Cuda error

Hi all,

I am trying to make the switch over to Blender from 3ds max.
I decided to start with some small projects and get a feel for the work flow.

Everything was fine with this while in EVEE. I switched over to Cycles to render a few stills and just kept getting the enclosed error message.

The scene is pretty small in size.

I am using blender 2.81 on windows 10. I have 2 nvidia cards. one is a Geforce GTX 1070 Ti and the other is a Geforce GTX 980.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Memory consumption seems completely over the top for such a simple scene. A memory peak of 12 GB…? What for?

Please share the scene file for us to find out where the memory hogs are. Excessive use of subdivisions, perhaps?

Yes totally over the top, thats why I am completely confused on whats going on.

None at all, its just a very basic scene all created in Blender with primitives.

Check it out. ( I think I packed the file correctly? )zipfile


Hm. Renders fine here on a single GTX 1070 with a peak memory consumption of about 3.2 GB…

Did you try rendering just on the 1070 Ti?
I confess that I’m not exactly sure how memory management works in Blender 2.8x, but in earlier versions using two cards with vastly different VRAM sizes was a no go, as the smaller VRAM would become the limiting factor for both cards.


I did not try rendering on just one card. I do not know how to do that?

Do I do that in blender or is that a windows thing?


Go to Edit > Preferences in Blender’s main menu. Enter the System tab and check/uncheck the render devices you want to use in the top area of that tab:

It renders on my 1060 6GB with 1051 Ti as well, but very slowly. The main culprit seems to be the print sized images. I’d consider using scaled down versions of the graphics rather than ones that could feasibly be printed and used on the actual real world display stand.

An example would be the one called “JetBlue_TimeFlies_Graphics_R3-shelf.jpg”. The JPEG might only take up 965kb on disk, but in Photoshop it shows up as 296.7mb. It’s 7201 x 14401 pixels. That’s 103,701,601 pixels getting squeezed into your available VRAM. An 8K texture would only be 67,108,864 pixels (8192x8192). And you have a number of textures of that kind of size.

Unless you are planning to move your camera very close to the panels you would easily get away with making the longest side of your textures 4096 px.

This is awesome guys! Thanks so much for the info.

I am going to try resizes those graphics first. I didn’t even think about that. The graphic dept always does stuff for print so when I get there images they are huge.

I gotta jump back on a different project but when I am done I will test this out and let you know.


1 Like

So I had a little time to test this out again with the suggestions.
In a nut shell it runs fine as long as I am not using my 980 card.

I tested just my 1070 Ti card it was fine.
I tested just my 980 card very slow, so slow I stopped the test
I tested 1070 card and cpu it was fine… surprised that there was not any difference in rendering time though. I figured it would be faster.

Tried both cards and no cpu it was fine but still not an increase in speed

I did also resize the texture maps which really helped with the memory consumption.

Thanks again for the help