[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 15 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



File: 1528568100126.jpg (93 KB, 1024x768)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
What are some good Processors and Graphic Cards for 3D rendering without breaking the budget?

Preferably Speed > Accuracy
>>
>>653717
I know that for cpus ryzen is really good right now, meanwhile for graphic cards, Nvidias 10xx are still the best.
>>
Okay. That picture settles it. I'll be using Blender exclusively from now on.
>>
The same tits were holding a laptop in /g/ some days ago
>>
>>653717
>>653726
Ryzen does really well with Blender and 3d Apps, and it's cost to performance completely crushes Intel. (Intel is still performance king in Gaming though). More cores is better.

nVida cards are a bit more supported. If you want Blender only you can add additional GPUs in and Blender will use them.
>>
>accuracy
Wtf are you talking about?
>>
>>653726
20xx are performing better in 3d than they are gaming. 2080 beats 1080ti in redshift, and it's not optimized for turing yet.
>>
>>654037
calculating realistic lights and shit
>>
>>654169
You want a good CPU, lots of ram and a ssd. Gpu is only used for rendering and not all renderers even support gpu rendering, so look into that for your 3d application of Choice.
>>
what you guys think of this video, is a bit outdated but I'm trying to save to build a similar pc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8psbsnbD78

also from vitaly bulgarov
Few years back when I decided to invest in a more powerful workstation for a CPU based rendering ( it was an overclocked liquid-cooled dual Xeon with lots of RAM) it was amazing to see how it didn’t just affect the work speed but also my creativity. Having a fast reliable tool boosted my daily work confidence into trying more difficult things. I had more hours to refine designs/models in 3D knowing I’d need less time to actually render that geometry and still have something to show to the client before going to bed.
Now as I started to rely more and more on a GPU rendering I contacted Sebastian Michalski (aka Smicha for Octane users), a wizard who built my new machine. The rig is also a dual Xeon system, but its true power lies in a water-cooled 7x GTX 1080. Sebastian built/assembled the system as well as did all the necessary customization to the videocards, motherboard, the cooling system, etc. All I had to do was to fill in the distilled water under Sebastian’s kind supervision when I received the computer. The first Octane render tests showed an incredible speed and I guess I can finally start using PMC and Path Tracing
>>
>>654202
Depends on what you plan to render. GPU renderers are fast for sure. However they don't excel in quality in all areas. No renderer does. With a GPU renderer you need to pay closer attention to resource usage as you may not be able to render your scene if you can't fit it in memory. Redshift is better than all others in this category as it can use system memory if needed, it's slows things down a lot though.
Renderman 22 has made some incredible progress in speed, since it's free to try it's worth evaluating.
>>
>>654202
What's with the glowing canister, is that where the ghosts are stored?
>>
>>654041
I still dont think they are worth the money yet. id wait at least a year so that the prices can be lowered and that the rest of the industry manages to integrate them in their software.
>>
>>654430
coolant tank for the gpus and cpu
>>
>>654452
substance bakers are now using rtx. It's coming fast. 10 series cards are going up in price due to demand. I really don't see a reason to buy a 10 series if 3d is the main activity on your computer.
>>
>>654227
Nah, Redshift has lost its edge since out of core rendering has become a standard. Cycles and Octane do it too and i am sure others will follow.
I had a shitty GPU with only 2 gigs of VRAM and Redshift didn't render my scenes while Octane and Cycles had no problems with it.

I also think Octane looks better than Redshift. And the're both very fast. Cycles is following close behind (in terms of speed).
>>
>>654455
Such a mixed bag atm. Paying for RTX when not very much supports it yet seems kinda wasteful, but paying full price for 2 year old tech for rendering seems dumb.

For the money, it feels like holding out a bit for software to catch up would be better, but for those in the US looming Tariffs really put sense of urgency on the purchase.
>>
>>654502
Most renderers have an optix denoiser, which runs better on RTX than GTX. RTX is just flat out better at compute tasks, even without RTX specific optimizations. If you do compute you are better off going RTX. That includes OpenCL. I really don't see the point of buying a GTX 10 series card for 3d artists at this point in time. They aren't much cheaper and they perform worse.

>>654472
Interesting I'll take a look at octane again. Looks like you still have to pay for DCC plugins ugh.
>>
>>654512
Take it with a grain of salt, i never tested both really deeply. But if you search for a good GPU renderer you might want to take a look at Vray again. Seems like Chaos Group tries to make the GPU version as feature complete as the CPU version and it is already very fast.
>>
>>654512
4x1070 ti is still the top performance/price option on the market. That may change when engines implement optix but it hasn't happened yet.

>>654472
Octane just looks better out of the box because it adds bloom, tonemapping and depth of field in a default IPR render. Just turn those things on. Octane basically doesn't support displacement maps, volumetrics, or anything where you need advanced control. It's fine for rendering subdivision donuts if that's all you need. The plugin pricing scheme is an absolute joke.
>>
You can buy a used Windows 7 HP laptop from someone's office and as long as it has an intel chipset family you can probably do everything you need to do on that fine. It will be fast although the only slowdown will be if you're doing making your maps in gimp or photoshop at the same time, those will run slow if they're at the same time as Blender or Maya or 3DS Max or whatever you use. Otherwise find a gtx 160ti and an i5 and sped $150 on the rest and you're probably be fine in regards to speed.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.