THEIR CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS MUCH DISCREPANCY IN THE INDUSTRY
richard_2088836
Posts: 112
I was just shopping for a new system and the best video card but now I'm just interested - I wanted to find a balance for 3D animation and Rendering but I've thrown that idea out the window. I'm going with the animation and what ever it looks like after that - I'll live with it.
So - Every One Was Saying That - IRAY doesn't support the 1000 series so I thought I'd ask IRAY/NVIDA about when they might start supporting the newer cards and their answer was
THEY DON'T SUPPORT GTX GEOFORCE CARDS AT ALL FOR IRAY -
This is their exact words -
Ok, but at Nvidia we do not recommend Geforce series cards for IRAY support, as GTX is mainly designed for Gaming and runs with low level Direct X API , while for IRAY we only recommend the Quadro series graphics cards which works with the low level APIs like the OpenGL, OpenCL and comes with full support for IRAY
Then I checked at DAZ for the recommend requirements and they state 4 Cuda Cores - No way ! Right ! ?????
So I wrote DAZ a letter and told them that 4 Cuda Cores couldn't be right and that it probably should note 4000 or 4 Cuda Core Counts. It's been up their for so long like that I'm wondering if it isn't the case but 4 Cuda Cores ? I kind of doubt that but it could be a very tolerable enviroment.
So then you read articles like the one titled
Which GPU is better for increasing rendering speed ? From a person that spends each and every day around the industry and your like COME ON !
http://pcfoo.com/2014/12/which-gpu-is-better-for-increasing-rendering-speed/
THEIR CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS MUCH DISCREPANCY IN THE INDUSTRY OR BETWEEN TWO COMPANIES OR EVEN BETWEEN TWO CASUAL USERS -
So what gives guys ! If their was an actual requirement for 4000 Cuda Cores or a 4.0 CUDA CORE COUNT to meet the recommend requirements with a Quadro Series Card to run IRAY what could a Geofroce GTX 1080 card be contributing with a 2.5 CUDA CORE COUNT - What could that possibly be ? Around 62 percent of the required Cuda Cores to use IRAY ? You'd have to have duel 1080 GTX cards just to meet the requirement.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Your question to NVIDIA:
"Excuse me sirs - is it possible to use cheaper cards for professional results?"
NVIDIA answer:
"Why no sir, you will not obtain professional results. We recommend that you buy our latest, most expensive products that we tailored to the needs of Professionals in the industry."
Also - a Requirement means:
"You need AT LEAST THIS MUCH to run it."
It's different from RECOMMENDED which is:
"As many as possible."
You are drawing the wrong conclusions. Recommending a Quadro doesn't mean that GeForce cards aren't supported. The NVIDIA reply just says that a Quadro would be a better choice, nothing else.
DAZ's "System Recommendations for DAZ Studio 4+" doesn't recommend 4 CUDA cores, it recommends at least 4GB of GPU memory (Video RAM), for the scene you want to render has to completely fit into the VRAM, or the GPU will drop out of the rendering process. For large sceneries you'd need as much as VRAM you can get. Currently, 12 GB VRAM is the maximum on a GeForce, and 24 GB on a QUADRO P6000.
Also, Dual Core GPU's aren't recommended, for the total VRAM will be split among the GPUs, means if you have a Dual Core NVIDIA graphics card with 4 GB VRAM, that would actually make it only 2 GB VRAM total available [for each core]. So one has to make sure it is a Single Core GPU he chooses).
This website lists all the NVIDIA products which will support GPU rendering. Me myself I 'm currently using a Gainward GeForce GT 730 (2 GB VRAM, 384 CUDA cores). That allows a simple scenery with a single figure with hair and clothes and a 8k HDRi. Additional objects are possible if they don't use HighRes textures, or better no textures at all. Geometry needs way less VRAM than HighRes textures do. A MSI GeForce GT 730 (2GB VRAM, 96 CUDA cores) can do the same job, but because of the lesser amount of CUDA cores it needs way more time to finish it.
Deciding which one to buy depends on your budget. GPU memory will decide how large the scenery can be, and the amount of CUDA cores will have an impact on the Render Time. The more CUDA cores you have, the less time you'll need to finish a render. In short: get as much GPU memory and CUDA cores as your budget allows.
ARNOLD --- Low Level Direct X and API and low CUDA CORES and the fact that GTX cards aren't built for the purpose of rendering and Quadros Cards are and then theirs the thought your just burning your expensive GTX Card up because your using it in a facet in which it wasn't created for.
This is DAZ's exact recommendation and it states it here https://www.daz3d.com/daz_studio ; I suggest you go to the link their and read it and then go ask Nvidia about your GTX Card and your 384 CUDA Cores. They have a chat feature right their at the NVIDIA site. I'd be real interested in what they tell you. Please repost -
Iray Render Engine: 64 bit only. NVIDIA video card with 4+GB vram and 4 CUDA cores recommended. .
Dear Thomas - lol - Their getting greedy that's for sure and at this point I'm not so sure where the truth lies. No - That's not a pun.
Can and Does a AMD FX-8350 out render a I7 and what ever happened with that wonderfull little Quadro 600 card concept at 150 dollars ?
http://pcfoo.com/2013/02/8350-rendering-node/
http://pcfoo.com/2013/01/nvidia-quadro-600/
Arnold is right, you are drawing the wrong conclusions.
It's not about greed. You asked them what would they "recommend" so obviously their answer is "we recommend the best of our products".
If you asked them "What is the minimum requirement for running Iray?" or "What is the weakest NVIDIA GPU that can run Iray?" - their answer will be different.
As for the 4 CUDA cores - your link is broken, but checking their requirements, I do see it. Lol, 4 CUDA cores. It might be a typo or someone stated the minium requirement.
I'm honestly surprised they didn't try and push cloud rendering, or racks. Their recommendations are pretty much on point, but it's a shame they are trying to sway hobbyists away from smaller cards. The majority of this sites userbase aren't working on production ready VFX, and the one's that are, are more than likely still working with farms. They are just trying to upsell, which is fair enough, but i really wouldn't be concerned.
Thomas - I think it was a typo and was suppose to read 4 CUDA CORES COUNT which would read as 4000 CUDA CORES. I asked NVIDIA and they thought that as well. 4 CUDA CORES ISN"T ANYTHING -
I do understand the desire and interest to use a rendering engine for a NVIDA based card and obtain GPU rendering but it's kind of un president for a software company to make recommendations that are not specific to the manufacture and it is really out side the box for consumers to try to do so also. In all fairness I asked DAZ in hopes of obtaining a better over all understanding than I recieved from their consumers.
Kindred Arts - = They should of matched a more market compatable render engine to their software. The Base of their consumers are middle to lower class and won't ever own a Quadro Card. If a GTX Card won't build specific and higher levels of Direct X and API and draws from lower CUDA CORES than recommended , it would be reasonable to presume the CPU and not the GPU in this application of GTX rendering is doing the base of the work and final production in IRAY/DAZ.
In fact it should probably read ---- Iray Render Engine: 64 bit only. NVIDIA Quadro series graphics cards only with 4+GB vram and 4000 CUDA cores recommended.
GeForce cards are perfectly capable of working with Iray.
I'm not seeing the 4 Core recommendation with respect to GPUs in the page linked or in https://helpdaz.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207530513-System-Recommendations-for-DAZ-Studio-4- - exactly wherea re you seeing it, and what is the full quote?
Because somebody fixed it...
https://www.daz3d.com/daz_studio
It now says
Where it used to say 4 CUDA cores in the last part of that...
I can confirm it was there.I swear it was ninjas. NINJAS!
You gotta hand it to people at DAZ though - they fixed it quickly.
Can't say I agree or understand it but DAZ did change it to the following which returns support to all Geoforce GTX Cards. It still seems to be opposing to Nvidia/ IRAY's statement and I don't understand software companies setting their own standards for third party software and etc but if the DAZ customers are Happy and DAZ is Happy - I'm happy for them. - - I'm sure Daz and their lawyers have done their home work and may even be able to provide a greater degree of insight and explain how the GTX cards perform GPU rendering through this technology. - So ! Render Away -
DAZ SOFTWARE SAYS ----
Notes: NVIDIA Iray Render Engine: 64-bit only. NVIDIA video card with 4GB+ VRAM recommended. CUDA Compute Capability 2.0 or greater required.
https://www.daz3d.com/daz_studio
(GPU Computing) NVIDIA CUDA Compute Capability Comparative Table
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
I really didn't understand the CUDA Core Number Posted By Daz which was at 4 so this might be a good place to look at the Quadro's actual Cuda Cores and CUDA Core Count since the specs are here. I may of been wrong in that perspective and just asked Nvida just to guess at what the actual figure they were posting.
Also Of Note - I just pinned this some where else and I'm not going to re write it -
In all honesty, it doesn't help IRAY in any capacity to say that it doesn't support the GTX Geoforce Cards and it seems it would be a great promotion to sales to have that advertised on the front page of IRAY. A lot more people own those cards than Quadro Cards. . The DAZ banner is also new to the best of my recollection.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-iray.html
Their just doesn't seem to be any reference to the Geoforce GTX cards and the only recognition I've found from Nvidia in their support and web site for Nvidia Iray is for the Quadro Cards.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/iray-scaling.html
Maybe some one else should go to their site from here and ask them if they support GTX Geoforce Cards and repost here.
I would like to clarify the point about CUDA cores; it is not accurate to say the more cores, the faster the scene will render.
It would be more accurate to say that the more cores (when comparing cards from the same generation) the faster a scene will render.
An older generation card, that has more cores than a 10 series, is tougher to determine; probably not as fast, but it would depend on how many more cores. I would guess that it would be slower, but that's it, it is just a guess.
... So take from this, that comparing CUDA cores from different generations of cards is not reliable, as other factors come into play. It is perfect for comparing cards from the same generation; with the caveat that if the card is a dual GPU card it may not be quite as clear-cut.
4 CUDA cores is a missprint; 4 cores would render much slower than an i3 CPU from intel, and probably any i3 ever released. (I'd be curious to know, but I'm not aware of any 4 CUDA core cards - especially with enough RAM to test.)
@richard "Maybe some one else should go to their site from here and ask them if they support GTX Geoforce Cards and repost here."
Look at Geforce.com for any of the 7xx series on. Look at Specs>Technology Support. CUDA is clearly shown.
It's also pretty obvious from even a casual scan of threads here that Geforce cards render Iray as GPU only, when scenes fit in Vram.
Nvidia just released the SDK update to support Iray on the 10XX series. Given all this, I don't see how one can hold to an obvious misinterpretation/misunderstanding.
That and the fact that such cards would be below the CUDA compute threshold, too...but the lowest number of cores I could find was 8.
My line of thinking on this is that Quadro and the Geoforce Cards are two very different GPU'S and that Nvidia should have a different render engine for both because their designed to do different things..
The Qudro Cards are built for rendering where the GTX GPU'S are not so it wouldn't be idea to expect the GPU's to perform the same functions during the render process or to provide the same capabilities.
Quadro series graphics cards work well with the low level APIs like the OpenGL, OpenCL and comes with full support for IRAY
GTX is mainly designed for Gaming and runs with low level Direct X and low level API.
You would think that asking the GTX lines of cards to perform the same function would work to exhaust the GTX cards because it's not with in their components to provide the same features or to be able to run with the same kind of durability with in the intent to render..
A better GPU render engine by Nvidia for the GTX would seem to be one that would rely more on the CPU and not distribute the same demanding commands upon the GPU which is not built with the same representation or parameters while using as much as the avaible technolgy from the GTX GPU as they can while not exhausting or over heating it.
DAZ appaears to be supported by IRAY so this is only my two cents --- for what it's worth !
I'm not sure why you still feel there is an issue - as noted, nVidia wants people to buy the more expensive (and I ssupect higher margin) items but Iray does work with GeFormce cards - pretty weel everyone here is using those. But, given that nVidia wants to sell those Quadro cards to the render market, why would they consider making a second render engine for GeForce cards if that wasn't so? It would be an extra investment to undermine their more profitable (presumably) hardware.
@richard "My line of thinking is . . ."
Your liine of thinking as well as your supposition is wrong. The GPU architecture is Pascal, Maxwell, etc. CUDA are parallel processing cores. The new P Quadros are Pascal, the M Quadros are Maxwell. The GEFORCE 10xx are Pascal, the 9xx and below are Maxwell. The GPUs aren't fundamentally different between the Pascal cards or bwtween the Maxwell cards. The differences are Vram, buss speed/size, monitor support, number of CUDA cores.
I just kind of thought if the coding was telling the software to collect the Direct X and API information from the GPU it would be conflicting. API And Direct X are low level in GTX. You would think they would be better off in collecting more of this data from the CPU in GTX cases.
Then if the software was telling the Quadro series graphics cards to conduct rendering parallels that GTX cards weren't designed for , wouldn't the software be asking your GTX card to perform task in which would be exhausting or over heating to your card.. You would think this would also be conflicting and destructive to your GTX card.
Theirs some reason Nvidia says they don't support GTX cards other than the conspiracy that the big giant softare company don't want you using their software. If the coding is conflicting or damaging , I don't understand why any one would be content with that.
I was just confused - DAZ has always been a good product and I don't have to use Nvidia but when Nvidia says they are not supported ( GTX ) for IRAY and DAZ says they are , it creates some confusion that both DAZ and Nvidia would seem to want to clarify. At least they have my interest. I'd be happy to use Delight in my rendering if IRAY was going to be damaging to my new GTX CARD !
DAZ is supported by IRAY so that says a lot !
I'd like to hear more direct input from IRAY or DAZ.
I asked them again and they said using it wouldn't damage the GTX card but the coding would be different and they recommend that I used the Quadro cards instead of the GTX. When I asked for their recommended requirement site they sent me this
http://www.nvidia.com/object/iray-scaling.html
If I made any one believe using IRAY in DAZ was going to hurt their GTX card , that's not what NVIDIA contends. They just highly suggested using the Quadro Cards.
richard, you should check this benchmark list out, i read this whole thread and am kinda with you on your symantic argument about all this. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/NVIDIA-Iray-GPU-Performance-Comparison-785/