quickly estimate which of the graphics cards is better to take and what performance is to be expected:

To use, you need: 
1. Go to the table (link)
2. File - Make a copy
3. Edit prices in the selected screen below the column "price". Now in this column prices from my city

4. Select the maps of interest from the drop-down lists

5. The table shows the overall performance of the selected graphics cards (converges with the real tests)

Awesome effort. Although there are some key factors seemingly missing from your analysis which - if left uncontrolled for - will lead to statisitcally significant innacuracies in your graphs:

1. Daz Studio version tested.
Unless all of the datapoints you are using from this thread came from EXACTLY same version of Daz Studio (eg. 4.11.0.236 vs. 4.11.0.366 vs. 4.10.0.123) there is a potential margin of error in people's results anywhere from about 4 seconds under the various 4.11.0.XXX  variants to as much as around 55 seconds if 4.10.0.123 is included as well. And since many of the performance differences you've tabulated between cards are within the 1-4 second range (especially on the higher end) this is a potentially problem for making charts like this (it's one of the main reasons I haven't yet produced one myself.) 

2. Daz Studio Total Rendering Time vs. GPU/CPU scene rendering time. 
When Sickleyield first started this thread 4+ years ago s/he decided to use Total Rendering Time as the base statistic for reporting relative rendering performance across devices/scenarios. Technically speaking, Total Rendering Time - as reported by Daz Studio during/after the completion of a render - is NOT just a measure of device rendering time. It is an overall measure of how long it takes Daz Studio to load/process the assets of a scene, initialize the Iray rendering plugin, transfer those assets to that plugin for rendering, wait for the plugin to finish the rendering process, and finally saving the final render as outputed by the Iray plugin for review by the user. In other words, Total Rendering Time includes a graphics card rendering performance unrelated overhead of anywhere from a couple of seconds (as exemplified by my totally solid state Titan RTX/i7-8700K rendering machine build) to as much as a whole minute or longer (some spinning disk machines.)
4+ years ago this potentially minute+ offset between Device Rendering Time vs. Total Rendering Time wasn't much of an issue (at least for single card benchmarks) since most rendering devices needed tens of minutes to complete Sickleyield's scene. And having an extra 30 seconds give-or-take added to that most likely wasn't going to change anything to the extent of, say, rearranging the order of things in a graph of relative rendering performance between different GPU models. However, now that we are at the point where many cards are capable of finishing Sickleyield's scene in a couple of minutes or less and differences between many cards are within mere seconds of each other, this 30+ second margin-of-error is a huge problem. It's why most of the benchmarking numbers in this thread are currently (unfortunately) useless going forward. And the only way to remedy this is for people to report Device Rendering Statistics like this

2019-04-24 05:42:51.762 Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER):   1.0   IRAY   rend info : Device statistics:
2019-04-24 05:42:51.762 Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER):   1.0   IRAY   rend info : CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 1050): 	 4986 iterations, 14.769s init, 570.178s render

where 570.178 seconds is an actual measure of device rendering performance you can base calculations on, rather than Total Rendering TIme like this

2019-04-24 05:38:38.299 Finished Rendering
2019-04-24 05:38:38.353 Total Rendering Time: 9 minutes 51.42 seconds

where 9 minutes 51.42 seconds isn't. Notice that 9 minutes 51.42 seconds is 591.42 or 21.242 more than 570.178. Meaning that this TRT statistic is off by 21.242 seconds. And this difference isn't going to scale by time - ie. the same scene rendered to 10 iterations in <10 seconds is still going to have the same overhead of 21.242 seconds. Making it look 3x less efficient at rendering than it really is.

ETA:
There is a fix for this - start a new benchmarking thread where the OP's directions are to report Device Statistics rather than/in addition to Total Rendering Time as a person's benchmarking results. I actually already have just such a thread pretty much ready to post at a moment's notice. I'm just waiting for concrete news regarding when to expect RTCore support to debut since that will dictate how complex a benchmarking scene needs to be to be meaningful on Turing level hardware.