I'd like to finally delve into Octane and I need to buy a decent GPU card.
After reading some FAQ's and opinions around, the GeForce GTX 760 seems a good card. The question is, how much of a difference does a 2GB vs. a 4GB: I mean, is there really a need to go with a 4GB, assuming that I'll need to render complex scenes (mostly landscapes with several trees, that will easily breach the 2 millions polygon barrier)?
Or a 2GB will suffice?
Also, what happens if Octane runs out of GPU memory? Will it swap data and complete the render, or abort it?
Thanks for any clarification.
GPU card, 2GB or 4GB question
Forum rules
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
Hi, Papillon.
if You're looking to render bigger scenes get as big GPU as You can afford.
4GB 670 or 770 (as it's just slightly upgraded 680, for a price of 670) seems a good deal.
Other to mention would be 780 6gb - it should be bit more expensive, but almost twice as fast & has 50%more of vRAM, so not a bad deal either.
The scene should fit all into vRAM inside GPU. That's not only geometry, but textures & some space for image to be rendered
(if You render big res like 4k square – 544MB & 8k – 2.1GB reserved for that =)
Geometry isn't very heavy: developers noted that to render 26 million triangles you need around 4GB of VRAM.
plus keep in mind that, if Your screen is attached directly to GPU ~300MB might be allocated for it - if You are going to plug 4k screen that figure might be even higher =)
To sum up, if You're looking for bigger scenes, higher resolution get BIG card. 6Giger comes at ~600$ - that's not so expensive.
& what if Your scene doesn't fit inside? You simply can't render =) there's no work around..apart from simplifying the scene, downresing textures, or getting lower-res for output =)
if You're looking to render bigger scenes get as big GPU as You can afford.
4GB 670 or 770 (as it's just slightly upgraded 680, for a price of 670) seems a good deal.
Other to mention would be 780 6gb - it should be bit more expensive, but almost twice as fast & has 50%more of vRAM, so not a bad deal either.
The scene should fit all into vRAM inside GPU. That's not only geometry, but textures & some space for image to be rendered
(if You render big res like 4k square – 544MB & 8k – 2.1GB reserved for that =)
Geometry isn't very heavy: developers noted that to render 26 million triangles you need around 4GB of VRAM.
plus keep in mind that, if Your screen is attached directly to GPU ~300MB might be allocated for it - if You are going to plug 4k screen that figure might be even higher =)
To sum up, if You're looking for bigger scenes, higher resolution get BIG card. 6Giger comes at ~600$ - that's not so expensive.
& what if Your scene doesn't fit inside? You simply can't render =) there's no work around..apart from simplifying the scene, downresing textures, or getting lower-res for output =)
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer, that cleared my doubts.
I'll see to buy a geforce 6GB card, or maybe two 4GB, as I understood that Octane will use all the nvidia cuda devices it finds.
I'll see to buy a geforce 6GB card, or maybe two 4GB, as I understood that Octane will use all the nvidia cuda devices it finds.
if you will use single card, then you should have bigger vram
I use cinema 4D and system + C4D uses 1gb vram already
I use cinema 4D and system + C4D uses 1gb vram already
Actually, I was planning to have this setup:
1 Ati 7770 (that I already own), that is connected to the monitor, and add 1 or 2 geforce cards to be used by Octane.
I see that you have two cards as well, with a total of 9GB or VRAM: so, does Octane use them all combined? Or still, you can only address one card at a time?
1 Ati 7770 (that I already own), that is connected to the monitor, and add 1 or 2 geforce cards to be used by Octane.
I see that you have two cards as well, with a total of 9GB or VRAM: so, does Octane use them all combined? Or still, you can only address one card at a time?
I use 670 & I'm very happy with it as long as I do not need a lot of speed.
But my models are not too heavy, pluss I don't use this GPU for screen.
If You have two GPUs, let's say 3gb & 6Gb You're limmited to the one that has least amount of vRAM, as scene should fit into both (vRAM), if You want to do calculation & use combined speed =) if let's say You have scene taht requires 4GB, then You can disable (or it simply fails) 3Gb card & render on 6Giger.
So as I said it's wise to spend a bit of extra & grab the card with more vRam as You'll probably be less limmited & have to upgrade later - that saves money & a bit of headache =)
But my models are not too heavy, pluss I don't use this GPU for screen.
If You have two GPUs, let's say 3gb & 6Gb You're limmited to the one that has least amount of vRAM, as scene should fit into both (vRAM), if You want to do calculation & use combined speed =) if let's say You have scene taht requires 4GB, then You can disable (or it simply fails) 3Gb card & render on 6Giger.
So as I said it's wise to spend a bit of extra & grab the card with more vRam as You'll probably be less limmited & have to upgrade later - that saves money & a bit of headache =)
I see, that's very good to know, that a lot for the advices! 
If a card says it is "superclocked", should I expect to see much of a performance boost from it?
I'm trying to decide whether it is worth the extra $115 (approx., after tax) to get the 780 with 6GB, or the superclocked one with 3GB.
I don't typically have very large scenes but I don't have a good sense of what kind of scene would likely exceed the 3GB threshold.
How do I easily evaluate how much RAM a scene will require?
For example, I am currently looking at the summary in Max (under File menu) of a fairly small scene and it says under Memory Usage: Physical 3605M / 8049M, Virtual: 4825M / 19824M.
How do I interpret these numbers?
Isn't 3605M just over 3.5GB?! Or am I missing something? I know the scene loads in my 2GB card.
Would I also add the size of all materials together and add them to one of these numbers? Or does Max include these in the total?
Please excuse my ignorance!
For example, on NewEgg, they have two EVGAs , one with 3GB and the other with 6GB, but even though the 3GB one says "superclocked", they both have the same core and boost clock speeds (967Mhz and 1020Mhz, respectively).
Interestingly, the similarly configured ASUS cards (3GB and 6GB versions) cost a little bit more but have lower clock speeds (889Mhz and 941Mhz in boost mode).
I presume the higher clock speed EVGA cards will run a bit faster?
I'm trying to decide whether it is worth the extra $115 (approx., after tax) to get the 780 with 6GB, or the superclocked one with 3GB.
I don't typically have very large scenes but I don't have a good sense of what kind of scene would likely exceed the 3GB threshold.
How do I easily evaluate how much RAM a scene will require?
For example, I am currently looking at the summary in Max (under File menu) of a fairly small scene and it says under Memory Usage: Physical 3605M / 8049M, Virtual: 4825M / 19824M.
How do I interpret these numbers?
Isn't 3605M just over 3.5GB?! Or am I missing something? I know the scene loads in my 2GB card.
Would I also add the size of all materials together and add them to one of these numbers? Or does Max include these in the total?
Please excuse my ignorance!
For example, on NewEgg, they have two EVGAs , one with 3GB and the other with 6GB, but even though the 3GB one says "superclocked", they both have the same core and boost clock speeds (967Mhz and 1020Mhz, respectively).
Interestingly, the similarly configured ASUS cards (3GB and 6GB versions) cost a little bit more but have lower clock speeds (889Mhz and 941Mhz in boost mode).
I presume the higher clock speed EVGA cards will run a bit faster?
Win 8.1 | 2x GTX780 6GB RAM + 1x GTX 660 | Intel i7 | 16GB RAM | 3DS Max 2011
I decided to go with the 6GB version. It costs more but this way the card will serve me longer (it won't limit me down the road when more RAM like this is fairly common on cards, and I decide to upgrade the lesser card.)
Win 8.1 | 2x GTX780 6GB RAM + 1x GTX 660 | Intel i7 | 16GB RAM | 3DS Max 2011
The newer Maxwell Mid and High range cards are supposed to be out this October, I'd personally avoid buying any kepler card from now if you can get by with what you currently have and wait for the price drops to clear inventory of the old stuff.