Comments on: GPU vs CPU Rendering Talk by Luxology

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:11:20 +0000

Comparing cores to cores is one thing but what if your scene can’t fit into your graphics card’s memory?…6, 8, 12gb of RAM compared to 512, 1024, possibly 2048mb on a graphics card…that’s not a lot of space for textures and, as an example, i-ray is unable to use the GPU *AT ALL* if the scene doesn’t fit completely onto the GPU’s memory.

By: Snafu

Snafu — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:00:43 +0000

Wouldn’t cores-to-cores rather be a melons-to grapes comparison, given the cores’ characteristics? The only homogeneous metric here is dollars-to-dollars IF image quality was the same, I think.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:18:17 +0000

@Diogo Moita This video was leaked from the registered users forum, it wouldn’t make sense as a sales pitch considering the audience was meant to be licensed users.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:01:57 +0000

Well – for a very high end workstation, the cores-to-cores comparison stands. I think most people are more likely to be using 2 to 4 cores, maybe 8, CPU-wise. Also, they are unlikely to go for the $1500 GPU. A better comparison would be a more common machine with a more common (i.e.: mid to high-end gaming) GPU. I would be pretty surprised if the comparison came out the same.

Additionally, Modo’s extremely well-optimized renderer, which is blazingly fast, is not necessarily a good comparison to the GPU code they used, which requires entirely different kinds of optimization. It sounds in the video that the GPU code was pretty hacky and primitive.

I know I’ve seen some pretty fast particle and rendering engine tests done on GPU’s.

By: LL

LL — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:20:30 +0000

Findings!? Meh, this is Intel propaganda, nothing more that is why it is there the logo in the Video. You can get 480 CUDA cores in a GTX480 with cost at $500 while a FX4800 gets you at $1500!

By: Leonard Teo

Leonard Teo — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:19:24 +0000

Agree with Chris. Luxology’s results are by no means a slight on GPU rendering. I am very happy that they’ve taken the stand to just post their findings, as unpopular as they may be. There has been a lot of hype that GPU rendering is somehow going to be a magical solution for rendering. It might one day…might not…we’ll see. Having more honest reports like this is good for the community overall.

By: Diogo Moita

Diogo Moita — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:25:33 +0000

This comparison is an absurd, And I bet IT´S FAKE! Brad Peebler wants to sell his product and is able to do anything. Open scenes with unoccluded objects are very easy to render on any engine. The problem is interior scenes, full of glass and occluded objects. Don´t listen to this.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:46:54 +0000

This wasn’t actually meant as a comparison at all. Luxology, much like the rest of us, had heard that GPU rendering could significantly boost render speeds. After many many internal tests, they simply decided that GPU rendering is not robust enough yet for them to consider it as path for development. It’s not a slight on GPU render engines or some sort of propaganda, it’s just Luxology being open with its customers about why they’ve decided that pursuing a GPU based rendering solution isn’t right for them at this time.

By: Ron Martin

Ron Martin — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:21:45 +0000

Hi Brad,

i think, the reported comparisons are not representative. Have a look at V-Ray RT CPU versus GPU and you will find very significant speed increases. Why did you ignore it?

By: Ezpen

Ezpen — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:51:43 +0000

Very informative talk, thanks!