Speed comparison Fryrender CPU vs Octane GPU

Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:26 am

Lol, Maxwell is faster

Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:57 am

May i suggest then that once V1.0 of Octane is out and the bugs have been well and truly squashed.That a speed test is called on an agreed scene against all the available renderers.

Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:00 am

For the renders done with arion it seems to not have any speed improvements even with a GPU.

Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:03 am

EAHP74 wrote:it is about to release a new version 1.1 of arion here some days I think is not bad, with a new interface

Do you think you can do some renders with octane just to see it blow arion away considering the finished render kernel is not implemented yet, Or did you post it already some time ago in the gallery.

Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:02 pm

I have both licenses, but each program has its strengths and weaknesses and this
kept any reason .... true that time has shown some scenes are high
but let's be honest octane absorption is not yet ........ it is easier in
arion manage the textures in octane ...... BUT OCTANE has its qualities .....

Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:34 pm

dispersion 15mn, 3000X2000

radiance · Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:28 am

for the price of one arion license, you can buy one octane license and 2 high-end GPUs

Radiance

Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:03 am

you're right and I admire your courage radiance and your determination

Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:55 am

for the price of one arion license, you can buy one octane license and 2 high-end GPUs

Well said. hehe

Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:46 am

Firstoff, don´t get me wrong, I do love Octane.

tehfailsafe wrote:I think the point of the test was speed...

Which was absolutely pointless - to compare a GPU and a CPU raytracer.
A GTX480 has ~1400 GFLOPS.
Take an average CPU like the Q9550, it has ~50 GFLOPS.
It´s like letting a nuclear powered sportscar race against a steampowered carriage - Both can transport people or goods, but are neither compareable nor powered by the same technology.

tehfailsafe wrote: 1 hour 40 mins in Fryrender for similar quality level in 6 mins in Octane.
As for which is in development longer, that just reinforces the point that Octane kicks ass doesn't it?

That is exactly the point.
The one being under development longer offers more features - which on a sidenote also requires computational time.
There are many features a full fledged raytracer should have, Octane still lacks.
You might as well laugh about Renderman or Vray for being slower than Octane, but compared to them Octane is still an infant.

If you want to compare directly with another product, do it fair, compare GPU vs. GPU and compare their features.
As for the speed, by now everyone that at least says he is into CG should know that GPU raytracers outperform CPU raytracers.

And while the price:performance of Octane is kickass, and most likely will keep being, and Radiance is right. You also got to say though that RandomControl (Arion) isn´t selling Beta software.

That said, for me private Octane is good enough and affordable, I surely stick with it. Also use it at work quite often.
I am not going to run and buy BS Shot! or Arion just because it´s fun. If a client requires it, I can get it and he will get an adequate bill - or the company can buy it.
And if octane does not satisfy my needs anymore, I´ll ditch it.
It´s a software I bought, a tool that has to serve me, not a child I have to love unconditionally and if it screws up I can always hope it turns out for the better.