i think this is very unfair comparations (like all other topics on the forum - where simple cubes are compared, or geometry with a gray shader.) - because this scene is very simple with very simple lighting and simple shading:
render engines like Octane, Vray (vray Proxy, vrayScater, lightCache, outOfCOre) fstorm (memory paking, veryfastGPUrendering) of Corona (best and fastest use CPU for render) start shine when there are scenes with many threes (or other complex geometry)
Or interior with complex shaders and can compare quality of GI base on how shaders itself interoperate between themselves and it self make GI and atmosphere between themselves base on secondary rays of shaders.
or scenes where so many geometry that not fit in VRAM and octane cant render scene but fstorm CAN just because it have some exotic memory packing for geometry…
cycles is good (and i love it), very good for it situation but other engines is have dozens of developers hwo throu their time only on render engine and matematics and tehnologis behind corona render or fstorm render simply not exist in cycles and when some one who spended many time woth corona render use cycles - the lack of technology constantly appears here and there, as soon as you do something more or less complicated. Yes, you can always get around something somehow - but this is done only because these technologies simply do not exist.
if anyone wants a fair comparison of rendering engines, then the scene should be complex, affecting all aspects of the engine, loading a lot of memory, containing all the main components (SSS, multyLights, proxy system of unload geo, GI, complex shaders) of the engine…
Again i do not say that cycles cant do all this things - it can, but very limited ( with all sorts of tricks) and slowеr than others engines (and comparison of simples scenes in general have no sense)
