Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Can anyone tell me if Iray will be as fast as 3Delight when it is finally implemented for the GTX 1000 cards?
I'm just wondering because right now 3Delight is much much faster than Iray and I'm wondering what kind of performance increase I'd get for a given file when Daz finally supports my card. I've read in all sorts of places that Iray is faster, but faster than what? For rendering a single character simply loaded into Daz with Iray materials, and no other objects or hair, 3Delight takes about 30 seconds on my computer but Iray takes about 40 minutes. My question is will Iray be able to render this same scene in 30 seconds too when the card gets turned on?
Faster based of the amount of cuda cores and the core clock you have , look my video , it is almost instant with 12K cuda cores
3-4 sec full figure
Damn............that's fast.
@jnwggs
Whether it will be as fast as 3DL is hard to guess at but prior to getting my 1080 I had a 970 & that could render single character, no hair in a Bikini in around 40 seconds - Now on CPU that same scene takes 40 Minutes to render
Thank you!
That tells me what I wanted to know. Sounds like the 1080 should be able to render in a similar time frame to 3Delight. At least it's not likely to still take an hour per frame. I know the 970 had more Cuda cores than the 1070 has, but maybe that will be compensated for by them being Cuda 8? I hope so. Thanks again for giving me "some idea" :)
Well , with 1080 it may take around 10-12 seconds to render full figure in photoreal mode and less than that using Interactive mode , all depends of the light settings and if you use HDR environments or just spot light .
with 1070 and 1920 CUDA processing cores you may need around 24 sec to render full figure with sun and sky or HDRI environment it will be huge improvement for you over single CPU but rendering is not gaming and if you have enough cooling to keep the GPU below 80C and fast CPU cores and RAM for loading and process the data you are good , iray not only need good GPU for render fast but also good system to support your card in the process between .
This has all been saving me money as I have been, kind of, looking out for a new computer (desktop/tower this time, not a laptop) and the ongoing 'saga' of the new 10* cards and them not being fully usable in/for Iray, plus me trying to work out if I need water-cooling (I'd like it, just not sure if I need it).
well from using your laptop you should know how hot that can get water cooling and plenty of fans is good my laptop is a aspire v17 nitro with i7-4710HQ 2.5ghz with turbo boost up to 3.5ghz and has gtx 850m card with 4gb vram, now I have one of those fan table things to sit it on to keep it cool but it still gets pretty hot and I do some pretty large content scenes which can take several hours to render usually leave it going overnight even small less content heavy scenes take awhile. Now I've got a new desktop to use which has two gtx 1080 cards but even though it isn't using them iraying yet daz does see them btw and I still have them ticked just not using them yet anyway rendering with the cpu is still proving to be faster than my laptop using i7-5960x with 8 cores, asus maximus viii gene motherboard, liquid cooling and several fans to keep it cool, my first render just over 54 minutes second just over 2 hours which I'm redoing saw some mistakes but still both lot faster than would be on my laptop, so once the cards and daz are updated should be really fast
http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/372.90/372.90-win10-win8-win7-desktop-release-notes.pdf
Page 8.
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit
Some information about Cuda 8.0, including support for 1080 cards.
Again, not sure what this means for Daz Studio and Pascal support, as I'm not familiar with how it works, but it just seems like it would be relevant.
GTX 970 = 1664
GTX 980 = 2048
GTX 1070 = 1920
GTX 1080 = 2560
GTX Titan X = 3072
Just wanted to set the record straight. Also, how the heck did Mec4d get Daz 3D Version 4.9.2.70 to support iRay when it still doesn't work for me on version 4.9.3.xx Public Beta? I'm using a GTX 1070 and when I click render with iRay it just pops up the window, a dialog box that pretty much disappears and leaves the render window blank.
I assume you mean how did she get Iray supported on her Titan X cards... I know she bought at least two of those long before Nvidia released the Pascal-based cards. Not sure about the others, but it looks like they are all pre-Pascal.
All Mec4D's are Maxwell Titans so work with Iray
If you want to use Iray before the 1070 & other Pascal cards are supported then you need to also check CPU box & then you will get a render - Slow but at least you get something while we are all waiting for support -:)
Yes, 4x Titan X SC Hybrid Maxwell not Pascal
You guys are worried about getting the render time down to seconds.. Lucky you. I've been and always have had to wait 4-8 hours for 3DL and 8-12 hours or so for iray and 14-20 hours or so with reality.
Getting an iray render to complete is under an hour would be a godsend for me. hehe
I'm hoping they hurry up with the update. I just spend 2,000.00 on a new PC and can't wait to play with iray with my new tower.
Why not, DS use OpenGL in the viewport for all other view styles , nothing to do with iray
Thank you very much everyone for correcting my mistakes. I did not know that the Titan X was also in a Maxwell version of the chipset and assumed Pascal. Also I assumed "he" instead of "she"; very sorry about that I as I meant no ill harm from this.
Also, Mec4D those are incredible speeds and can't even imagine what it's like to work with that much horse power. And second, OH MY GOODNESS! What awesome work you do. Pretty cool and Cudo's to you! (word play on cuda cores)
Most definately as I have been doing that & test renders on CPU complete fairly quickly so I have still tried out my new products without tying up the PC for hours on end
I bought a GTX 980TI about a month ago. I know it has a last-gen GPU, but it has 2816 CUDA cores and I couldn't be happier with Iray rendering! It's very stable and I'm thinking about adding aonther one... :)
I can build nice big scenes in Daz with no card. I don't think the card is even used in the scene. I think that all comes down to the avalible RAM if I'm not mistaken.
you are wrong if there was no card you will not even open DS
I don't have a "card" in my HP. I think Angel-Wings is referring to on-board video.
As long as the motherboard has built-in graphics, you can render in CPU Only mode without having a card. And the available RAM becomes very important if DS is not using a graphics card to render. Even with an Iray supported card, if the scene uses more memory than the card has, (or the smallest card if there are more than one and they aren't the same,) Iray will go into CPU Only mode anyway. But if your motherboard does not have built-in graphics, you will need a graphics card of some sort just to get images to your monitor. And if you think of on-board graphics as a built-in card, Mec4d is spot on.
Iray is supposed to just drop the card(s) that don't have enough memory...so if you have a 1 GB, 2 GB and 4 GB card, any scene over 1 GB will use only the 2 and 4 GB cards...anything over 2 GB will use only the 4 GB card and anything over 4 GB scene size will drop to CPU only.
Never heard of a modern motherboard that doesn't have any graphics to run a monitor.
On board graphics are in the form of a graphics chip, not a a "built in card", so I'd call foul on this "spot on" thought. If you call a dogs tail a leg, it doesn't have 5 legs. Calling it a leg doesn't make it one (Abraham Lincoln). Cards are something that you plug into a motherboard, they are not part of the motherboard circuitry. It's like calling the CPU a card when in reality it's a plug-in chip.
Many onboard graphics chips these days have GPU's in them, so yes, those chips would easily run DS.
Asus X99-E WS - "onboard video chipset: none". Quite a few of the higher-end boards targeted at gamers don't have an on-board chip for video.
The computer I just ordered from CyberPowerPC doesn't. There were a dozen or more motherboards to choose from. I checked several, and none of the ones I checked the specs on had on-board graphics. These were all high-end, gamer-targeted, motherboards, which would support what namffuak said. (I got the Asus X99-E ATX.)
The HP I'm replacing has Intel HD Graphics 4600 built-in. It handles Iray fine. But it's slow. I just rendered the background to a scene I'm working on, using Hemlock Folly with lots of instancing, and it took nearly three days to reach 2730 iterations (2814px by 1500 px). I rendered the foreground separately, with a clothed figure... took a couple of days to reach 10K iterations. Because it renders so slowly, I cannot reasonably use Iray in the viewport. I do spot renders to see if what I've just done gave me the desired effect. If so, I move to another area of the scene. If not, I make a change and spot render again. And again. And again. I like my images large, and my scenes realistic. (Not that I'm always successful.) As it is now, it can take me weeks to get the details right, before I even start that 3-day render.
I don't need an Nvidia cuda core graphics card to use DS. I don't need one to render in Iray. But I want, not one, but as many as my new, expensive, full-tower case will hold. I'm starting with one, as it's all I can afford right now. But I will add to it as funds allow.
What I've read up to now is the memory used is limited to the smaller card, (guess I should have been paying closer attention.) I like the feature of Iray ignoring the smaller-memory video card(s) if the scene is too big. Does it work that way in DS now, do you know?
As far as I know, that's the way it works in DS. I only have one card in this machine, so my own experiences don't help...
Yes, that's the way it's worked from the beginning, it will use whatever cards the scene will fit on and drop the smaller ones.
I have a 6 and 4GB card; I rarely add the 970 to the render as it introduces lag, and it is alrady busy supporting two 2560x1440 screens; the few times I have added it, it has made a reasonable difference but made using the computer for other tasks, occasionally annoying.