Octane vs Vray

[m.arc.in]

Hi all.
Im reading this forum for a while.
And Im a litle confused.

Octane rendering times are quite long.
Last time I have made some car, and rendered it with vray 1,5. Due to copyright, I can not show images.
Scene was fairly complicated, 1,5 milion poly, and reflective, refractive materials, with sky light and 5 area lights.
With high vray setup it took about 4-5 min. for frame in resolution 2400x1600 pix.
Of course, I used a vray camera and lights, vray ffb etc. with max camera render time was about 25 min.
I'm using vray for several years and I have a lot of experience. If it is set properly, it is very fast.
My system: Core i7 920 with HT enabled, 6GB of ram, Quadro FX4500.

I would like to compare vray with octane, but does not want to buy an expensive graphics card.
Has anyone done a comparison of the octane vs vray.
I'll be grateful for information. Octane interested me very much and thought about buying a beta license.

Regards, Marcin

[Carl S.]

Octane is un-biased, vray is not. Hence the longer Octane render times.

[radiance]

Hi,

You can't compare them yet. Octane is currently a spectral brute force renderer.
It would be the same as comparing a ten-ton truck against a racing car, both have advantages and disadvantages.

Octane is much faster, eg if you want a fair comparison, use vray with path tracing (eg brute force gi with depth = 8) and then compare the results.
I think once octane v1.0 final is out with all algorithms present, it's time to do comparisons, not at this time, we haven't finished coding the core renderer yet.

Radiance

[Proupin]

Perhaps Vray and in general raytracers can output rough renders faster, but the beauty of Octane is that it takes trial and error out of the equation... so a LOT of time is saved setting up materials to look right etcetera, since all these tweaks are nearly-realtime... You would normally spend a full day setting up lights, materials and render parameters with Vray. In Octane this setup can take what, one hour, two hours?

A Fermi 470 costs 300 euros, that is 3 days worth of work; with 4 or 5 projects the time you'd save will pay the card in full... time is money!

[m.arc.in]

Thanks.
Well. Perhaps it's time to change the graphics card.
I'm going to buy a license. I could at least play some cool games.
I must say that I am very impressed with Octane possibilities.
I will waited impatiently for the final version. Until then, I will play with the beta...

[ilyxa]

[img=http://i.piccy.info/i5/96/12/661296/campare_800.jpg]

[federico]

Hi, I have also made a new post, but after reading a little your forum I have seen you are a team member of Octane...
so maybe you can give me a good opinion.
The first is about the choice for a card for Octane...I have seen that some nvidia gtx are faster in the same render of quadro (I'm referring to the post of cecofuli where he has
started a test on a Vray benchmark).
I thought Quadro ones were the best, but after this post I'm not so sure...
The second is about the possibility to support in next future also Ati cards...as they are cheaper in money and in energy usage (I read this article
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVIDIA-U ... ew/?page=1)
As I need to change my video card they would be very useful informations to do the right choice...
buying an Ati and going on with Vray but maybe in next future also with Octane, or buying an Nvidia (more expensive)
having the opportunity to do both immediately? But which Nvidia? Gtx or Quadro?
Final...now I use a 3DLabs Wildcat (maybe you even don't know what card is this)...but anyway...there is no chance to try Octane with it, isn't it?

Thank you

[8Eggar8]

Thanks.
Well. Perhaps it's time to change the graphics card...

There are even some cool Fermi 460's for less than $200

This one came in at $160 with an extra $30 off in MIR's
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 500173-L0C