Blender 2.8 Viewport Performance


(dave62) #41

i have a strong i9 14core and 2x1080ti but can’t see any boost/advantage working in edit mode atm

Edit: to be precise I only focused at selectionspeeds selecting loopcuts etc. will check transforms later…

but xmas was early this year: cycles gpu/cpu hibrydmode gives me renderspeeds compareable to vrays


(English is not my native language) #42

All the threads are being used. The height that I have marked with the white arrows correspond to Multi Threads task and is being used less than 50% of capacity. Higher curves correspond to single thread tasks and are used to more than 90% of capacity.

Not only depends on how good CPU is, there are also Blender limitations in this regard (as I think it had also been explained by developers or some user).


(SonicBlue) #43

Cycle is indeed very fast, you can set up your lighting and see the results in seconds.

I think I read what you wrote earlier wrong, as all the parts were multithreaded. Yes, indeed, the problem is in Blender’s architecture, it slow down to an alt no matter the hardware after reaching a certain polycount.

From looking at the other software, though, it seems that they use the GPU more than Blender does, and that’s probably that that gives them a boost in editing performances, because 2.8 doesn’t have any problems at displaying large numbers of polygons in Edit Mode, while 2.79 slows down quite heavily, so it can handle the load better for sure.


(English is not my native language) #44

Another thread that may result useful in this regard, with interesting comments from Blender developers such as “Psy-Fi”:


(dave62) #45

Thx, interesting stuff👌


(Rimasson) #46

the software which has the most impressive viewport is 3d coat. You can still sculpt 50 millions poly without multires with ease. Zbrush can’t handle that


(Ace Dragon) #47

That Houdini example has the speed I would like to see Blender 2.8 get to for editmode (just amazingly fluid there).

But right now, the devs. are also very busy fixing bugs, crashes, and other issues that are preventing the Spring team from being productive (though optimizations have been made already).


(staughost) #48

To use single floating point precision in max you need a quadro.


(staughost) #49

I’ve tried to replicate the scene with the cube and it’s also slow for me. Tbh I work in max and it’s not rare for me to have meshes far beyond 100k polys. Sometimes they go up to 750k and “edit mode” in max runs it smooth. I rly hope blenders edit mode will have more performance boosts.


(Thornydre) #50

Don’t know if that has already been said in this thread, but do some of you have bad performance with popovers. For example when I want to subdivide a mesh, if I try to click multiple times on the right arrow to increase the number of subdivision, it doesn’t when, you have to wait a little time between each click. And it doesn’t have any relation with the computation of the subdivision because if I try do double click on the 3D cursor toggle for example, same thing, and it doesn’t happen in the menu or the properties editor. Do you have the same thing happening ?


(Mr_Flamey) #51

Well, when you can see the wireframe (in edit mode) then you are right, it’s not really necessary to use AO, but it does help get a better sense of the shape of your model versus it being disabled. When the wireframe is not visible, and especially on hard surface shapes, then it helps a lot to see AO.

I was just worried that they were just going to use the old AO, which is either grainy or laggy. Eevee AO doesn’t seem to suffer from these problems, but the new workbench AO looks like the old one in terms of render quality. To be honest I should probably just stop worrying though.


(Pitiwazou) #52

The cavity is really grainy too, they added sample.

I really don’t like the AO from 2.79, if they use this one, I’ll don’t use it like I don’t use it now.
Eevee AO is really great.


(Mr_Flamey) #53

Yeah, but hopefully it’s just a first pass and will be improved later. I’m definitely glad that cavity has been added.

Also, sorry to bring up such a borderline viewport / performance issue. I wasn’t sure which thread it should be in, as my original concern was about the lagginess of viewport AO in 2.79, and I didn’t do a test with the 2.8 workbench AO before posting.


(SonicBlue) #54

I think that there’s an internal timer synchronized with the highlight/dimmed animation, so you have to wait a little bit before clicking again, I don’t know if there’s a setting for that, like for the Smooth View, when you change the view to Orthographic.

(I’ve noticed that if you drag the slider on the button, you’ll get way more precise results than you’ll get with 2.79)


(Jason van Gumster) split this topic #55

9 posts were split to a new topic: Discussing Blender 2.8 possible release


(JustinBarrett) #57

Just my Opinion but, if Eevee and all the other viewport features are not fast…what’s the point?..

I’d rather have the new features with the old performance to be completely honest…
The argument that it can render in RT is not really even relevant…if you make a scene as simple as the scenes for Eevee to render in realtime…it will still render blazingly fast in cycles…

not to beat a dead horse but…it’s not a game engine…and yet…it’s totaly game style rendering…

anyway…to recap…I’d rather have 2.79 performance than Eevee…but Eevee is really fun.


(SterlingRoth) #58

Well, a large group of blender users are creating content for games, being able to see your model rendered in a similar style/context is really beneficial for artists.


(Pitiwazou) #59

Mareck just did this, he learned to use eevee this afternoon.

Not really game style render.


(Ace Dragon) #60

With the modern OpenGL code, there will likely be many ways to speed things up that were plainly impossible to do in 2.79.

Let’s not draw conclusions yet, as changes are coming at breakneck speed and your knowledge of 2.8 today may not always apply a week from now.


(JustinBarrett) #67

I fully understand that, but it seems that speed should be priority one, and after that ‘fluff’.