At the cost of a smaller fast memory pool? From what I understand Redshift slows down significantly when it starts using off board RAM? I know this is one of the main reasons many other renderers haven't gone to the GPU yet since cards with decent amounts of memory are still priced far too high.
How is Redshift with overall memory usage? i.e. what is the memory footprint per polygon etc. Also it's biased correct? I become nauseous when someone mentions that word, is their approach better than other IC approaches? Similar pitfalls? I may try it this weekend on my 780gtx (only 3GB onboard) at home since it's been getting good PR here. With the type of memory heavy rendering we do for film and the efficient platform agnostic pipeline friendly workflow we have with Arnold I don't see it being useful outside some smaller commercial jobs but I'd like to get a taste of the speed and interactivity. I suppose if we were a 5 person shop again something like RS would be a godsend. On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Steven Caron <[email protected]> wrote: > that extra GPU power is a dramatic increase in speed though. > > >
