Cycles-X

I know that feeling bro :wink:

2 Likes

I love watching tiles too, especially the little 8 px :rofl:
I am a little disappointed here because I am restricted to CPU (GPU is no go)
At least there is a bit of difference though :slight_smile:
1000 samples, open image de noise.

Edit: 3.0 alpha 19m 06s
2.92 20m 48s (automatic tile size)

I rounded the seconds.


I can not see any difference in the renders.

Edit:
Out of interest has anyone compared to E Cycles?

Edit 2: I just noticed the difference in memory and peak, maybe due to the tiles.

2 Likes

And what is the time you got with Cycles X build?

Just in case you got confused, at the end of the first post in this thread is the link to download cycles-x build (labelled as “Blender 3.0.0 cycles-x branch”)

3 Likes

Don’t you mean “Cycles-E”?

2 Likes

Yes Sorry it was 3.00 I wrote it wrong and have corrected.

1 Like

I meant this one

I know just joking.

4 Likes

Ha ha, I just checked that thread and they are already comparing.

I must be an odd one then, I prefer watching my render clean up in the progressive refine mode.

Apparently the slides mention (for Cycles X) that some of the more advanced algorithms do a lot better when they are not forced to work with tiles. Even the adaptive sampling Cycles has now can run into trouble if you make your tile size too small.

1 Like

Yes my GPU is embarrassing! The rig is an “old” I7…
I know I need to upgrade but the longer I wait the more it will be worth changing the whole system.

1 Like

Hi, found the link of the technical presentation on devtalk: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13Zo2gafKyIFEyZCBucEfFHrrrwz9RBQoIImC6nBCgEE/edit#slide=id.p

This was posted before but as for the discussion about NLM denoise and tiles, it is all inside the presentation.
Some other interessting information: https://devtalk.blender.org/t/cycles-requests/3729/397

Cheers, mib

1 Like

WHAT ? CUDA WAS SLOWER ???

Microdisplacement is working just fine. It may be only that improvements to it are coming later? It’s certainly not broken like that volume example. I have got another issue, though. This screenshot shows microdisplacement working fine (the bricks), but for some reason the pool table cloth is partially transparent all the way through the image, not even just to an object behind it or anything.

Unfortunately, I haven’t figured out a good way to see just Cycles X issues in the tracker - anyone know the best way to follow this stuff? I can’t even sort search results in that tracker - I hate that UX, it’s like it’s deliberately bad compared to every other issue/bug tracking system I’ve ever used (I am a web developer).

1 Like

Hi, I use mail list bf-committers, as it is now a branch all commits should show up there.
May be you could filter the branch commits in your mail client.

https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/

Cheers, mib

If you want to follow the progress, here are a few links :slight_smile:

https://developer.blender.org/T87839
https://developer.blender.org/T87837
https://developer.blender.org/T87836

6 Likes

OptiX should be faster than CUDA

1 Like

CPU rendering is 2.5x faster (comparing with 2.92) for me and SSS quality is better (less noise with the same sample count).

2 Likes

Oh now I got it - I thought Cycles X alone was faster than the NVIDIA APIs

Yeah, not a complete fan of phabricator either. Which, if you know which company created it, makes a lot of sense why it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phabricator

Everyone do a render for our homies under the ‘notable users’ section…

1 Like

So a lot of information to sort through on cycles-x. Right now the only improvements is for viewport? Also are tiles no longer a thing for renders? It’s rendering my projects slower…