CRITICAL SPEED ISSUE WITH APPLE M SYSTEMS

[ASIMO]

Dear Community and Mac-Users. Please read this if you own a new Apple M-System.

Since around 12 years I work as a professional visualization artist. I have been using CoronaRender for years on Mac computers and with the latest upgrade to Apple M-chipsets I would like to share my experience, as the issue I am having could be very much relevant and critical for every Apple ARM user.

1 Introduction
I work in the field of architectural visualization. In the past 3 years all my renders were based on a setup using my Apple iMac i9 and Corona v9. It has been a great, reliable setup, but I wanted to upgrade. I skipped the first batch of Apple M-systems, but with a fully maxed out Mac Studio M2 Ultra I stepped into the game. So once bought, I updated all my systems to C4D 2023 and Corona V10 to test speed and have a comparison. Using the latest Corona Benchmark and running Cinebench it turned out the new system everywhere speeds up 2.2x compared to my previous setup. So the numbers were as I expected and I got excited.

2 Reality
The reality is very much different and it took me quite a while to notice it. When opening existing scenes, I sensed that the new Mac Ultra somehow did not feel as fast as expected. So I tested both computers with a basic scene, including some models, a few textures and a simple light setup. Of course all systems are updated, run the same software and have the scene saved as project-file with assets. It turns out that the Mac Studio easily gets beaten by a three year old Apple Intel system in real conditions. Depending on many different scenes I tested, the new Mac Studio was not twice as fast, but instead up to 3 times slower than my old Intel iMac ! So in fact it is up to 5 times slower as it should perform. Same is true for parsing times, which are not significantly lower than on the i9. I also noticed the same results using C4D 26 and/or trying Corona V9. Also a friend of mine had similar results on his Apple M1 Ultra. That is beyond imagination, a disaster and I have not found any explanation yet.

3 Issue

So I would like to address this issue to the community. Attached you will find my simple test-scene (DropBox link below) and also a screenshot of the VFB of my Apple iMac i9 and my Mac Studio M2 Ultra. I would be interested if you face the same troubles rendering that scene and hopefully detect something that dramatically slows down the M-chips. If this turns out to be a general issue, using CoronaRender with Apple M-Chipsets does not make any sense at all. It is a failed investment.

Hopefully we can find a solution, as my prediction is, that users who bought a new Apple M system might not even be aware that their computers are not performing to the fullest. You might have paid a lot of money for limited power and not even noticing it.

All best – ASIMO
_

DropBox Link to file : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/rv6cwapzmy7qfvhbf31x4/h?rlkey=elghyfyv4lqzmw4o49ex3haqg&dl=0

[maru]

Thank you for a thorough report. We will look into it and share our findings with you.

Using the latest Corona Benchmark and running Cinebench it turned out the new system everywhere speeds up 2.2x compared to my previous setup. So the numbers were as I expected and I got excited.

Can you confirm that you are getting the expected performance with Corona Benchmark and Cinebench? If so, that would mean there is some issue either with Corona in C4D or with the specific scene.

I understand that you may be reluctant to this, but we would really appreciate it if you double check if the issue is not related to overheating and thermal throttling. We had a similar thread in the past. Please see details here:
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=38220.msg209024#msg209024

It could be also an interesting idea to check with V-Ray. You could use the trial license for this.

[frv]

I have a Mac Studio 20 core 128Gb ram and a 2Tb harddisk. My experience is actually very good in general.

It's important to understand that the M1 or M2 don't have very high numbers in terms of megahertz per CPU. This could result in some operations not being all that faster than a older  i7 or even slower.
Apple had to increase the core count on the Mac Studio m2 otherwise the speed difference compared to the m1 would have been zero. A 28 core i9 with hyperthreading will be at least twice as fast in multicore tasks than anything Apple (no hyperthreading) has to offer.

I do notice significant speed improvements because of much faster hard disk (built in SSD) access and RAM for loading maps and so on,  so parsing is much faster compared to my older systems. Generally modelling and all other stuff aside from rendering speed is very fluent and crash free on my Mac Studio. If you do images that take hours to render really a PC costs much less and is a lot faster. I am thinking of going for a render PC and a Mac laptop in the future. Best of both worlds and C4D and CR runs on both as well.

F

[ASIMO]

Thank you for a thorough report. We will look into it and share our findings with you.

Using the latest Corona Benchmark and running Cinebench it turned out the new system everywhere speeds up 2.2x compared to my previous setup. So the numbers were as I expected and I got excited.

Can you confirm that you are getting the expected performance with Corona Benchmark and Cinebench? If so, that would mean there is some issue either with Corona in C4D or with the specific scene.

I understand that you may be reluctant to this, but we would really appreciate it if you double check if the issue is not related to overheating and thermal throttling. We had a similar thread in the past. Please see details here:
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=38220.msg209024#msg209024

It could be also an interesting idea to check with V-Ray. You could use the trial license for this.

Hello Maru

Thank you for your investigations. I will reply using 4 points to address the issues.

1
I can confirm the performance using Cinebench and the Corona Benchmark. Please see the attachments.

2
As far as I understand, this issue has nothing to do with thermal throttling. It is a desktop Mac. Also while rendering the scene again I monitored the cores. They seem to perform nearly to 100% power all way through. Please see screenshots with timestamps. 4min. 8min. 10 min.

3
The scene all-over is very basic. There are no errors, misbehaviors or problems in loading and rendering the scene on both Macs. The problem is the huge difference in performance. So yes – There might be something happening in the scene that is addressed differently depending using an Intel-chip or an M-chip with CoronaRender.

4
To add something important. I tested both Macs in rendering the known living-room sample-scene. Turns out the performance is perfectly balanced. Both Macs perform exactly the way they should do, having the M2 Ultra with 24 cores 2.2x faster than the Intel computer. So again the question is, what is CoronaRender doing different than in my sample scene and almost every other scene I tested. I also want to point out, that the difference in speed depends on the scenes. While with some files the Mac Ultra performs alright, in other scenes the M-chip is way slower.

Best – A

[ASIMO]

I have a Mac Studio 20 core 128Gb ram and a 2Tb harddisk. My experience is actually very good in general.

It's important to understand that the M1 or M2 don't have very high numbers in terms of megahertz per CPU. This could result in some operations not being all that faster than a older  i7 or even slower.
Apple had to increase the core count on the Mac Studio m2 otherwise the speed difference compared to the m1 would have been zero. A 28 core i9 with hyperthreading will be at least twice as fast in multicore tasks than anything Apple (no hyperthreading) has to offer.

I do notice significant speed improvements because of much faster hard disk (built in SSD) access and RAM for loading maps and so on,  so parsing is much faster compared to my older systems. Generally modelling and all other stuff aside from rendering speed is very fluent and crash free on my Mac Studio. If you do images that take hours to render really a PC costs much less and is a lot faster. I am thinking of going for a render PC and a Mac laptop in the future. Best of both worlds and C4D and CR runs on both as well.

F

Hello

Thank you for your response. Of course a 28 core i9 is way faster than the recent M-chips. In my comparison it is a 10 core i9. So something really different. The speed itself is not the issue. I can prove that my M2 Ultra is indeed performing 2.2x faster than my iMac i9 of 2020. In regular files and in the benchmarks.

The question is, why the performance still is scene based. Why is CoronaRender performing up to 5 times faster using an Intel-Chip based on the exact same file. This is not understandable for me.

Best – A

[TomG]

"the known living-room sample-scene" - is this some very old scene that would have been created in a Corona several versions old? That might point to things that are new, like bucket rendering, 4K cache, etc. so it would be good to know how those "some scenes work as expected, some don't" split out, whether it is older vs. newer scenes. TY for the info!

[davetwo]

I'm probably not adding much here  - but for what it's worth it rendered at 7:52 on my M2 MPB/Ventura/64gb (with a couple of other apps running too).  I'm not sure why the ultra speed is so slow in comparison.

Renders in 5:02 on my old threadripper, which has a worse cinebench score than the MBP on paper - but better performance IRL.

The scene does contaiin all legacy materials, plus native c4d compositing tags, which may or may not have some sort of effect. (I dont see why it should TBH).

[ASIMO]

I'm probably not adding much here  - but for what it's worth it rendered at 7:52 on my M2 MPB/Ventura/64gb (with a couple of other apps running too).  I'm not sure why the ultra speed is so slow in comparison.

Renders in 5:02 on my old threadripper, which has a worse cinebench score than the MBP on paper - but better performance IRL.

The scene does contaiin all legacy materials, plus native c4d compositing tags, which may or may not have some sort of effect. (I dont see why it should TBH).

Hello

Thank you for testing. Also very interesting, that your M2 MBP already is 2min faster than my M2 Ultra. That also is very strange.

A

[ASIMO]

"the known living-room sample-scene" - is this some very old scene that would have been created in a Corona several versions old? That might point to things that are new, like bucket rendering, 4K cache, etc. so it would be good to know how those "some scenes work as expected, some don't" split out, whether it is older vs. newer scenes. TY for the info!

Hello Tom

Yes the scene I am referring to is known, as it was used frequently to compare speed. It is this scene created in 2014.

https://blog.corona-renderer.com/making-of-corona-sample-c4d-interior/

This scene renders perfectly on my Mac Studio, also having the expected result in comparison to my Intel Mac, which is about 2.2x faster.

Thank you for your investigations

Asimo

[frv]

Just tested your scene on my m1 20 core 128gb 2tb system using CR11 (daily build), OS Sonoma and C4D 2024.
See attachment.  11 min 36 seconds.
When I convert all materials to PB it takes slightly longer at 12 min and 3 seconds.

The difference between a 24 core m2 and a 20 core m1 is not worth it to me then.
If I can half render times with a pc for half the money I will no longer bother for a Mac. A dedicated pc with a Mac laptop for general work will be my next set. I have a Mac Studio borrowed for now. Thanks Asimo to bring this under the attention. A new Mac Studio m2 is 6229€ incl. tax. You can get a 24 core i9 PC with a 4090 GPU for about 3800€ incl. tax.

[ASIMO]

Just tested your scene on my m1 20 core 128gb 2tb system using CR11 (daily build), OS Sonoma and C4D 2024.
See attachment.  11 min 36 seconds.

Thank you for testing and adding your result

So same issue. Based on the benchmarks and tests with old scenes your M1 system should render this file in no longer than 3min. So your system is 4 times slower on this scene as it should be. It is mysterious.

Best – A

[Philw]

Thanks for the detailed updates.

As you've mentioned here and on the other thead - there is definitely some missing link between the M1/M2 in real life and how it scores on benchmarks. I suspect its something to do with the Intel Embree Apple Silicon implementation still being quite "new".

[ASIMO]

Thanks for the detailed updates.

As you've mentioned here and on the other thead - there is definitely some missing link between the M1/M2 in real life and how it scores on benchmarks. I suspect its something to do with the Intel Embree Apple Silicon implementation still being quite "new".

Yes and No.

You have to understand, that in some scenes the M-Chip performs perfectly and according to the Benchmarks ! So the performance really is there !

It is just that in certain scenes (In my case almost every scene) there are massive performance drops happening, sometimes they are more dramatic, sometimes they are less dramatic. There is something happening, maybe it has to do with Textures, Shaders, Objects, Settings, which causes this problem on M-systems.

Hopefully we have some answers soon.

Best – A

[Philw]

Absolutely. The devs can hopefully listen and investigate in depth.

[frv]

Just copied pasted the scene in to a new file. Result 14:26
A lot of difference...
I don't know but maybe there is something with this file.
Maybe good to check with something more recent before coming to conclusion on the Mac Studio.
I don't know if intel chips have as well big differences depending on scene type. You test scene hardly makes use of render instances.

[ASIMO]

Just copied pasted the scene in to a new file. Result 14:26
A lot of difference...
I don't know but maybe there is something with this file.
Maybe good to check with something more recent before coming to conclusion on the Mac Studio.
I don't know if intel chips have as well big differences depending on scene type. You test scene hardly makes use of render instances.

14:26 ? So even slower in a new file ?

I am open to test scenes that render around 10-15 min. If you want to setup up something it would be great to compare. Maybe including some basic textures, shaders, objects, instances, round edges, displacement and so on ? So we could eliminate certain categories ?

Thx for your interest in this topic. A

[maru]

Hey guys, sorry, but there so much information here that soon it will become impossible for us to go through it all. What we need is simple:
- a sample scene (archived with all textures and other assets)
- the render time you are getting
- your exact hardware
- your version of Corona and C4D
- if you wish, you can also include a comparison with other hardware
- any other relevant information such as render stats are welcome, for more information on how to correctly prepare reports, see: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/articles/4648898278545

We need this as a support ticket sent here: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Once we have all the details, we will investigate ASAP!

[ASIMO]

Hey guys, sorry, but there so much information here that soon it will become impossible for us to go through it all. What we need is simple:
- a sample scene (archived with all textures and other assets)
- the render time you are getting
- your exact hardware
- your version of Corona and C4D
- if you wish, you can also include a comparison with other hardware
- any other relevant information such as render stats are welcome, for more information on how to correctly prepare reports, see: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/articles/4648898278545

We need this as a support ticket sent here: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Once we have all the details, we will investigate ASAP!

I understand. I will take care of this and sending in the scene and my results.

Thanks a lot for you efforts !

A

[maru]

Thank you too! Hopefully we will be able to reproduce the slowdown and then it should be possible for us to find out what exactly is causing it. If we won't be able to immediately provide a solution, we should be able to at least explain what is going on. 

[ASIMO]

Thank you too! Hopefully we will be able to reproduce the slowdown and then it should be possible for us to find out what exactly is causing it. If we won't be able to immediately provide a solution, we should be able to at least explain what is going on.

I totally agree and I am happy to assist and do some testings as well :)

Sometimes an explanation is already helpful to understand things.

Thank you.

[Philw]

FYI The scene from the first post: 12:08 on my M1Max MacBook Pro 64GB - Corona 10 hotfix 2 - C4D 2024.1

[BigAl3D]

Always interested in these speed tests. Surprised to see my 2017 iMac Pro faster than all of them.

[runx]

Mac Studio Ultra 128GB / c4d 2024 / corona 11 daily

Original Scene: 11.30

* copied eyerything  over in new scene : 9.32

** > put all textures in Corona Bitmap:  1.38 ( sic !!)

hope that helps

[fabrica]

Mac Pro M1 - 32GB - C4D21 - Corona 10(hotfix2)
(laptop was plugged in while running)

Original Scene : 9.59

(haven't tried the textures in Corona Bitmap yet...)

[prince_jr]

@ASIMO the strange thing with your sample scene is...the longer the scene renders, the fewer the rays/s (total) become.
> same rendertime (see attachment)
> also copied the whole scene into a new one. rendertime makes no difference.
>in other scenes i have constantly ~11'000'000rays/s

[lollolo]

Not a Mac user anymore. But I was wondering and rendered this scene on my Threadripper 3990 Win 10 build.

Using native C4D Bitmaps: 2:15
Using Corona Bitmaps: 1:05

Honestly, I was not aware of such a speed difference between Corona and C4D bitmaps!!
Only downside, the Treeline in the background rendererd very blurry. Changing interpolation didn't help. Is there a known issue for non-square textures? (The tree texture has a resolution of 7000x1138px)
Just wondering, because everything else rendered fine…
 

[runx]

so a script / possibility to automatically convert c4d textures > to corona bitmap would be of great help!

if not a necessity!!

[Philw]

Historically though there have occasionally been recommendations to not use the Corona bitmap - not sure if all those issues have been ironed out?

[lollolo]

so a script / possibility to automatically convert c4d textures > to corona bitmap would be of great help!

if not a necessity!!

+1

Helpdesk for Corona Bitmap Shader: https://docs.chaos.com/display/CRC4D/Corona+Bitmap+Shader
I don't see any drawbacks listed.

https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=35076.0
Corona Bitmap seems to be not working with psd files (I don't use them often anyway)

So why is Corona Bitmap not set as default? Or, if there is a reason to not set it as default, a way to convert all C4D bitmaps to Corona bitmaps would be VERY useful.
I would love to hear from Corona team.


/// And sorry for abusing this thread.

[ASIMO]

Not a Mac user anymore. But I was wondering and rendered this scene on my Threadripper 3990 Win 10 build.

Using native C4D Bitmaps: 2:15
Using Corona Bitmaps: 1:05

Honestly, I was not aware of such a speed difference between Corona and C4D bitmaps!!
Only downside, the Treeline in the background rendererd very blurry. Changing interpolation didn't help. Is there a known issue for non-square textures? (The tree texture has a resolution of 7000x1138px)
Just wondering, because everything else rendered fine…

Hello

Thank you very much for sharing your results. The issue with the blurred background appears to me as something alarming, as it is true for almost all objects in the the Cosmos browser in general ! Once you move objects around 100m far from the camera textures will start to blur and loose sharpness. It becomes visible, once you scale up objects in the distance. It is easy to test, by just applying a texture to a cube and move it to the background. It can be avoided manually, setting the Blur Scale to -100% and make it sharp again. I believe this could be an undetected bug. There also is a thread on this, showcasing the trouble. See link with no statement yet.

Maybe that is also why it renders faster when changing the scene to Bitmap ? Not because it is a Bitmap, but because there is less accuracy / sharpness !

https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=41149.0
_

This might be a bit off-topic but it could also be connected with the way Intel-chips or M-chips deal with textures.

A

[frv]

Be aware that Corona bitmaps don't load in to the C4D asset browser.  And can not be copy pasted in to a new file without relinking in the project asset inspector.

[frv]

I would love to see a recent model with some assets that renders in about the same time to find out if this is specific to a certain file or really a hardware problem.

[ASIMO]

I would love to see a recent model with some assets that renders in about the same time to find out if this is specific to a certain file or really a hardware problem.

Of course it has to do with something in the scene, but it is not a scene-problem. If it would render slow on both machines (Intel and M) then it would be a scene problem. But it renders perfectly fast and fine on the Intel chip, so why not on the M ? I would also love to see a different file we could test.

[frv]

Try this one. Simple model with only Chaos Cosmos assets and materials.
Rendered in about 12 min. 20 passes on a Mac Studio 20cores, 128 Gb, C4D 2024.1.0 and CR daily build 20 oktober 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YzHB1oXmiF_qk0jtWkM3PgPPetIEDcmS/view?usp=sharing

[ASIMO]

Try this one. Simple model with only Chaos Cosmos assets and materials.
Rendered in about 12 min. 20 passes on a Mac Studio 20cores, 128 Gb, C4D 2024.1.0 and CR daily build 20 oktober 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YzHB1oXmiF_qk0jtWkM3PgPPetIEDcmS/view?usp=sharing

Hello FRV

Thank you very much for your scene. I rendered it on both my Mac Studio M2 Ultra with 192GB and my i9 10900K iMac. Both running C4D2023 and Corona V10.

The results are exactly matching the Corona Benchmarks and Cinebench. So everything perfect with this scene and the power of the two computers. See attachments.

Mac Studio: 10:19
iMac i9: 23:38

The Mac Studio speeds up to 2.29x faster than the iMac in this scene with 100% power all way through. So we can for sure exclude thermal throttling problems.

There are two things I would like to test, as I think they could have an impact :

1. Changing the Blur-Scale of the Corona Bitmaps to -100%.

2. Changing all Corona-Bitmaps of this scene to Non-Corona-Bitmaps.

I will do the tests once I have some time.

Best – A

[davetwo]

Thanks for the testing! Watching with interest as you never know when something like this will trip one of us up.

[runx]

Mac Studio Ultra M1 128GB   / C4d 2026 Corona 11 daily oct.

Time: 11.08

[BigAl3D]

Mac Studio Ultra 128GB / c4d 2024 / corona 11 daily

Original Scene: 11.30

* copied eyerything  over in new scene : 9.32

** > put all textures in Corona Bitmap:  1.38 ( sic !!)

hope that helps

Whoa! The Corona Bitmaps made a massive difference. Care to share that scene so other can verify?

[BigAl3D]

Also ran that grass scene in the iMac Pro:  20:17 min

C4D r25, Corona 10 Hotfix 1

[prince_jr]

Mac Studio Ultra 128GB / c4d 2024 / corona 11 daily

Original Scene: 11.30

* copied eyerything  over in new scene : 9.32

** > put all textures in Corona Bitmap:  1.38 ( sic !!)

hope that helps

I can confirm your result...~1.38min > see attachment. also have a look at the rays/s total= almost 24'000'000
> rendered on mac studio m2 ultra, 24cores, 192gb

[prince_jr]

Try this one. Simple model with only Chaos Cosmos assets and materials.
Rendered in about 12 min. 20 passes on a Mac Studio 20cores, 128 Gb, C4D 2024.1.0 and CR daily build 20 oktober 2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YzHB1oXmiF_qk0jtWkM3PgPPetIEDcmS/view?usp=sharing

Hello FRV

Thank you very much for your scene. I rendered it on both my Mac Studio M2 Ultra with 192GB and my i9 10900K iMac. Both running C4D2023 and Corona V10.

The results are exactly matching the Corona Benchmarks and Cinebench. So everything perfect with this scene and the power of the two computers. See attachments.

Mac Studio: 10:19
iMac i9: 23:38

The Mac Studio speeds up to 2.29x faster than the iMac in this scene with 100% power all way through. So we can for sure exclude thermal throttling problems.

There are two things I would like to test, as I think they could have an impact :

1. Changing the Blur-Scale of the Corona Bitmaps to -100%.

2. Changing all Corona-Bitmaps of this scene to Non-Corona-Bitmaps.

I will do the tests once I have some time.

Best – A

same here...10.19mins for grass scene

[CambridgeCreative]

Finally got round to running a test render for your original scene. Total render time took 2min 40 seconds

My PC spec is: (running stock)
Intel i9 13900K
64GB DDR4 3200Mhz RAM
Windows 11
MOB TUF Gaming B660M Wifi 4
Cinema 4D 2024.0.2 running Corona Renderer 11 Daily build 6 Sept 2023

[CambridgeCreative]

Re-ran rendering having added Corona Bitmap to all texture images and time came down to 1min 53 seconds.

[ASIMO]

Hello

I tested the grass-scene again by converting / using only native C4D Bitmaps.

As you can see in the image some information regarding the Corona-Bitmap (Tiling / UV / Offsets) got lost. So the materials render different, also making the scene look darker.

Anyway it takes almost three times longer for my Mac Studio to render. Timestamp is 27:21 min !

I think depending on the file-size / amount of textures used, times go up even more. It shows the same behavior as in the house-scene.

See attachment.

Best – Asimo

[frv]

It seems bitmaps have a big influence in render times.
Surprised to see the i9 13900K (24 cores ?) being so much faster than a Mac Studio.
Interesting all of it.
M3 Macs are coming Monday but I don't think we need to get excited. I wonder sometimes even how many Mac users are still there with Coronarender.

[ASIMO]

It seems bitmaps have a big influence in render times.
Surprised to see the i9 13900K (24 cores ?) being so much faster than a Mac Studio.
Interesting all of it.
M3 Macs are coming Monday but I don't think we need to get excited. I wonder sometimes even how many Mac users are still there with Coronarender.

The i9 13900K is not faster than the Mac Studio. When using Bitmaps the Studio finishes the scene in 1:38. The i9 13900K in 2:40 !

[frv]

Ok, that's indeed something to keep in mind.
M3 Macs are coming Monday so maybe things get even faster.

I hope Chaos is able to fix the bitmap thing. I also think it's wise to handle texture maps with care if speed is important.

[BigAl3D]

The other huge issue with Corona Bitmaps is when you try and collect your scene with assets, those texture links will break. You will need to manually reconnect them. Some have had Team Render issues that point to the Corona Bitmap shader.

[Robot_Redmond]

Render time for the original scene: 8 minutes, 3 seconds.

Mac Studio M1 Max 64GB
Cinema 4D 2024.1.0
Corona Render 10 Hotfix 2

Thanks so much for all your efforts ASIMO.

[handz]

OK, I was thinking about getting new Mac, but this thread, oh my. This does not look good.

The original scene from the first post was rendered in 7:40 on my iMac 2020 with i7 40GB RAM, Big Sur.

So, it seems like M chips are useless for rendering and Mac is officially a dead platform for 3D or?  I  see most M2 Ultra results are around 9-11 mins, even if it would be 6 minutes, it would still be bad.  :-/

[frv]

Saw this review by Geekerwan of the new Apple m3.

Seems that the GPU raytracing (blender/redshift) on m3 is beating the best Nvidea laptops. Which we all thought would never happen.

I was thinking I will sooner or later go PC but after seeing Geekerwan's review I am not so sure anymore. The new Macbook m3 max is already faster by a wide margin compared to my m1 Ultra.

And just for a laugh on PC's if you switch the sound on:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyvxWeXqUGc/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[Stefan-L]

well, they seem to compare it with an ultra low end nvidia model 4060. this is the lowest available nvidia card, many times slower than a 4070,4080 or 4090.

to be honest i would not could to be the m3 any near an modern 3d pc(not gpu not cpu) with modern high end specs. same wonders had been said on m2 which didnt become true.

[frv]

I am a Mac user so I am always wondering if or not to go PC. So the 4060 Nvidia is the worst card in the Nvidea line up and the m3 as useless as well. My son though has a 3090 card in his PC and it seems to do very well.
Anyhow, we will see sooner or later how Redshift runs on a M3. Rendertilmes for me don't matter all that much, modelling, interactive rendering much more.
We should compare laptops with laptops though. A dedicated 4 or 5K € desktop PC with liquid cooling will obviously be much faster and the better choice if you render for a living.

[wsiew]

I have seen benchmarks that show that the m3 max is just as fast as an m2 ultra. If this is realistic, could it be that an m3 ultra is 2 times faster than an m2 ultra? That would be an incredible increase in speed. Wouldn't it? The question is whether these are realistic considerations on my part. I'm wondering whether I should buy a PC now (as a Mac user) or wait for the m3 ultra.
Wolfgang

[Philw]

I think the best we can predict for now is that it will have 32 cores!

The M2Max vs M2Ultra wasn't a linear 2x performance - but who knows?

I think it will be a great machine and take a fraction of the power from the wall vs a PC equivalent - which is the important factor in my mind right now from a cost of living point of view.

[fabrica]

MacPro M3 - 32GB- C4D21 - Corona 10(hotfix2)

Original Scene 7:31

(my previous MacPro M1 was 9.59)

[Philw]

R21?

That's pretty good as it will be running under Rosetta emulation...

[mat]

Corona 10 Benchmark :
Apple M2 Ultra = 11 098 587 rays/s
Apple M1 Ultra = 9 183 200 rays/s (mine with 128 gb)

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X 64-Core Processor (3.22 GHz) 128 GB = 22 645 798 rays/s

[frv]

Is a 68 core (136 threads ?) only twice as fast compared to a 24 core Mac ? Or is this not a linear thing. Will a new m3 ultra be as fast as a 68core thread ripper....

[BigAl3D]

For many years, the number of cores on the CPUs of the same speed would indeed scale that way. 8-core was twice as fast as a 4-core system. At least with C4Ds native engines. Not sure anymore with the new render engines and the new ARM chips. I miss the days when the new chips would make a big difference in speed.

Like the new iPhone. All i see them pushing is "now with Titanium!" which will look great all covered up by my Otterbox. Not sure it's a better phone than the 14, but it's got Titanium!

[frv]

Just checked AMD and they have new 7000 series threadrippers these days even at 96 cores. 10k+ euros.

Problem is though that renders don't get paid that much anymore. I get offers for less than 350€ per image. The past years I keep having this feeling that Unreal Engine is where things are going. For free and the quality has already caught up a good bit. All my asset libraries are updated and available now for Unreal.  Hardware can be basic and clients are totally happy with the results. I am actually surprised I don't see a lot of UE archviz stills all over. There must be a catch I am not seeing.

[James Vella]

I am actually surprised I don't see a lot of UE archviz stills all over. There must be a catch I am not seeing.

There's quite a lot of content I see on this Facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/UnrealArchviz

[runx]

Anyway, constructing/building  the model in CAD/3D is the main part, what is timeconsuming!
In serious Arch VIZ this takes days or even weeks on larger projects. not to mention the communication with architects/developers.
Preparing for render in whatever engine is the fun part.
So, Threadripper or M3, 40 min or 20, noisy or silent -
How can this be done for 350.- ??
( when you haver to make a living out of that?

[runx]

Btw, the new RC1 Release is much slower on Asimos Testscene
( with Corona Bitmaps)
What was 1.38 is now 3.11 min
In a M1 Ultra / 128 / c4d 2024
How is that ??????

[frv]

Thanks James,
indeed impressive what is done with Unreal. Not sure though that Unreal already has a time efficient workflow. I see a lot of work that took weeks, months. My projects need to be finished in a day or two.
But it's clear Unreal has a place now in Archviz and it's only getting better.

[frv]

Latest build 11 RC1
C4D 24.1.0
OSX Mac Ultra 128 Gb.
11.15 slightly faster than with previous builds at 11.36.

[James Vella]

Thanks James,
indeed impressive what is done with Unreal. Not sure though that Unreal already has a time efficient workflow. I see a lot of work that took weeks, months. My projects need to be finished in a day or two.
But it's clear Unreal has a place now in Archviz and it's only getting better.

Not to hijack the thread but Yep, timeframe is always the thing with Archviz, especially when you have so many cooks in the kitchen changing the recipe daily :D

Datasmith was made to crunch that timeframe I suppose, same with Chaos Vantage. I suppose once you get your head around the workflow just like any software you find your ways to improve input/output speed. Unreal is always sitting on my desktop waiting for me to double click... but years go by and it just collects more dust while I wonder if ill ever use it :D I suppose it comes down to your needs, if you do lots of animation then I would say its probably worth learning.

[ASIMO]

Hello

I also tested the new built. The improvement is only seconds. From 10:52 to 10:36. So nothing significant.

The same scene using Corona-Bitmaps renders in about 2 min with the latest official hot-fix – so more than 5 times faster !

Something is still fundamentally wrong with native bitmaps (textures) and I really have to start questioning my whole setup.

With the current downgrade I can no longer work on a professional level using CoronaRender on new Mac Computers.

Is there anything in development the Chaos group might want to share ?

Thanks

[handz]

Crazy!  I lost my hope in future with Mac as well because of this.

BTW - what does "corona bitmap" means here? That you put textures under Corona Bitmap tags? Not directly into diffusion / Texture ?

[CambridgeCreative]

Hi Handz,

Regarding Corona Bitmap, for each texture map you want to use within a material, your workflow would be:
e.g.
texture>plugins>corona>bitmap - then select the texture map you want to use
or
Glossiness>plugins>corona>bitmap - then select the texture map you want to use

[ASIMO]

Hi Handz,

Regarding Corona Bitmap, for each texture map you want to use within a material, your workflow would be:
e.g.
texture>plugins>corona>bitmap - then select the texture map you want to use
or
Glossiness>plugins>corona>bitmap - then select the texture map you want to use

Exactly. This works in increases render-times dramatically on ARM-Chipsets ! But one has to do this for hundreds of models and textures that use non-corona bitmaps ...

[frv]

Not sure if that's right about the Corona bitmaps. Does the converter does not do this automatically. I have actually never set a texture (bitmap) like that. I just drag and drop textures from a folder into a CRmaterial. You can even drag and drop maps from for instance diffuse to glossiness. You can even drag and drop in to several selected materials at once.

[CambridgeCreative]

I don't know about when converting a material that it adds the Corona Bitmap for you, but when you create a new material, you do need to add the Corona Bitmap plugin for each channel you want to add a texture to. Corona will accept textures without the Corona Bitmap, but it won't read the texture quite the same and the benefits of the plugin won't be seen either. This has been talked about in other posts and requests for this to become an automatic feature when creating new corona materials.

[frv]

Interesting. I do wonder what the difference is to make up for the huge hassle to set maps that cumbersome way. I have never done that and have also never seen any difference. Although I don't care much for render speed if its a minor difference.

[CambridgeCreative]

You might find using the Node Material Editor a quicker way of setting up materials with Corona Bitmap. If you create a physical material and then create a Corona Bitmap shader and then copy that enough times for the number of textures you want to use. Then, connect the output node of each bitmap to the input node and then go into each Bitmap and select the texture you want for each one. Attached is a quick screenshot of what I mean above.

The added benefit of this is if you want to use the same texture file more than once in a material and you can connect one output to multiple inputs.

[frv]

Thanks CambridgeCreativ
The node editor is handy at times and I do use it. Mostly to use a single map for several materials. Still, I have no idea why I should worry about wether it is a CR bitmap or just a dragged a dropped map from the finder.

The asset browser does not accept CR bitmaps btw. Although I am no longer using the asset browser because of the many problems with CR assets and their materials.

[jojorender]

Although I am no longer using the asset browser because of the many problems with CR assets and their materials.

hey frv, what are you using instead of the asset browser? Don't know of any alternatives...

CR team,
I find it strange that only some cor bitmap shader problems get fixed and the rest ignored again...
Lost all hope for a real fix. Corona was fun while it lasted.

Peace!

[Stefan-L]

i use the asset browser all time for all, works actually well for us .

the only thing is i not store the textures inside the browser database, but keep texture referenced as external files on disc/server. this is more reliable and also faster.

[frv]

The asset browser work great but I have to many assets that are not working properly. Especially with layered and CR bitmaps.
I have set up files with assets that belong together and just copy paste them in my working files.
Another thing with the asset browser is that it duplicates all CR materials. For instance, many different maxtree assets can share the same 2 or 3 materials but when placed with the asset browser all assets have their own materials.

[BigAl3D]

I wanted to throw this into the fire if I may. We acquired a Mac Studio M2 Max with 64 GG RAM and a 500 GB drive. This wasn't mean to really be a workstation, but to control our server and be an occasional workstation. Anyway, a decently powered system nonetheless. I have a simple scene with three products (a deodorant stick, a tube and a small spray) set up in Corona. Simple materials and graphic for the labels. Renders look amazing as usual. A couple of lights and one EXR in the Corona Sky object. Just three object with nothing else. I rendered an image at 4k, 15 passes and Intel Denoise. It will be delivered in a video at HD. I don't think I can show the image here though, yet.

This one frame took 3 min. 23 sec. on my 2017 iMac Pro with 18 cores. Not too bad. I will have 3 to 5 seconds to render. So I rendered this same frame on the M2 Max. expecting at least a 30% time reduction. It rendered in 3 min. and 40 sec.! What in the hell is that about? I was expecting 3 min., maybe 2 min. 30 sec. on this new box, based on my other testing.

I rendered the C4D Grapes scene I like to do for simple CPU speed and got 2 min. 37 sec. for the M2 Max. The same iMac Pro got 3 min. 19 sec.

Looks like Corona doe not take advantage of the new chips, as others have been complaining about. So disappointing. I'm rendering at 2017 speeds.

I mean the new features are great and all, but the real selling point is fast rendering. Either Chaos isn't supporting the Mac fully, or Apple isn't providing the dev support to Chaos. It's a mystery.

[Philw]

@BigAl3D Interested if its the C4D Bitmap vs Corona Bitmap factor?

[frv]

My work is about 80% design and modeling in Vectorworks and C4D, photoshop, lightroom. Maybe 20% rendering.  I do see a huge diffrence with the newer Apple M systems. I went from a late 2015 4core intel mac with 32Gb Ram to a 20 core Mac Studio Ultra M1 128Gb ram. The MacStudio is a fantastic machine but for purely rendering only about as much faster as the increase in cores indicate.

Its my experience that what matters most is the number of cores or threads and enough RAM. Newer computers have better and faster memory(management). But that shows almost only in parcing the scene before render. I wouldn't be surprised if this applies to PC as well for CPU rendering.

[BigAl3D]

@PhilW That's a great suggestion. Turns out the three materials did use C4D Bitmaps. I swapped them with Corona Bitmaps and it rendered :05 sec. slower, so that's nice. There are also Normal maps, but they already use Corona's Normal Map nodes.

@frv Yes, I too have always known that C4D would reliable scale depending on the cores. This iMac Pro has 18 and I just saw my M2 Max has 12 cores (8 performance and 4 efficiency). I would fully expect the new tech in these chips would easily make up the difference in cores, if not surpass it.

As I mention earlier, this Mac Studio wasn't spec-ed out specifically for this purpose, but I expected more. I made a graphic showing my four test just for giggles. Not sure if that info sheds any light on this issue. Since the C4D Grapes test shows a modest 21% speed increase, seems like this is a Corona-related issue. I use After Effects every day and the few jobs I've done on this Mac Studio have blown me away with how smooth, responsive and fast AE was. I did a bunch of tracking and used the new Rotobrush 3.o and it crushed it. Sigh.

[Philw]

This is why I’m holding out for an m3 ultra studio. Should have 32 cores….  Plus raytracing hardware on the GPU for my Redshift life.

[BigAl3D]

Thanks for that info Phil. So how would that new hardware impact Corona, since you know, you're here in the Corona forums?

[Philw]

Just sheer number of cores on the cpu - so best of both worlds… in theory, of course!

[BigAl3D]

I really thought these integrated chips would be faster simply because since everything is right on the same chip. Wonder if there is any un-locked power in these chips that just need a key to open them up.

[Philw]

I honestly would say those results aren't bad - a 12 core pretty much head to head with an 18 core machine does show some modern gains as clock speeds aren't massively different on the new stuff.

[frv]

For me though pure render speed is not much of a thing. Rendering iterations at low res is much more. I really like the Corona lister for switching off displacements and scatters. I use it all the time. In my workflow it has cut my time spend rendering iterations by a lot.
It would even be better if you could switch displacement and scatters off by a button in the VFB. Maybe a quick preview button at a lower res as well switching everything off on the fly.  The lister works but it's another window to deal with.

[handz]

So sad to see that nothing is still solved, seems like Corona does not care about Mac users at all. I really do not want to migrate to PC after 12 years... can anyone let us know, there is something being done about this issue? M chips are super fast for anything from 2d graphics to video editing,  seems bit weird they would be THAT bad for rendering. Worse than 4+ years old Intels...

[davetwo]

So sad to see that nothing is still solved, seems like Corona does not care about Mac users at all. I really do not want to migrate to PC after 12 years... can anyone let us know, there is something being done about this issue? M chips are super fast for anything from 2d graphics to video editing,  seems bit weird they would be THAT bad for rendering. Worse than 4+ years old Intels...

Look - I've worked professionally on macs for over 25 years - and it would be handy to do everything on one machine.

But you need to face the facts and use the right tool for the job - and for anyone who renders a lot with either GPU or CPU engines, that is a PC. And it has been for at least a decade.

Being disappointed with Corona will make zero difference to this.

[maru]

Hi, my message from last year is still valid :)

What we need is simple:
- a sample scene (archived with all textures and other assets)
- the render time you are getting
- your exact hardware
- your version of Corona and C4D
- if you wish, you can also include a comparison with other hardware
- any other relevant information such as render stats are welcome, for more information on how to correctly prepare reports, see: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/articles/4648898278545

We need this as a support ticket sent here: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

[ASIMO]

Hi, my message from last year is still valid :)

What we need is simple:
- a sample scene (archived with all textures and other assets)
- the render time you are getting
- your exact hardware
- your version of Corona and C4D
- if you wish, you can also include a comparison with other hardware
- any other relevant information such as render stats are welcome, for more information on how to correctly prepare reports, see: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/articles/4648898278545

We need this as a support ticket sent here: https://support.chaos.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Dear Maru

I am sorry. But your message from last year seems not valid.

I opened this thread with a sample scene for everyone to download, to test and post results.

A lot of results and observations have already been posted, clearly pointing out the issue. All documented and discussed by kind users on over 7 pages of this thread.

Besides that. I got in contact with CHAOS and I precisely followed all instructions to hand in a proper scene and opened a Support Ticket on Oct. 23rd 2023.

Benjamin Rosas from CHAOS kindly replied and stated, that you are already investigating on this. Please see ID #166297
_

For my part this issue took over 30 hours of personal investigations and tests. I am still suffering from the speed-issues as CoronaRender is not working properly with Apple M Systems.

The only way is to workaround the Bitmap issue for each project and re-organizing most of my materials and scenes.

Besides paying for CoronaRender (with a 500% slowdown) I also have to pay for all my additional investigations. It is time, (render-time) and energy I loose in my professional business.

So it would be very welcome and encouraging to at least have an official statement what exactly causes this issue and if there is a strategy on how to solve it ?

Maybe it can not be solved ? Fair enough. At least we can decide, if working on Mac makes sense in the future together with CHAOS.

I like to help. But it is your very job to provide a product that properly works with systems, you are selling it for.

Best – ASIMO

[maru]

Hi ASIMO, please do not take my message personally. You have definitely provided us with enough information and we appreciate it! We have your sample scene tested and properly reported for our dev team. Unfortunately, at this point we don't have any new findings (or at least nothing that we could share with you, like a definite cause or solution), so the best thing other users can do is provide us with additional scenes, their hardware specification, and the results they are getting.

[ASIMO]

Dear Maru

Thank you for your response and your statement. I can set up and provide an additional and more simple scene. Maybe this helps to figure out things more easily.

I will post it soon.

Thank you for your efforts !

ASIMO

[Beck]

Hello

Both testrenders from another M2 user:
C4D  R25.117
Corona 11 (Build 29.11.23)

[frv]

20 minutes seems a bit off since an m1 renders it in 12.

[Beck]

20 minutes seems a bit off since an m1 renders it in 12.

But a M1 Ultra (two M1) not a M2 Max (one M2), so this should be what is to be expected i think.
M2 Ultra should be 10:10min then...
Correct me if i am wrong.

edit: (test from asimo)

I rendered it on both my Mac Studio M2 Ultra...

Mac Studio: 10:19

[frv]

you're right.