Comparing EeVee and Cycle-X (Blender 3.0A)


Here’s a test run I did with 2 scenarios - rendering both in EeVee and Cycle-X in Blender 3.0Alpha.

In my 2nd scenario, the rendering time for “large landscape” remain a big challenge - ~56 hours for a 6300 frames animation. I wonder there’s any good tutorial on how to further “fine tune” Cycle-X to speed up, although I know it is already ~5 times faster compare to 2.9x cycle rendering speed.

The 1st scenario work was done in learning how to use iClone … for the lip sync competition.
This 2nd scenario work was done to support a longer music video I made with my wife. The quality rendered is indeed nice.

Any constructive comments is appreciated.

An update … here’s a fine tune Cycle-X setting (found in the link below the details) to speed up rendering by 50% for same quality in my simulated animated with 2 iClone models. If anyone has better speed up setup techniques, appreciate feedback.

So, ~56 hours in Cycle-X. How long in EeVee?

That’s 32 seconds of render time per frame. Not too… bad.

Another interesting comparison would be…
How long would it have taken to render in 2.93?

And finally, in the original post, I assume it compares quality differences between EeVee and Cycle-X. Did you adjust the lights depending on the engine… or do they both use the same lights?

Thanks for the research !

Hi Calpgrmr,
I am not really an expert on this … just trying out based on what I saw others do.
Also b’cos I have to do it to support my partner who uses this for her music video.

As the time to render is really long, I won’t be doing any further test run in different versions as you suggested.

Also I did not adjust any lightings when I did these render. Simply share out the comparison results with environment being the same. It is not my intent to “research” in depth really … just a feel of the render time and the quality. My partner wanted quality work but we now realise we need afford the “render time” with my small computer. Where the no. of frames is less than 2000, we will consider this going forward … anything more, need to think really hard if we must have “quality” output :slight_smile:
Also note that we share music video on Youtube so the quality needed not necessary be that high as you can’t see the difference that much.