Yes it's 2 minutes, 8 seconds. But it's Octane 2.23.2 R 6.2. Demo version.
Would love to try the 3 alpha, but it's restricted to licensed customers.

That's just bad form....

So here are my renders

Octane, 2,08 using one GTX980Ti. Although the rendered image area is smaller due to demo restrictions. Arnold, 4 minutes blank. Wierd that my Octane render turned out so dark compared to the Arnold one.

Uncia - would you mind sharing the scene files? I'd like to try what you did on my machine. Noticed you're on PC, can't help but think that speed might be a PC/Mac issue as well.

Thanks

well it took 31 sec in mine..


Well you got triple Titan Xs so... :)

@Aoktar: feel free to archive if you want. I agree with you that I'm no master at either renderer, but as I said in a previous post, I didn't optimize in neither so it's a quick and dirty test of what one might expect out of ...

Very interesting.... Anyone know what's up with the black refraction in Arnold?
Seeker

https://i.imgur.com/Oyuuv0p.png
This setting from the Arnold Sky will most likely be disabled in that example.

cheers
brasc

You're absolutely right, it was disabled. Here is another render that took 15 ...

And I just wanted to make clear that I didn't mean that Octane is not production ready, I'm sure it is! But the images that got rendered are not production ready.

Peace

Thank you Aoktar!

Is there a demo version of V3 for C4D on osx?? Would love to try.

I looked at the render optimization video, and it was great!
I used the same method as the video (and switched to Pathtracing) and got this result in 4 minutes.
5_Octane_4min.jpg

It's good for 4 minutes. But I want to smooth out the background lights and the reflections, so I cranked up the ...

Yes I know the comparison is not correct. I'm thankful for all pointers!

However one could argue that I did no optimizations in Octane, nor Physical render, nor Arnold.

I will look at the videos you linked to now.