Time: 2 min. 29 sec
CPU: i7-5960x @ 4.2 GHz
Vray: 3.0
Max: 2015
Win: 7
This is very interesting. That box renders in 1/4 the time mine does (59 seconds instead of 232 seconds), but costs roughly 4.5x as much to buy than mine did, so it more or less adds up if you want the equivalent power inside a single box when you take into account diminishing returns over DBR. If you networked 4 x my box together in DBR then it wouldn’t render in 1/4 of the time, so you’d probably see pretty much a 1:1 comparison of price-to-performance comparing these two machines… and you’d have the convenience of massive power inside a single machine and zero networking overhead compared to DBR for high-res stills etc.
That’s the first time I have seen a xeon box make financial sense for this kind of situation. Interesting.
And furthermore, it looks like their box wasn’t overclocked… so if you pushed those stock 2.3ghz to maybe 2.6, 2.8 or even 3.0ghz you’d see an absolutely massive speed increase and value-for-money would be even better…
1m 41s
Dual Xeon E5-2670 v2 - 2.5ghz
Vray: 3,0
MAX: 2014
Win7
I rebooted my system this morning.
A re-render shows 1m 34s
With embree ticked on, I get 1m 29s
I am on Vray 3.00.03 which isn’t the latest. Not sure if the build would make any difference.
Not sure you can overclock Xeons.
Did a test on my other workstation:
Time: 3 min. 24 sec
CPU: Dual Xeon E5645 @ 2.4 GHz
Vray: 3.00.07
Max: 2014
Win: 7 x64
Same test but with embree on.
Time: 1m52s
CPU: i7 3930K @ 3.2-4.0Ghz (Auto MB OC)
VRay: 3
Max: 2015+Ext1+SP2
Win: 8.1 x64
time: 02:09
cpu: dual xeon e5 2650 v2
vray: 3.00.08
max: design 2014
os: win 7 pro x64
with embree on, it renders 20 seconds faster.
Same test with Embree on:
Time: 2 min. 04 sec
CPU: i7-5960x @ 4.2 GHz
Vray: 3.0
Max: 2015
Win: 7
Without Embree.
Time: 1 min. 19.2 sec
CPU: E5-2690 v3 @ 2.6 GHz
Vray: 3.00.08
Max: 2015
Win: 7
With Embree.
Time: 1 min. 6.8 sec
Without Embree.
Time: 1 min. 39.5 sec
CPU: E5-2697 v2 @ 2.7 GHz
Vray: 3.00.08
Max: 2015
Win: 7
With Embree.
Time: 1 min. 25.9 sec
wow!
3930K 4,0Ghz (Time: 1m52s) renders almost the same as dual xeon e5 2650 v2 (Time: 1m49s) ???
How on earth is this possible?
dgsantana, can you repeat your test? 
Its not Something bad on his render.
I have time 2m4s on 8-core i7 5960X overclocked to 4,2GHz. So its note possible to have less time with 3930K 4,0Ghz, which is only 6-core with less overclock and worst chipset.
That was my way of thinking too.
noticed that too, thought there might have been a mistake in writing down the render time..
3930K 3.9Ghz
2m34.1 with Embree
Vray 3.15.01
max 2014
Win 7
Stan
Hey guys,
sorry just hijacking this thread 2 secs.
I wanted to see how the GPU would work on this one.
it’s actually not bad at all :
Considering the Light Cache took 42 seconds
It’s “only” a difference of about a minute between my cpu and my gpu.
The noise threshold didn’t work well in RT so I’ve set max paths per pixel instead at 512, not sure if it’s more or less than the actual benchmark.
I had to delete the sofa falloff and tweak the ground mat as the GPU was not working with the actual setup, hope it’s close enough to compare.
Good thing is, it’s brute force and not IR, and it’s GPUs…
Here it is if anyone wants to play with it :
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/368267/FRACTAL\_interior\_test\_01.rar
Only constrain, you have to have access to the nightly builds as the LC on GPU is not yet released if I’m not mistaken.
Specs :
CPU : 3930k 3.9Ghz
GPU : GTX 780Ti
max 2014
win 7
Sorry again for the hijack, just though some people would like to know.
Cheers
Stan
Time: 4 min 24s.
CPU: i7-4790K no OC
Vray: 3.00.08 no changes in the scene
Max: 2014
Win: 7
Time: 3 min 30s.
CPU: i7-4790K no OC
Vray: 3.00.08 with Embree on
Max: 2014
Win: 7
3m45.5 with Embree
3930K 3.2Ghz no OC
Vray 3.00.06
max 2014
Win 7 x64