First time I heard that GPU rendering is the future was around 13 years ago, still waiting ... Last year we give it a try and tested one of our production scenes on rtx 3090, it didn't even load the scene. GPU rendering is fine when you do something simple, if you have heavy linear workflow with a lot of exr textures with higher resolution you just don't have a chance with gpu.
You need Quadro cards when it comes to heavy scenes with big textures/heavy geometry because the need of more VRAM. Gaming cards doesn’t cut it when doing bigger/proffesional work.
This is perfect, thanks for helping me, you're the best in this area, I'm still studying, I'll upload a video today, just chilling about exercise, I love you
Thanks for this. Switched to D5. Have a look at the new render quality update. I'm testing out unreal now and pretty blown away by the pathtracing quality and rendering times. Went back to test vray gpu today and I feel like throwing my pc out the window with how slow it feels in IPR
I think the most important factor you didn't mention is that GPU rendering is limited to the ram of the videocard(s). It is incapable of using physical ram. Which poses severe limits. If I'm wrong, or if this has changed with vray 6, please correct me.
It's scaled in order of magnitudes with the latest version of V-Ray and a RTX 3090 or 4090 series card. They've done a wonderful job optimizing the VRAM in heavy scenes. I completely switched over to GPU rendering because the render times can trade blows with a 3970X (not making that up) in a lot of render tests that I've done on my rig. If you're able to setup an NVLINK as well, the cost per performance ratio compared to shelling out for a 64 core threadripper is such a bargain. I'd highly recommend it. With that said, the setup she has and the GPU cards she's using won't be able to handle heavy scenese with lots of geometry, vraydisplacementmods, or high resolution textures. So it's a bad analysis honestly and will give you mixed results. As I said before, at the bare minimum, you need an RTX card with 24 GB minimum in order to achieve the results I'm talking about otherwise you'll be plagued with errors and random rendering disconnects.
Hey aga, again a amazing and very informative video. Thanks😊. Can you make a video on Unreal engine 5 based on ARCHviz's perspective? I really want hear your thoughts on it!
Since Vray 3 - VrayGPU is my main renderer for animations. Now testing Chaos Vantage, while it has its limitations its overall great, especially LiveLink mode Pozdrawiam
Yes, VrayGPU and Vantage compliment each other nicely. We use Vantage for quick playblasts and fast movement iteration often and proceed to render the final sequence in high quality on GPU.
Something worth keeping in mind - GPUs are efficient when it comes to memory usage. You can safely render a scene that would take up to, say, 48GB of RAM in CPU mode on a 12GB video card in VrayGPU. It's doable.
@@F10F11hm I have used GPU since 3.6 and full time after 4.0. That's nonsense, I've never ran into the measly 32GB system ram limit I have for work but its fairly common to run into the then 11gb Vram of the 1080ti and 2080ti gpus I have used before. Most at fault were models with Tiff textures and those that are just really high res. I still use GPU because of the speed and I wont change it unless its needed specifically for a specific project.
depending on your GPU (and the typical scenes you work on) you can use the on-demand mip map method for loading textures. It makes your vram usage more efficient for a little penalty in speed.
Real GPU is Unreal Engine. The quality you can render in 15 minutes in Vray you have as live stream in Unreal 5.1. I test now UE displayed on 85 inches TV and it looks breathtaking. GPU is RTX3060 Ti
Honestly, your image is full of noise, did you know what you are doing? Also, try Corona Renderer, it can render scenes with Zero noise in < 8 minutes on my AMD Ryzen 9 3900X..
I guess the results are heavily dependent on your hardware. In my test, I was able to render almost exactly the same setting image using my rtx 4090 in under 7 mins, but it took I9-13900K overclocked 1h30mins.
Cpu rendering is pretty outdated for my personal use. I do animation mainly and no arch viz. So cpu rendering feels like back in the early 2000's When i compare vray to redshift, octane or even unreal engine, vray is the worst solution because i get even almost same imagery in ue5 and thats rendering in a fragment of the time. So in conclusion vray is probably an awesome choice for arch viz artists. But for Animation it is simply not suitable. Cheers!
I'm sorry, but this video lacks information, especially concerning VRAM. If you have only 8GB of VRAM, you would run out of memory quite qickly when having larger textures or displacement or just many objects and materials in your scene. it's also not a good comparison. you should consider the price performance ratio: you should compare a top of the line mainstream workstation CPU with a GPU at the same price level. So maybe a Ryzen 9 7950X (599€) vs a desktop 3070 Ti (599€). THAT would be a fair comparison. And then it would become claer, that considering the lack of features and quality with GPU rendering, that CPU rendering is still the way to go with v-ray.
Vray is a GPU bound software just as corona is to CPU ( meaning, it used the full potential of the GPU) but I like how Vray make it possible to used both the CPU and GPU together. Anyway if u planing to upgrade your GPU, take in consideration the amount of VRAM that you will used up in a render scene and amount of cores that it carries. E.g : the 3070 is half of the chip die that they used for the 3090. Almost similar to the 4070 (when it come out in the future) and the 4090 and upgrade your CPU. Otherwise your cpu will become bottle neck to the GPU when you upgrade your Gpu to a 3090 or even a 4090. P.S: I now getting to seeing the video.
The bets bang for the buck currently is the RTX 3090. You can nvlink two of them and get 48GB of VRAM total which is important for bigger, high quality scenes.
I'm not getting the lack of translucency argument, I'm afraid? Vray GPU supports RandomWalk SSS in VrayMtl, even the Volumetric mode when it comes to translucency. You'll get fantastic looking vegetation, don't worry. As for the direct comparison between the two - as you've mentioned, CPU and GPU versions of Vray are essentially two different engines, one shouldn't switch between them at all, but since VrayGPU is a fully production-ready renderer, it's best to build a scene with it in mind. I guarantee that you'll tweak the fabrics and other shaders to your heart's content. Some of the limitations when compared to the CPU are easy to circumvent, I'd say that at this point, most of them are hardly an issue. The switch is worth it. Once you go animation-heavy, you'll never want to get back to the CPU ways, unless we're talking about massive projects when RAM becomes an issue. Vray 5 and 6 brought huge compatibility improvements when it comes to Phoenix sims, too. On a side note, we can calculate simulations in Max while running previews on GPU in IPR mode simultaneously, it's fantastic.
Thank you for your feedback, it's interesting. I mentioned in the video that to make an honest comparison, the scene will need to be done in V-Ray GPU from scratch but on the other hand it is hard to see the differences;) Definitely most things can be fixed ;)
I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. While V-Ray has been improving by an acceptable rate lately, having a seamless switch between the two engines has always been the market's need as I can remember. And I do believe that it is definitely possible to make that come true. Currently it is extremely hard for a user to figure out what to change in the scene to get the same results as when they render with CPU.
On top of that, using CPU & GPU together, which is a great use of resources when most PCs already have both, is very important. Currently, using them together is not possible in most projects because of the lack of a seamless transition between GPU and CPU on the same scene.
@@MatteBlob It is a good point that the differences between engines make it somewhat problematic to make a switch mid-project. I stated that it's best to make a decision and stick to either GPU or CPU for this very reason. Or - should RAM become an issue - render certain elements separately (to take advantage of GPU's speed or CPU's versatility) and then composite them in post.
@@F10F11hm Sure, I agree that if you stick with one from the beginning you won't face as many issues or at least realize them. However, I'm still impatiently waiting for a V-Ray GPU version that addresses most of these problems which tend to mostly appear in architectural visualization.
GPU rendering for still images has been so inferior to CPU rendering that it’s not fit for professional use. I never show GPU or hybrid renders to clients, but I often use them for quick in-house studies. This video comparison demonstrates this. If this had changed with recent release please advise.
!!!!PLEASE HELP!!!! I HAVE AMD RYZEN 9 7950X PROCESSOR AND RTX 3060 GPU. MY PROBLEM IS THAT MY GPU TAKES 40 MINS TO RENDER A SINGLE FRAME WITH VRAY WHEREAS MY CPU TAKES ONLY 30 MINS! I Want to render Animations using vray gpu but if it takes 40 mins for a single frame to render, how is it possible to render a whole Animation??!!!! !!!!PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT'S DONE!!!!
Hi mam, mam I am using AMD Ryzeen 5000 series laptop mam and graphics card Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 mam, Ram 8gb mam, I am using 3dsmax v ray 6 mam rendering process very slow mam how set rendering setup fast mam pls tell me mam
2 hours for a single image render? It's crazy...My CPU is only i5-8600 and 16GB RAM yet it only took me 3mins to render 1 near decent quality view...u might want to optimize the settings further
UE5 does much better (or not worst, at least) renders and higher resolution in seconds (and it’s free) with movie render queue and a good gpu. even Vray 6 gpu look so old compared to ue5. Unless chaos come up with better rendering package in future i really doubt that I will use it anymore…it’s just too long. and I’m not even talking about animation…i will never make an animation on Vray/corona anymore after I switched to unreal… am I the only one?
what you write is interesting and crossed my mind as well but. Problemo. One needs to learn a totally new software that being Unreal Engine. If people have huge library already set up with one engine like vray in my case, some assets have 50 udim-s. 50 x 4 texture and that is only one asset..... there is also the problem of other systems like rigs that may not be compatible, cloth simulations, hair systems like xgen...... If there is something I hate is busywork. I don't think it's always possible to just jump ship and use a new program.
@@referencetom1276 cloth simulation are compatible you can export it as Alembic file and import the .abc in the engine as geometry cache, and about the material library you have access to the whole quixel megascan library and its material system which is a huge gain compared to vray/corona workflow. For your huge asset you have tons of ways to import it in the engine and add some user interactions to it which is huge gain too. I also have a huge material library in vray but you can import it very easy with datasmith
switched to D5. Have a look at the new render quality update. I'm testing out unreal now and pretty blown away by the pathtracing quality and rendering times. Went back to test vray gpu today and I feel like throwing my pc out the window with how slow it feels in IPR
The sky is the limit. With the DLSS 3.0 technology in the new generation of Nvidia (that generates frames using AI) there is no limit of what we can achieve in the world of Archviz. Rendering animation should be easiest and faster, as the graphic card only has to generate the half of the frames, and the DLSS system will do the rest. I can`t believe that the videogames industry is going faster that rendering engines for 3D visualization.
they're working on "out of core" approach to address RAM limitation issue with GPU rendering. Other renderers have this feature already. It uses system RAM to store assets that are not being used while rendering and other things - like streaming tech. Nvidia killed NVlink which can pool vram from 2 different cards, but loss the performance of the other card. Its easier to build GPU rendering farm than cpu, in getting better performance per dollar-wise. For very large scenes, the top Vram on pro cards are 48 GB, and there's 80 GB. CPU still cannot match the performance of GPU, esp now that the improvements are doubled every new architecture. The price for the upcoming Threadripper 96-core is about $10K, from what I've read, which is probably same performance as an RTX 3090 - $1200, just a guess on comparison. I tried the Threadripper 64-core version which is still 30-35% slower than RTX 3090. And now the RTX 4090 is double the performance of RTX 3090. So you do the math, and GPU rendering is way cheaper and faster than CPU. The limitations of GPU rendering, are acceptable on most 3D projects. The CPU and GPU hybrid approach is worthless, the way its being used. its not a complete hybrid approach. Since the 2 cannot come up with exact same pixels, 100%, it cannot blend the results together or there will be many artifacts. The hybrid approach is only for the loading of assets, and out of core feature. Thre real hybrid approach is being developed by Renderman XPU, they managed to come up with same pixel results either GPU or CPU on their renderer. The issue is heat, since both main hardware are being used, lots of power is needed and therefore generate lots of heat - not good for most systems even with AC cold room servers. What were' waiting for, to increase performance, is the GPU MCM design from both Nvidia and AMD. Multi Chip design will increase the speed and performance of GPU, to 4X every new architecture. its the natural transition from a one big chip to multi module/chip design. in 2 more yrs, Nvidia MCM, will be on paper, will be 4x RTX 3090 or 2x RTX 4090 in one single MCM design/card - but keeping my fingers crossed.
also here, its not really a fair comparison cuz the laptop is kinda too weak cuz firstly its running a mobile gpu which is quite slower than its full sized desktop bro and the choice of gpu is also not cost efficient, I'd go with a6000 or something cuz my gpu makes money for me and it renders faster than cpu so I make money faster and thus I make more money
I have problem which when i turn to vray 6 GPU cuda rendering, somehow loading map fail then i got complely black photo, no problem when i do CPU, can you help me , thanks a lot
i dont see that nvidia studio driver supports vray.. maybe because i am using rhino?. i see that d5 is supported. for sure i have latest drivers and rtx 4090
Thanks a lot. It has been very helpful. The difference between rendering with a ryzen7 2700x, to doing it with an rtx 3060Ti is very noticeable. Although if it is not annoying, I would like to ask if you consider that 32Gb of RAM is going to fall short in the future.
why exactly v-ray? Yes, it's good render but for GPU will be better to use some "native" GPU render, no? Like redshift, octane.. All of them have almost similar settings and need about 1 or 2 week for understands principles of work for each. For ex octane is not looking so "cool and modern" like v-ray in 3ds max. But it's really fast engine with all features "in box". And it costs cheaper:)
Im planning to buy a new pc I will pick the rtx 3070, but im not sure about the CPU, does it will make that much of a difference in between like i3 12100 or i5 12600k at vray redering times?
Good afternoon I am going to buy a pc with an "i7-13700KF" processor and an "RTX 4070" graphics card, but I have about 200 extra dollars. What do you recommend I buy an "i9-13900KF" or an "RTX 4070 Ti"?
Correct me if i am wrong but you havent talked about an important part too : Nvidia ai denoising. To be activated in the "denoiser" render elements. Divide render times drastically (like x10)
@@L3nny666 Fair point if i had been opposing them. But it was more about mentionning an important option for rendering in vray. Either you use gpu or cpu, many people doesnt know the "vray denoiser" render element, and moreover in that element, the option to use "nvidia ai denoising" instead of the default vray denoiser.
@@L3nny666 Not a request, just an (important) addition to that rendering topic. I am sorry if i have offended you in any way with a simple comment about a feature not explained in that good video about RENDERING with NVIDIA GPU. i mean "rendering" >>> "nividia", >>> nvidia denoising feels part of the topic to me. I feel it was an ok information about the topic lol.
@@guitop well first of all i'm not offended, i don't know why you would suggest this as my comments were calm and collected and not insulting. second you said you shall be corrected if you're wrong which i did. i mean you are right, denoising helps reduce render times, but that's irrelevant for comparison if it works for CPU rendering as well. the compaired times would still stand in the same ratio to each other. you are right, but it's off-topic and wouldn't have contributed to the video. how am i offended for pointing that out?
Previously, I was searching a lot and tired of searching to solve the GPU problem until I found this beautiful clip for you, and I enjoyed the render for this feature
nice, but vray gpu still looks so different in some places...the cpu rendering just looks better. and you should get a Ryzen 9 7950x instead of an i9 7960X
@@bless_ed3881 Right! GPU rendering is not good quality. When I use denoise in Vray5, the objects behind the glass are horrible. Many effects are missing. It constantly writes errors with memory, objects and much more. D5, Lumion, UE5 are better for GPU rendering, but no VRAY...I bought the RTX 3090 for GPU rendering in VRAY5 and I regret not buying a powerful CPU
@@bless_ed3881 Thanks for advice. I'll probably try it. I'm used to VRAY, I've been using VRAY for a long time and I was attracted by the speed of GPU rendering and I didn't think. It's true that VRAY is starting to screw me up a bit. It's a good render, but the creators are a few steps behind
I have an rtx 3070 and when I render with the GPU (with the card) the render never loads, I always get Error 700 while intializing context for device NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070! Device will not be used for rendering! I do not know what to do.
hello, I have one question about corona renderer elements. in VRAY we have ( VRayMtlSelect ) element , does corona renderer have same of this element ?? what's name ?? thanks .
@@ArchVizArtist I have already watched the video, but didn't explained , I just need which element in corona are same ( VRayMtlSelect ) this element in VRAY. Thanks .
First time I heard that GPU rendering is the future was around 13 years ago, still waiting ... Last year we give it a try and tested one of our production scenes on rtx 3090, it didn't even load the scene. GPU rendering is fine when you do something simple, if you have heavy linear workflow with a lot of exr textures with higher resolution you just don't have a chance with gpu.
Por eso la ram también es importante para el modelo 3D
You need Quadro cards when it comes to heavy scenes with big textures/heavy geometry because the need of more VRAM. Gaming cards doesn’t cut it when doing bigger/proffesional work.
This is perfect, thanks for helping me, you're the best in this area, I'm still studying, I'll upload a video today, just chilling about exercise, I love you
You're welcome! Glad it helped you :)
Thanks for this. Switched to D5. Have a look at the new render quality update. I'm testing out unreal now and pretty blown away by the pathtracing quality and rendering times. Went back to test vray gpu today and I feel like throwing my pc out the window with how slow it feels in IPR
nice!!
I think the most important factor you didn't mention is that GPU rendering is limited to the ram of the videocard(s). It is incapable of using physical ram. Which poses severe limits. If I'm wrong, or if this has changed with vray 6, please correct me.
It's true for Vray right now but for example with Redshift this limitation doesn't exist but of course there are others :)
It's scaled in order of magnitudes with the latest version of V-Ray and a RTX 3090 or 4090 series card. They've done a wonderful job optimizing the VRAM in heavy scenes. I completely switched over to GPU rendering because the render times can trade blows with a 3970X (not making that up) in a lot of render tests that I've done on my rig. If you're able to setup an NVLINK as well, the cost per performance ratio compared to shelling out for a 64 core threadripper is such a bargain. I'd highly recommend it.
With that said, the setup she has and the GPU cards she's using won't be able to handle heavy scenese with lots of geometry, vraydisplacementmods, or high resolution textures. So it's a bad analysis honestly and will give you mixed results. As I said before, at the bare minimum, you need an RTX card with 24 GB minimum in order to achieve the results I'm talking about otherwise you'll be plagued with errors and random rendering disconnects.
@@iamski Sadly RTX 4000 series do not support NVLINK anymore
@@iamski Hi! For a new computer should i choose Mac Ma1 or Pc? Pc with a 2000eu threadripper or with a 4090? Thanks!
You are right.
Hey aga, again a amazing and very informative video. Thanks😊.
Can you make a video on Unreal engine 5 based on ARCHviz's perspective? I really want hear your thoughts on it!
I'll definitely check it out in the future, just need more time ;)
Great video,thanks for the great tips...
Excellent explanation 🤩🤩
Thank you 🙂
Since Vray 3 - VrayGPU is my main renderer for animations. Now testing Chaos Vantage, while it has its limitations its overall great, especially LiveLink mode
Pozdrawiam
Yes, VrayGPU and Vantage compliment each other nicely. We use Vantage for quick playblasts and fast movement iteration often and proceed to render the final sequence in high quality on GPU.
I'm happy to hear that it works so well for you. For animations, GPU Rendering can definitely save tons of time ;)
Hy, did you get notice "D3D error" when render animation in chaos vantage ? Whats the solution ? Thanks
biggest issue for me is still the memory limitations.
Something worth keeping in mind - GPUs are efficient when it comes to memory usage. You can safely render a scene that would take up to, say, 48GB of RAM in CPU mode on a 12GB video card in VrayGPU. It's doable.
@@F10F11hm r u sure?
@@F10F11hm I have used GPU since 3.6 and full time after 4.0. That's nonsense, I've never ran into the measly 32GB system ram limit I have for work but its fairly common to run into the then 11gb Vram of the 1080ti and 2080ti gpus I have used before. Most at fault were models with Tiff textures and those that are just really high res. I still use GPU because of the speed and I wont change it unless its needed specifically for a specific project.
depending on your GPU (and the typical scenes you work on) you can use the on-demand mip map method for loading textures. It makes your vram usage more efficient for a little penalty in speed.
@@vmafarah9473 Absolutely!
nvidia gpu can do twice faster if its packet by twice vram on the same gpu.
For V-Ray GPU better to use BruteForce+BruteForce. Because Lite Cache freezes rendering, because it works on GPU
Is that why I never been able to render anything via Vray GPU Renderer?
@@dansonong4073 V-Ray GPU doesn't have Out of Core. Use Octane render or Blender Cycles. It's better and faster than V-Ray gpu 2-4 times
CPU: better quality and no memory issues for big scenes
GPU: better rendering times
I try to GPU render everything unless it can't handle.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
In short, it is the best on the youtube, i love technical v-ray videos and you are the best AGA, thank you and keep it up.
Thank you so much!
Great preview, thank you!
Translucency mode works on GPU now, both SSS and Volumetric modes are supported.
Amazing video - so have you invested in multiple GPUs? Does the memory of the cards stack up?
Real GPU is Unreal Engine. The quality you can render in 15 minutes in Vray you have as live stream in Unreal 5.1. I test now UE displayed on 85 inches TV and it looks breathtaking. GPU is RTX3060 Ti
That's interesting! Thanks for sharing, I need to test it one day! ;)
UE is fantastic, but it's doesn't achieve the quality of a pure ray-tracer, that's absolute nonsense.
@@F10F11hm To path tracer yes, but what UE makes in 70 fps on 85 inch tv is incredible ! Scalability of engine is superb.
...It seems like GPU rendering has a lot of incompatibilities in Vray, compared to CPU rendering. : /
I've encountered hidden objects and mismatched colours during render
@@slrzd2187 ..with your GPU ?..
GTX 1070 ti does not have RT core, but in vray we still have option for RTX rendering.
but it may be slower , to do raytracing on a gpu without that.
Honestly, your image is full of noise, did you know what you are doing? Also, try Corona Renderer, it can render scenes with Zero noise in < 8 minutes on my AMD Ryzen 9 3900X..
Which 4090 card shoud I buy for 3ds max and After Effects?
Please help.
Thanks
I guess the results are heavily dependent on your hardware. In my test, I was able to render almost exactly the same setting image using my rtx 4090 in under 7 mins, but it took I9-13900K overclocked 1h30mins.
Cpu rendering is pretty outdated for my personal use. I do animation mainly and no arch viz. So cpu rendering feels like back in the early 2000's
When i compare vray to redshift, octane or even unreal engine, vray is the worst solution because i get even almost same imagery in ue5 and thats rendering in a fragment of the time. So in conclusion vray is probably an awesome choice for arch viz artists. But for Animation it is simply not suitable. Cheers!
Hi, for interior design and static render is better Corona or Blender (or Corona on Blender, if exists?)? Both software use GPU? Thanks!
nested dielectrics in Vray? It is possible?
I'm sorry, but this video lacks information, especially concerning VRAM. If you have only 8GB of VRAM, you would run out of memory quite qickly when having larger textures or displacement or just many objects and materials in your scene.
it's also not a good comparison. you should consider the price performance ratio: you should compare a top of the line mainstream workstation CPU with a GPU at the same price level. So maybe a Ryzen 9 7950X (599€) vs a desktop 3070 Ti (599€). THAT would be a fair comparison. And then it would become claer, that considering the lack of features and quality with GPU rendering, that CPU rendering is still the way to go with v-ray.
Sadly we can’t use GPU renders for the biggest scenes because of the low VRA on the GPU
Vray is a GPU bound software just as corona is to CPU ( meaning, it used the full potential of the GPU) but I like how Vray make it possible to used both the CPU and GPU together.
Anyway if u planing to upgrade your GPU, take in consideration the amount of VRAM that you will used up in a render scene and amount of cores that it carries. E.g : the 3070 is half of the chip die that they used for the 3090. Almost similar to the 4070 (when it come out in the future) and the 4090 and upgrade your CPU. Otherwise your cpu will become bottle neck to the GPU when you upgrade your Gpu to a 3090 or even a 4090.
P.S: I now getting to seeing the video.
The bets bang for the buck currently is the RTX 3090. You can nvlink two of them and get 48GB of VRAM total which is important for bigger, high quality scenes.
I don't really have any for my school project please Madame
I'm not getting the lack of translucency argument, I'm afraid? Vray GPU supports RandomWalk SSS in VrayMtl, even the Volumetric mode when it comes to translucency. You'll get fantastic looking vegetation, don't worry.
As for the direct comparison between the two - as you've mentioned, CPU and GPU versions of Vray are essentially two different engines, one shouldn't switch between them at all, but since VrayGPU is a fully production-ready renderer, it's best to build a scene with it in mind. I guarantee that you'll tweak the fabrics and other shaders to your heart's content. Some of the limitations when compared to the CPU are easy to circumvent, I'd say that at this point, most of them are hardly an issue. The switch is worth it. Once you go animation-heavy, you'll never want to get back to the CPU ways, unless we're talking about massive projects when RAM becomes an issue. Vray 5 and 6 brought huge compatibility improvements when it comes to Phoenix sims, too. On a side note, we can calculate simulations in Max while running previews on GPU in IPR mode simultaneously, it's fantastic.
Thank you for your feedback, it's interesting. I mentioned in the video that to make an honest comparison, the scene will need to be done in V-Ray GPU from scratch but on the other hand it is hard to see the differences;) Definitely most things can be fixed ;)
I'm not sure if I agree with you on this. While V-Ray has been improving by an acceptable rate lately, having a seamless switch between the two engines has always been the market's need as I can remember. And I do believe that it is definitely possible to make that come true. Currently it is extremely hard for a user to figure out what to change in the scene to get the same results as when they render with CPU.
On top of that, using CPU & GPU together, which is a great use of resources when most PCs already have both, is very important. Currently, using them together is not possible in most projects because of the lack of a seamless transition between GPU and CPU on the same scene.
@@MatteBlob It is a good point that the differences between engines make it somewhat problematic to make a switch mid-project. I stated that it's best to make a decision and stick to either GPU or CPU for this very reason. Or - should RAM become an issue - render certain elements separately (to take advantage of GPU's speed or CPU's versatility) and then composite them in post.
@@F10F11hm Sure, I agree that if you stick with one from the beginning you won't face as many issues or at least realize them. However, I'm still impatiently waiting for a V-Ray GPU version that addresses most of these problems which tend to mostly appear in architectural visualization.
How about speaking properly and not swallowing the words like you're bored!
GPU rendering for still images has been so inferior to CPU rendering that it’s not fit for professional use. I never show GPU or hybrid renders to clients, but I often use them for quick in-house studies. This video comparison demonstrates this. If this had changed with recent release please advise.
as she mentioned, GPU has issues with translucency also close meshes. Zbuffering on GPU render is very visible.
Latest version can't get feel reality
!!!!PLEASE HELP!!!!
I HAVE AMD RYZEN 9 7950X PROCESSOR AND RTX 3060 GPU. MY PROBLEM IS THAT MY GPU TAKES 40 MINS TO RENDER A SINGLE FRAME WITH VRAY WHEREAS MY CPU TAKES ONLY 30 MINS! I Want to render Animations using vray gpu but if it takes 40 mins for a single frame to render, how is it possible to render a whole Animation??!!!!
!!!!PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT'S DONE!!!!
Hi mam, mam I am using AMD Ryzeen 5000 series laptop mam and graphics card Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 mam, Ram 8gb mam, I am using 3dsmax v ray 6 mam rendering process very slow mam how set rendering setup fast mam pls tell me mam
2 hours for a single image render? It's crazy...My CPU is only i5-8600 and 16GB RAM yet it only took me 3mins to render 1 near decent quality view...u might want to optimize the settings further
UE5 does much better (or not worst, at least) renders and higher resolution in seconds (and it’s free) with movie render queue and a good gpu. even Vray 6 gpu look so old compared to ue5. Unless chaos come up with better rendering package in future i really doubt that I will use it anymore…it’s just too long. and I’m not even talking about animation…i will never make an animation on Vray/corona anymore after I switched to unreal… am I the only one?
what you write is interesting and crossed my mind as well but. Problemo. One needs to learn a totally new software that being Unreal Engine. If people have huge library already set up with one engine like vray in my case, some assets have 50 udim-s. 50 x 4 texture and that is only one asset..... there is also the problem of other systems like rigs that may not be compatible, cloth simulations, hair systems like xgen...... If there is something I hate is busywork. I don't think it's always possible to just jump ship and use a new program.
@@referencetom1276 cloth simulation are compatible you can export it as Alembic file and import the .abc in the engine as geometry cache, and about the material library you have access to the whole quixel megascan library and its material system which is a huge gain compared to vray/corona workflow.
For your huge asset you have tons of ways to import it in the engine and add some user interactions to it which is huge gain too. I also have a huge material library in vray but you can import it very easy with datasmith
@@victorblanchard7774 thanks for the info. Will look into it. Would not mind the speed of Unreal 5 over V-Ray.
switched to D5. Have a look at the new render quality update. I'm testing out unreal now and pretty blown away by the pathtracing quality and rendering times. Went back to test vray gpu today and I feel like throwing my pc out the window with how slow it feels in IPR
The sky is the limit. With the DLSS 3.0 technology in the new generation of Nvidia (that generates frames using AI) there is no limit of what we can achieve in the world of Archviz. Rendering animation should be easiest and faster, as the graphic card only has to generate the half of the frames, and the DLSS system will do the rest. I can`t believe that the videogames industry is going faster that rendering engines for 3D visualization.
why my invidia gpu not used for render when i render on quick time with apple prores?
they're working on "out of core" approach to address RAM limitation issue with GPU rendering. Other renderers have this feature already. It uses system RAM to store assets that are not being used while rendering and other things - like streaming tech. Nvidia killed NVlink which can pool vram from 2 different cards, but loss the performance of the other card. Its easier to build GPU rendering farm than cpu, in getting better performance per dollar-wise. For very large scenes, the top Vram on pro cards are 48 GB, and there's 80 GB. CPU still cannot match the performance of GPU, esp now that the improvements are doubled every new architecture. The price for the upcoming Threadripper 96-core is about $10K, from what I've read, which is probably same performance as an RTX 3090 - $1200, just a guess on comparison. I tried the Threadripper 64-core version which is still 30-35% slower than RTX 3090. And now the RTX 4090 is double the performance of RTX 3090. So you do the math, and GPU rendering is way cheaper and faster than CPU. The limitations of GPU rendering, are acceptable on most 3D projects.
The CPU and GPU hybrid approach is worthless, the way its being used. its not a complete hybrid approach. Since the 2 cannot come up with exact same pixels, 100%, it cannot blend the results together or there will be many artifacts. The hybrid approach is only for the loading of assets, and out of core feature. Thre real hybrid approach is being developed by Renderman XPU, they managed to come up with same pixel results either GPU or CPU on their renderer. The issue is heat, since both main hardware are being used, lots of power is needed and therefore generate lots of heat - not good for most systems even with AC cold room servers.
What were' waiting for, to increase performance, is the GPU MCM design from both Nvidia and AMD. Multi Chip design will increase the speed and performance of GPU, to 4X every new architecture. its the natural transition from a one big chip to multi module/chip design. in 2 more yrs, Nvidia MCM, will be on paper, will be 4x RTX 3090 or 2x RTX 4090 in one single MCM design/card - but keeping my fingers crossed.
Hi, in Corona or Blender GPU render are supported? Thanks!
@@ricbattaglia6976 Blender has GPU rendering. The engine is called Cycles. As far as I know, Corona doesn't have GPU rendering option.
how to render in gpu in corona?
3 x 32 gig = 96 gig of ram but that a side great post many thanks, happy hollidays
also here, its not really a fair comparison cuz the laptop is kinda too weak cuz firstly its running a mobile gpu which is quite slower than its full sized desktop bro and the choice of gpu is also not cost efficient, I'd go with a6000 or something cuz my gpu makes money for me and it renders faster than cpu so I make money faster and thus I make more money
I have problem which when i turn to vray 6 GPU cuda rendering, somehow loading map fail then i got complely black photo, no problem when i do CPU, can you help me , thanks a lot
i dont see that nvidia studio driver supports vray.. maybe because i am using rhino?. i see that d5 is supported. for sure i have latest drivers and rtx 4090
My laptop is dell 15 i7, RTX 3050, could u plz tell me which one is better to use for rendering in v ray 5, cpu or cpu or hybrid?
any ideas on this: initDevices() failed. Please check that your system has compatible GPU devices installed.
Please I really need these MSI laptop 😢😢😢
Hello need one help .is it possible to use 3d max on mac studio ?🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I'm back
rtx 3060 12gb desktop maybe faster thsn expensive 3060ti 8gb .
1070 and laptop for render .....( jesus 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 )
Christmass is coming please make a tutorial on how to make snow enviornment in 3ds max with vray 6.
Thanks a lot. It has been very helpful. The difference between rendering with a ryzen7 2700x, to doing it with an rtx 3060Ti is very noticeable. Although if it is not annoying, I would like to ask if you consider that 32Gb of RAM is going to fall short in the future.
today for the first time i have a project that really recquires 64gb ram (housing estate animation), depends a lot on what you're doing...
Why everyone uses VrayDenoiser only in Frame buffer? Can I use it in regular renders?
Yes with 4090 its ridiculous. I use 4090 with Ryzen 7950x
What do you think about new intel core i9 13900k Cpu ? is it better than your cpu right now ?
How to study
Honestly, why people use Corona yet? Price?
R9 6900hx with rtx 3070ti or i7 13620h with rtx 4060?
HI, does Vray 6 run on intergrated GPU?
Thanks.
I'm studying v-ray right now after corona rendering.
why exactly v-ray? Yes, it's good render but for GPU will be better to use some "native" GPU render, no? Like redshift, octane.. All of them have almost similar settings and need about 1 or 2 week for understands principles of work for each. For ex octane is not looking so "cool and modern" like v-ray in 3ds max. But it's really fast engine with all features "in box". And it costs cheaper:)
vray gpu seems not support caustics?
How did you use RTX on a GTX 1070?
Are you using the Apple inc. font in your editing or am I wrong?
Times of corona and vray is coming to an end.
3*32gb=96gb. It is not 64gb.
Im planning to buy a new pc I will pick the rtx 3070, but im not sure about the CPU, does it will make that much of a difference in between like i3 12100 or i5 12600k at vray redering times?
I read that 12600 is very good buy very important is RAM latency for not have bottleneck.
Good afternoon
I am going to buy a pc with an "i7-13700KF" processor and an "RTX 4070" graphics card, but I have about 200 extra dollars. What do you recommend I buy an "i9-13900KF" or an "RTX 4070 Ti"?
vray is detailed plugin then corona ? based on GPU
Correct me if i am wrong but you havent talked about an important part too : Nvidia ai denoising. To be activated in the "denoiser" render elements. Divide render times drastically (like x10)
has nothing to do with GPU vs. CPU as it can be activated for CPU and GPU renders...
@@L3nny666 Fair point if i had been opposing them. But it was more about mentionning an important option for rendering in vray. Either you use gpu or cpu, many people doesnt know the "vray denoiser" render element, and moreover in that element, the option to use "nvidia ai denoising" instead of the default vray denoiser.
@@guitop so your comment was meant as a general request to show that feature and not related to this specific video, am i getting you right?
@@L3nny666 Not a request, just an (important) addition to that rendering topic. I am sorry if i have offended you in any way with a simple comment about a feature not explained in that good video about RENDERING with NVIDIA GPU. i mean "rendering" >>> "nividia", >>> nvidia denoising feels part of the topic to me. I feel it was an ok information about the topic lol.
@@guitop well first of all i'm not offended, i don't know why you would suggest this as my comments were calm and collected and not insulting.
second you said you shall be corrected if you're wrong which i did.
i mean you are right, denoising helps reduce render times, but that's irrelevant for comparison if it works for CPU rendering as well. the compaired times would still stand in the same ratio to each other. you are right, but it's off-topic and wouldn't have contributed to the video. how am i offended for pointing that out?
Previously, I was searching a lot and tired of searching to solve the GPU problem until I found this beautiful clip for you, and I enjoyed the render for this feature
can you increase screen resolution scaling to 10-20%, to make it visible to see in a laptop.
Does it work with GTX also or only RTX?
nice, but vray gpu still looks so different in some places...the cpu rendering just looks better.
and you should get a Ryzen 9 7950x instead of an i9 7960X
This video is old homie
@@tejiriamrasa3258 8 month ago there was already the 7950X ?
Comparing a 7th gen intel cpu to a 3070 is such a brainfart
@@L3nny666 Did we watch the same video? She was comparing the 1070 to the 3070 and the 7960x to the laptop's CPU.
The main issue is the money
Слушай дорогая, учи наверное украинский или на худой конец груский, пожалуйста конечно.
Gpu rendering is best, fast ❤
Not really, V-Ray as you see in the Results is mostly a CPU renderer, lots of features are still missing in GPU and the quality is considerably lower
@@bless_ed3881 Right! GPU rendering is not good quality. When I use denoise in Vray5, the objects behind the glass are horrible.
Many effects are missing. It constantly writes errors with memory, objects and much more. D5, Lumion, UE5 are better for GPU rendering, but no VRAY...I bought the RTX 3090 for GPU rendering in VRAY5 and I regret not buying a powerful CPU
@@tricktrick6232 I would change to Refshift or Octane if I were you, they work fine with 3ds max, cheers!
@@bless_ed3881 Thanks for advice. I'll probably try it. I'm used to VRAY, I've been using VRAY for a long time and I was attracted by the speed of GPU rendering and I didn't think. It's true that VRAY is starting to screw me up a bit. It's a good render, but the creators are a few steps behind
@@tricktrick6232 in that case, you should DEFINIETLY try to use F-Storm
Corona dont have GPU render ???
Rtx rendering with 1070?? How it possible?
Software Ray-Tracing
Great video, very helpful.
Hello, I'm using vray for Revit, and I'm trying to use rtx engine but it's not working, I have Nvidia geforce gtx. Please what can I do about it?
I have an rtx 3070 and when I render with the GPU (with the card) the render never loads, I always get Error 700 while intializing context for device NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070! Device will not be used for rendering! I do not know what to do.
Why not working ligt mix in irradiance map
Thanks
Thanx!
hello, I have one question about corona renderer elements.
in VRAY we have ( VRayMtlSelect ) element , does corona renderer have same of this element ?? what's name ??
thanks .
Watch my video about render elements: ruclips.net/video/g713P0Z6P6w/видео.html :)
@@ArchVizArtist I have already watched the video, but didn't explained , I just need which element in corona are same ( VRayMtlSelect ) this element in VRAY.
Thanks .
Very nice Maam
thanks ............ there is always some takeaway in your tutorials.... you work so diligently... great as always
My pleasure! I'm super happy to hear this :)
Thanks. please drop the link to download Vray 6 for revit
is it possible to use in corona the gpu or is it only ram based renderer ?
Ada thank you very match! 😘😘😘
You're welcome! ;)
Great video!
非常漂亮的视频
use redshift instead
What about corona - 9 using Nvidia ?
corona only renders using CPU
TLDR; Vray gpu is one of the less compitent GPU engines out there.
Can Corona Render use GPU?
No, only CPU.