Page 2 of 3
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:38 pm
by snake12
Hi Karba, I like to check your scene in my Pc Asrock extreme 11, 3930 k, 32gb ram 2400, and 1 gtx 580 3 gtx 590, if you like send the scene ready to render.
[email protected]. Thanks
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:40 pm
by gabrielefx
snake12 wrote:Hi Karba, I like to check your scene in my Pc Asrock extreme 11, 3930 k, 32gb ram 2400, and 1 gtx 580 3 gtx 590, if you like send the scene ready to render.
[email protected]. Thanks
I'm not Karba...

Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:43 pm
by snake12
Im sorry Karba is for Grabrielefx, I like to compare the gtx590 vs Titan
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:30 pm
by artdude12
Nice image. Seems like a long render time. Was the final image 1200 X 1200 pixels?
I'm curious, how long did this image take with the dual xeon cpu?
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:52 pm
by Jaykay
Qustion to Gabrielefx.
I'm about to buy parts to buy a new computer and I was first thinking of getting Asus Z9PE-D8 for Titans. After reading about incompatibility issues (no show in boot etc.) with the two in different forums, I started to think about going single CPU instead.
After seeing you listing that same setup I thought to ask if you had any problems with the two. I'd still prefer a two CPU system in case Titans really work on that board.
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:57 pm
by gabrielefx
artdude12 wrote:Nice image. Seems like a long render time. Was the final image 1200 X 1200 pixels?
I'm curious, how long did this image take with the dual xeon cpu?
16000 samples 10 bounces pmc....
Octane doesn't use cpu then is impossible to understand how many minutes are necessary to complete 16000 samples.
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:25 pm
by artdude12
OK I understand that Octane doesn't use the CPU for rendering.
To me it seems like the render time (1 hr) is excessively long.
With 4 Titans I would expect a much shorter rendertime for that size image.
I've just started using Octane for Cinema 4D so I'm still trying to get up to speed on everything_sorting out all the settings and such.
My work involves interiors and the image sizes are only about 2400 X 1200 pixels. Right now I'm using the Cinema 4D internal GI Renderer (AR3) for most jobs. Sometimes Vray.
Rendertimes usually fall within 10 - 30 minutes. More if the image is larger of course.
My machine only has an i7 3930K CPU.
I saw that your machine had a dual xeon and was wondering how long your image at 1200px X 1200px would take to render with the internal Max renderer or Vray if you use it.
Thanks.
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:45 pm
by snake12
Gabriellefx I like to compare gtx 590 vs titan send me the scene. Only for this not for other reason thanks.
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:02 pm
by gabrielefx
snake12 wrote:Gabriellefx I like to compare gtx 590 vs titan send me the scene. Only for this not for other reason thanks.
Ok I will archive it
Re: 580 VS 680 VS TITAN
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:24 pm
by FrankPooleFloating
Gabe, you never responded on the
My New Beast thread... me and a couple other dudes
were really, really wanting to know why you (appear to) hit everything you render with
16,000 samples... to us (I think) this is not like killing an ant with a sledgehammer, but
rather more like an atomic bomb...
It seems that Otoy came up with an arbitrary number of 16,000 - so that renders would
not go on until the end of time... and that somehow you have taken this crazy amount of
samples as gospel. As I state on the other thread, you are clearly a more advanced user
than myself.. but I am completely mystified. Is there something I/we don't know?
And please believe me I am not out to pick on you or anything... just trying to understand..
and minimize your carbon footprint.
