hi
My first work in Cycles Render
GPU - Gigabyte GTX660Ti
1 pics - 2:20h
1200 samples
Very nice. I don’t like the background behind the windows - it has weird colors and it’s too obvious that it’s a mapped plane in the windows.
i have question…
- the processor on the motherboard supports the rendering? the graphics card is working independently?
- if I change my Q9300 processor to another newer like i5 then render GPU runs faster?
Nice renderings.
1- I’m not sure, but afaik nope, the processor only sends stuff to the GPU. There are renderers like Indigo and Luxrender that has an “hybrid” mode but I noticed it’s almost always slower than GPU-only.
2- I’m almost sure not, it won’t render faster (or at least considerably faster) I’d invest in a better GPU or V-ray instead.
thx. I can buy a used GTX580. Is it better to have a second GTX660Ti in SLI ? ( or not SLI)
580 is way faster, even 560ti is faster.
Cuda cores in 6xx is not tha same as in 5xx.
I have a GTX580 and a GTX680 in my pc. (Win 7 64)
Depending on the scene and the tile size the 580 is ~10% faster. But the 680 needs ~20% less power.
-> the 680 is more economical.
And in most cases the 580s have noisy fans to get rid of the heat.
great scene only problem the exterior is to bright
Pretty nice interiors ! Good lightning and interios design.
I don’t like the chromatic aberation effect, I my opinion it’s stupid to add artfaktes from physical cameras.
We should think how we can do renderings better than a photography from a physical camera, we should no imitate the mistakes from the past but thats a theme for another thread 
Kind regards
Alain
Nope, it’s not, based on what you say it’s “way” faster?
Seriously, the 680 ‘beats’ the 580 in every aspect (but ROP?). Imho, you either have bad drivers or a cheapo, underclocked 680.
Again, it’s not possible to be sure which one is faster without testing them, but unless some crazy thing happens in Cycles core, none is “way faster” than the other (comparing the 660ti vs 580), and I really doubt the newer and much improved 680 is slower than the 580. If it’s slower, it’s because of bad drivers, bad software (unoptimized for CUDA 3) and cheapo vgas. The 680 has more “horsepower” and supports CUDA 3 (vs CUDA 2 of 580), that’s what matter, the hardware itself is better. If you’re talking about OpenCL though, then yes, it seems the 500 series are kinda better, but who cares about OpenCL? I gave up on ATI/AMD a long time ago, my conclusion is they have insane people in their staff. Nvidia is a piece of sheep also, but compared to AMD they’re god, so I don’t care if the technology is Nvidia-only.
If you want to go serious about rendering though, it’s not a slight upgrade in your VGA that will make the difference. Unbiased renderers aren’t quite an option in the case of archiviz, they won’t provide you the speed and quality to be on par with the industry. And to worsen things, Cycles isn’t a spectral renderer, so It really isn’t suitable for product visualization.
Blender is a competitive software, the modelling and texturing capabilities are fantastic, but it always lacked a good renderer for photorealistic stuff. BI and Cycles aren’t bad, but they’re mediocre renderers in terms of photorealism and speed. If you want to compete with the worlds best archiviz professionals, you need a better renderer and a good image editing software for post-production. Unfortunately, you’ll probably have to pay for them.
EDIT:
@Alain, if you want photorealism, you have to simulate all the real-life effects. Perfect stuff doesn’t exist in real-life.
Some really good looking renders over all.
I do like the physical camera artifacts like chromatic aberration to ground the images in reality, and I can tell you have gone to great lengths to tone it down compared to some renders out there.
To me (make no mistake, I know very little about physical photography) it does look like interior design photos taken with a bad camera. Wouldn’t you use expensive lenses and a good camera?
So this effect should maybe still be included in your renders, but be toned down even more to be believable. Maybe to the point where you only pick up on it subconsciously without actually looking for it.
@Conz3D:
That’s very strange, are those vgas stock? Folding@home is faster on the 600 series, I know it’s not much a reference, but even a 630M is substantially faster than a 540M. Everyone is saying the 600 series are slower, that may be the case for OpenCL, but it’s hard to believe that optimized CUDA 3.0 code runs slower on the 600 series. The “decision makers” nowadays are all stupid and dumb though, so I wouldn’t be that surprised if the 600 series are crap.
Anyway, as I said before, It doesn’t matter the VGA you have, unless you have 4 GTX590, they won’t make that difference, It’s impossible to achieve a good productivity and quality with Cycles imho.
but it’s hard to believe that optimized CUDA 3.0 code runs slower on the 600 series
That is many times spoken, even NVidia ppl says they have crippled a lot to get game performance shine to compete with AMD. Less internal caches, hidden internal buses, and memory management.
I’ll send them my curriculum, because if that’s true the only explanation is they hired Dumb&Dumber as decision makers, and I think my curriculum is better than theirs.
Seriously, if that’s true (I’m still struggling to believe in such a stupidity), then the 500 series are cheaper and better? Man, Dumb&Dumber FTW. What is the point of having more efficient cards if the performance is decreased, this is not efficient stuff, I call this crap.
Thanks Gosh I didn’t buy a 600 series. Seriously, AMD is sheep, if that’s true NVidia is sheep also… no decent option, if there was another competitor I’d go for it.
Haha nVidia are indeed Dumb&Dumber. But regarding the scene, as was previously said, the window planes look strange as are washed out - though I don’t know what the solution would be for this :S The tv screen is a nice touch, as it gives some energy to the piece - generally these archiviz scenes are so lifeless and stagnant! Though the fireplace, which could really support this, actually detracts from it in its current state - the colours look weird. But all in all, very impressive work and I wish I was at this level!!
You only have to do a quick image search to see that the 580 is usually DOUBLE the performance of a 680, when it comes to computation like FP64 OpenCL or DP floating point or CUDA.
Nvidia in case you don’t know decided to massively cripple all gaming cards even the titans and quadros in terms of double precision floating point performance. This was done so that they had a viable market for the multi thousand dollar TESLA scientific compute cards. This has been the case ever since the GTX580. If i remember correctly its something like a 1/24th artificial performance cap, or maybe even a 1/64th… Note this does not affect gaming performance, only GPU compute for things like rendering.
Very impressive, especially if it’s your first render. One thing I don’t like is these mapped images onto window, as people mentioned above. You may consider using HDR environment instead.
Great work, I would like to know more about the settings for the surrender and the lighting.
Just like in real shots if the interior appear right exposed the exterior looks overcast , in real word you can turn around this with hdr , if you try tod a shot in interior taking exposure in the interior the exterior looks overexposed.
So i thin this render is right