Messages

271

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-22, 00:10:08 »

This is a great comparison, and when I say great I mean not for the vray.  Corona has a more efficient and better GI system.  It gets great time in this, this is the type of test corona will excel at more.  But remember we are comparing corona CPU to vray GPU, two totally different renderers. Now just imagine what the time would be if it was Corona GPU.

1st image) First is Vray straight comparison, you had two options checked that slow down final render and are only good for fast preview for interactive. - 4min32sec

2nd image) This is with those incorrect settings turned off - 4min6sec

3rd image) this is with just a little 2 second tweak - 3min29sec

1 GTX Titan X, now imagine just adding one more card.

If anyone has a larger more detailed scene to try that would be great to do.

272

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-21, 20:19:01 »

Fobus, thanks for the comparisons, can you post the tea pots scene, I have same processor as you, but I have a Titan X which is much faster than a 580. I'll run it and post my times for comparison.

273

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-21, 02:00:35 »

We are all in search of the best overall rendering software, why not try to make Corona as good as it can possibly be?

This is actually what we are trying to do, but hey, I am programming renderers only for 6 years, and those green-black marketing slides from hardware companies have to be at least a bit correct, right?

Ondra, why are you getting defensive? You are taking this the wrong way, we think your brilliant programmer for what you have done with corona. Why do you keep bringing up marketing slides or papers on the subject to dissuade us when we are telling you with real world tests the gpu is much faster for interactive setting up a scene to final rendering.  So far every scene I have worked on testing with cpu and gpu, there is no question that gpu is X times faster.  What will happen to this great renderer you created when next year Pasal comes out and all the other renderers have full GPU support for all features.  No matter how great corona is, people will move on if the render time goes from 4hrs, to just a few minutes.  and not even the fact of cost, gpus are cheap compared to the optional cpus.

Here what is great about GPU cost.

1 Titan X is X times faster than the best CPU.  Now for just $999 more you can add another Titan X reducing render times by half again.  And we all know most systems will house 4 GPUs.  And with pci risers you can put up to 8x GPUs.

compare that to the cost of one system that can barley compete with one Titan X. then multiply the cost of each new complete system you have to buy.

274

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-19, 21:05:56 »

I think you've done a great job with Corona Ondra, I am not trying to take anything away from you, but to look at now and the future of Gpu vs Cpu. I cannot see not implementing Gpu like everyone else.  What will Cpu's be like in 2016, maybe 10% increase in speed if we are lucky.  The Pascal video card in 2016 is suppose to be 10 TIMES faster than Titan X.

I don't mean to sound like a meany, but do you really think all this has passed Ondra by? I mean, I assume he has a lot more knowledge about the under-the-hood specifics of render engines than any of us, and he's said he's constantly observing changes in the GPU industry (so it's not a blanket "no"), and if there are engines out there that offer massive speed increases - as you seem to suggest there are - then why write a new render engine? Apparantly the market is already providing you with a render engine, no? If VRay RT is 10x faster than the CPU version (and I love Corona, but it's obviously not 10x faster than VRay generally) then... don't you already have your wish granted?

Here is the answer to your question, Corona is brand new, built from the ground up with the latest and greatest.  Look at the speed and quiality of it's GI engine, plus it's simplicity, shader system, even though it takes longer to clean final render it's still very fast for what it is.  Imagine all of that running on the power of GPU or assisted on the GPU.  I believe Ondra has built a fantastic CPU renderer, and would love to see it be better. That's all...... and why not.

275

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-19, 14:23:26 »

I've seen you post this before Ondra when this topic arises, but what is this suppose to prove.  In the real world results cpu embree cannot hold a candle to the speed of gpu.

Xeon E5-2699 v3 Octadeca-core (18 Core) $4,764.19 = around 775 GigaFLOPS

Nvidia GTX TITAN X $999 = over 7 TeraFLOPS

Real world test Scene I've tried. Titan X vs 3930K Overclocked

Vray CPU 11min 32sec - Without DOF

Vray GPU 1min25sec - With DOF

Octane full Pathtracing on interior scene 7min.

we can try real world tests, and not just papers.

I think you've done a great job with Corona Ondra, I am not trying to take anything away from you, but to look at now and the future of Gpu vs Cpu. I cannot see not implementing Gpu like everyone else.  What will Cpu's be like in 2016, maybe 10% increase in speed if we are lucky.  The Pascal video card in 2016 is suppose to be 10 TIMES faster than Titan X.

276

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-19, 02:00:02 »

Why not both, there a growing company.

277

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-18, 17:47:06 »

We dont need faster, we need more flexible/easier to develop for ;)

Tell that to people who are sick of waiting for renders, and sick of paying tons to renderfarms.

278

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-18, 17:45:38 »

Not sure of the heat issues you are having, sounds like a bad hardware setup. Gpu Rendering has come a long way, I know some complain that gpu rendering doesn't support all features, well neither did cpu rendering when it first came out. I remember using some of the first Corona betas, they where missing quite a lot.  Gpu rendering is no longer in it's infancy, we can work on full production with GPU now.  Even some GPU renderers like Moskito claim to support all features of Max, including all shaders. I have not used that one, but using Octane + Vray RT I can tell you I am not running into any issues on large scenes.  There is a reason why all rendering engines are turning to GPU, and I would hate to see a great GPU renderer like Corona miss it's chance.  CPU's are gaining no ground it terms of performance, there is a tiny increase each year for tons of money.  Now that GPU's have huge amounts of ram and are increasing it speed by incredible rates there is no competition in terms of which platform is really moving forward.  I have tested GPU renderers vs Coronas CPU rendering, Corona does impress in speed for how fast it is on CPU, but doesn't hold a candle to GPU. I see some saying I hope they never make it for GPU, I cannot see any logic in that thinking, why not? why not just to have the option?

279

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-18, 07:54:31 »

As far as i know Corona will never be GPU based.

Greetz

Lucutus

I read about it off there own blog, a collaboration between corona and AMD.  I hope they are creating a GPU version, it will be years before we have a good increase in CPU power. GPU increases year over year, and is already way faster than CPU and cheaper.

280

[Max] General Discussion / Corona GPU

« on: 2015-06-18, 06:47:48 »

You guys are doing some amazing stuff with Corona. The speed is really incredible.  I am really looking forward to seeing a GPU version.  With GPU's getting so fast now and the capability of having multiple and easy and cheap upgrades, it truly will be a great package.  Right now I'm using Vray RT on one Titan X, and the interactivity and render speed is incredible.  Corona already has such great speed I would love to see it's capability on GPU.  I read back some time that Corona has partnered with AMD for FireRender.  What is the news on this?  It's especially interesting since the Just released there Fury X2 GPU.

281

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Opacity performance - LOW!

« on: 2015-06-11, 18:33:50 »

Vray has the new Clip Map Opacity to render really fast! Maybe corona can come up with something like that.

282

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Coronapattern like vraypattern

« on: 2014-05-13, 05:08:25 »

I think this would be an absolutely huge addition to corona, especially for grass, rocks sand.... etc. doesn't seem like it would be too much to program either, since it's very simple plugin but very powerful.  What do you think?

283

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Alpha4 Benchmark scene

« on: 2014-03-04, 20:09:57 »

I have 3930k also mine is clocked at 4.25ghz, they are that fast, they are six cores. It will easily keep up or beat a 8 core xeon.  Xeon are not that fast,they only show there worth when you have 10 - 12 core xeon in 2x configurations, but they cost a fortune. The 4930k is the best processor for the price.

284

News / Re: Corona presentation at 3ds london

« on: 2014-03-03, 00:14:51 »

Is v6 going to have irradiance map GI back in for biased rendering?

285

[Max] I need help! / Re: Can we have Alpha4 CPU benchmark scene for 3dsmax?

« on: 2014-02-16, 22:18:48 »

Thanks guys for the info, I used the performance debugging, and got quite a lot better quality. I guess for animation I'm still going to have to wait for IR to be put back into corona.