Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'gpu rendering'.
Found 2 results
Hi guys, Im planning to build a pc for me and also gonna buy indie license, i will use this pc mostly for motion graphics work, particles, small scale flip and high res pyro as well. i have choosen the nvida 2070 gpu for gpu rendering but after the leaks im now waiting for the new generation gpus from nvidia. i have googled a lot about choosing the right cpu,still i couldn't decide which one to buy amd ryzen 9 3900x or intel 10700k i know amd has more cores which can be utilised well by houdini. but still lot of my friends suggest intel over Amd based on their user experience. also i have found this comparison here https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/m1202614vs4071 in which amd is way too down than than intel. But everyone over youtube suggesting AMD. so i really need suggestion from you guys who are actual houdini users instead of blindly believing in youtubers and online database.. Any advise will really help me a lot as this is gonna be a very big investment for me. Thank you.
Hi, I've been watching forum posts and looking everything up over GPU rendering. My humble conclusions are: 1. Yes, GPU rendering is fast for simple scenes. 2. GPU's don't scale well. Your speed benefit drops when adding more then 3 GPU's. 3. You can't add up the gpu memory of all your cards, so your limited to 4, 6, 8, 12 GB memory. With inexpensive SSD's in mind, cpu rendering gives you more flexibility. 4. A GPU rendering solution isn't exactly cheaper then a cpu solution. If you count the price of the graphics cards, a special motherboard, the powe rsupply, it's as expensive as buying a decent Intel Xeon workstation. And you get more flexibility with cpu rendering and the cpu has a lower power consumption. My conclusion for the moment, I don't believe in the GPU hype, it's good for simpeler scenes, but once you take it further cpu rendering gives you more flexibility. Comments please,