GPU Box

[glorybound]

I just finished some interiors using Corona, and I wanted to test it with V-Ray, but again, no way to convert it back to V-Ray. I have the UMC, which works great, but nothing for the lights. To get a clean render in Corona I had to let it run for a little longer than I thought. The denoiser cleaned things up nice, but I lost detail, so it had to render for an hour. Maybe, it is a V-Ray hour rendering too, but I don't have to time to manually swap out lights to test. From V-Ray to Corona was a one click deal.

[mitviz]

Well, idk what u guys do wrong or happens in ur systems, but this is an RT gpu render in 53 sec @ 1080p with 2 x 980ti with noise threshold 0.02 (kinda high but still its pretty clean for that amount of noise).

I used a vray sun/sky but there is no direct light in here, i have a portal in two small window openings. The material has 0.5 reflection of 150 at 170 white value.

I do not do interiors at all so idk any tips or tricks for that matter.

As for fstorm, cannot be by definition faster than RT if u use BF/LC for RT. Mathematically an unbiased solution cannot be faster than a biased solution. So idk what is ur comparison measures here.
Never touched Fstorm, cause is a premature version of octane. Try adding some DOF in octane or some high roughness and see how much it takes things to clean up. I guess Fstorm is the same. Gives u 90% of the image in few seconds and the rest to actually clear needs x20 of that time. As said, i havent tried Fstorm, but i m pretty experienced with octane which is practically the same engine evolved more.

Anyhow, idk if u know this, but u can use RT in production mode besides live viewer. And from there u can choose LC for secondary bounces.

yes, you cannot test RT that way, using just a blank scene doesnt show much, you need a full interior scene to work on to see the point of me saying RT is slow, i tried all kinds of setup to get RT to run as how i would want it in Vray but its just not happening, even on 4 gpus

[M.Max]

I just started a new project and tried RT. This is what I get and it just sits there and doesn't improve.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35325[/ATTACH]

I launch Corona and it starts here and it is clear within a couple minutes.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35326[/ATTACH]

I've took a quick look at your scene and I have noticed 4 interesting things :
1-You are using vray rt in active shade mode so you are comparing BF+BF in vray to BF +LC in Corona which is not fair especially for interiors .
2-You are just using vraysky inside dome light? which is not a good choice imo . I prefer to use vraysky in environment with portals which will be much faster .
3-there is corona sky in enviroment ? and corona material as override material ?
4-You are rendering your image in under-expose and rising up the exposure in VFB which -in short- that will show you more noise than what vray actually see .
Changed those and I get the results below in my old GTX 970 in 30 sec render time .(Sorry for the big previews )
Active shade mode :

Production mode (BF+LC ) :

Corona on my dual 2650 xeon (will come back later to talk more about this test ) :

Best regards,

[mitviz]

would love to see more practical renderer examples though using all the renderers, not some white scenes, when actually working on the interiors we see the real trouble

[M.Max]

I was trying to solve Bobby problem here with his scene. I have no intention to make this thread another comparison fight thread.
With that being said feel free to start a thread with more practical examples and you might found a soultion to those troubles .
Best regards,

[mitviz]

I was trying to solve Bobby problem here with his scene. I have no intention to make this thread another comparison fight thread.
With that being said feel free to start a thread with more practical examples and you might found a soultion to those troubles .
Best regards,

yeah, well, i wish i could would love to see it though, i really hope Rt improves though for vray, its a major thing now for me atleast

[glorybound]

I've took a quick look at your scene and I have noticed 4 interesting things :
1-You are using vray rt in active shade mode so you are comparing BF+BF in vray to BF +LC in Corona which is not fair especially for interiors .
2-You are just using vraysky inside dome light? which is not a good choice imo . I prefer to use vraysky in environment with portals which will be much faster .
3-there is corona sky in enviroment ? and corona material as override material ?
4-You are rendering your image in under-expose and rising up the exposure in VFB which -in short- that will show you more noise than what vray actually see .
Changed those and I get the results below in my old GTX 970 in 30 sec render time .(Sorry for the big previews )
Active shade mode :

Production mode (BF+LC ) :

Corona on my dual 2650 xeon (will come back later to talk more about this test ) :

Best regards,

No, I too don't want this to be a comparison thread. Thanks for looking at it. Actually I converted it back to a V-Ray scene, which is why you are seeing all the Corona crumbs. I started with a V-Ray sun/sky. Again, I'll let this thread die and I'll look forward to all the X-Ray 3.5 goodies.

[Nicinus]

I have been looking for a solution to my workflow bottleneck. I am getting great rendertimes on my main machine, however, a render can still tie it up things for a couple hours. I did some searching for GPU boxes and they exist, however, do they make sense? Or, does one of the BOXX render boxes make more semse? I was reading about Corona and they write that dollar for dollar, CPU's and GPU's are the same and they don't plan on going down the GPU path. I purchased two GTX 1080's and so far, they are doing me little good. If I purchased two Titan X's, it'll cost 5-6 grand and I am afraid it'll be a waste of money. I can get on of the BOXX render boxes for that price.

No, I too don't want this to be a comparison thread. Again, I'll let this thread die and I'll look forward to all the X-Ray 3.5 goodies.

Why, your original post talked about workflow bottle neck? I have not really looked at Corona yet (primarily because I feel a CPU only based solution won't last), but from what I hear the interactive part is very responsive, both in terms of how long it takes for the initial preview to show up and actual rendering. Disadvantages with GPU such as memory and software maturity are obvious, but besides this, personally I can't understand how dollar for dollar CPUs today can compete with GPU? but they seem to.

To me the most consuming time is not the final rendering is all test renderings that you have to do.if you are using RT to check lighting and materials to get faster feedbacks you are working more efficiently. Trying to get final images using only GPU is today to expensive.
I have a small farm but lately I was using commercial farms to get my renderings done if I need them in few hours or minutes... paying for a farm service is more practical to me because I don't want to spend thousands in video cards and 2 months later something new come up.
The technology and products for video cards move too fast that you are obsolete in few months anyways.

Purely theoretically I think this would be the most elegant solution, if it was implemented and integrated properly. Using RT for material editing, lighting, and region test rendering with instant but rough previews. Once this is done the CPU based advanced renderer takes over. Simple right? Well, obviously not, but no one else could offer a workflow like this other than Vray as no one else has both a mature CPU code and a developed GPU version.

[glorybound]

The interactive in Corona is great! I guess I assumed RT GPU would be a lot faster than CPU, so I never tried RT CPU. I actually had to read how Corona Interactive worked; I assumed it was GPU, until I read it was only a CPU render engine. I'll do some playing around when I get a chance.

[M.Max]

The interactive in Corona is great! I guess I assumed RT GPU would be a lot faster than CPU, so I never tried RT CPU. I actually had to read how Corona Interactive worked; I assumed it was GPU, until I read it was only a CPU render engine. I'll do some playing around when I get a chance.

I have to admit Corona interactive is a beast and the best that I have seen in any other renderer out there which force us to use corona in some crazy deadline projects where i have to tone many materials and light conditions quickly as our render farms wasn't ready for GPU then ..with that being said with the improvements for RT and IPR in vray 3.5 I don't think I will need to go any where else .

[savage309]

Real life test, CPU vs GPU.

Best,
Blago.

p.s. keep in mind this test uses V-Ray 3.50 (Beta 2), which is (often) much faster, both in CPU and GPU rendering

[Alex_M]

Real life test, CPU vs GPU.

Best,
Blago.

p.s. keep in mind this test uses V-Ray 3.50 (Beta 2), which is (often) much faster, both in CPU and GPU rendering

RT is like... 4 times faster with that measly single $400 GPU! Is this even real? Wow!

[glorybound]

I just converted my interior V-Ray to Corona scene, back to a V-Ray scene. I did the bad and installed the beta right in the middle of a project, and it renders much faster. I am talking, 4X faster. I am first doing in with V-Ray Advanced and then I'll test with GPU. I guess Progressive is IPR, correct? I'll try that, too.

[Alex_M]

Thats good to hear, Bobby. I think you're mistaking the samplers (progressive/adaptive) with IPR which is a rendering mode similar to RT for GPU. Samplers and IPR are not the same thing. You can use IPR regardless of the sampler you choose. You can use either Progressive or Adaptive with IPR. Progressive is best though as you can see the results right away instead of waiting for each bucket to finish.

[glorybound]

I'll have to dig into that, but if Progressive is better anyway, I'll test that.

Thats good to hear, Bobby. I think you're mistaking the samplers (progressive/adaptive) with IPR which is a rendering mode, though. These are not one and the same. You can use IPR regardless of the sampler you choose. You can use either Progressive or Adaptive with IPR. Progressive is best though as you can see the results right away instead waiting for each bucket to finish.