Yes please! all mornings i wake up, and the first thing i do is check mails (bad habit) and find myself with the rumor that soft... and its not very possitive checking it every single day for the last 20 days. F.
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Rob Wuijster wrote: > Hi chaps, > > Now we're moving on to a render discussion about Redshift and such, can we > stop using this thread? > Oterwise this 'doom thread' will live on for a while ;-) > > Rob > > \/-------------\/----------------\/ > > On 8-1-2014 20:04, Tim Leydecker wrote: > > It´s worth using the redshift3d shaders, the new blend material is really > nice, > normal map blending works nice and the conductor/dielectric option to > drive > reflection gives believable metal reflection behaviour results easily. > > You´ll also get better (lights/shadow) sampling compared to using default > shaders. > > Imho, if you spent time with mR or VRay or Arnold shaders, you will have > no problem transfering your knowledge to Redshift3D. > > In terms of benefiting from speed while tweaking, go and set the renderers > threshold to > 0.2 or even higher, I find that is good enough for judging light/color > intensities and > gives fast turnaround. > > Personally, I tend to push per light lightsamples higher than default, > even if that is not > neccessary in Redshift3D´s "unified" sampling aproach, to me it feels I > have influence on > the wheight of samples anyway. > > Enjoy. > > It´s really, really cool. > > Cheers, > > tim > > > > On 08.01.2014 19:08, Byron Nash wrote: > > When switching over to Redshift, are you all typically redoing the shaders > using the Redshift ones or trying to rely on the compatibility with > standard ones? I'm interested to > check it out but would like to approach it correctly. > > Thanks, > Byron > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Emilio Hernandez <emi...@e-roja.com > <mailto:emi...@e-roja.com>> wrote: > > It sounds promising. I don't know. > > The funny thing is that Quadros actually render slower than GTX in my > experience. As they have lower CUDA cores. My GTX470 alone rendered faster > than a Quadro 3000. As the > GTX is more focused to games and Quadros to faster video display > processing, the Quadros have a lower memory bandwith and less CUDA cores. > At least from the last comparisions > I have doing in the Nvidia site. Actually I was planning to upgrade > my GTX470 to a GTX 780Ti instead of the Titan. A few bucks off the price > and it has excellent specs. > > GTX 780 Ti GPU Engine Specs: > 2880CUDA Cores > 875Base Clock (MHz) > 928Boost Clock (MHz) > 210Texture Fill Rate (GigaTexels/sec) > > GTX 780 Ti Memory Specs: > 7.0 GbpsMemory Clock > 3072 MBStandard Memory Config > GDDR5Memory Interface > 384-bitMemory Interface Width > 336Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) > > > >From this numbers what you are looking for, is to see which GPU will > perform faster are the number of CUDA Cores and the memory bandwith. The > higher the better. As the > memory bandwith is how fast the data can be transfered to memory to be > processed by the CUDA cores. > > Some guys are already using Redshift with RoyalRender. I don't how > fast they are rendering, but now you can have a render farm with cheap > processors and a couple of this GPU > inside. > > A quick example. > > The same scene in round numbers per frame in my machine. > > Arnold: 15 min > Redhsfit: 4 min > > So you can expect at least a reduction of 73% in your render times. > > > > > > > > > > > 2014/1/8 Dan Yargici <danyarg...@gmail.com > <mailto:danyarg...@gmail.com>> > > Anyone tried using gpubox with Redshift? > > http://renegatt.com/ > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6986 - Release Date: 01/08/14 > > > >
