- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey everybody. So I have an RTX 3080 with 10gb. Was entertaining thoughts of picking up a 3090ti with 24gb of VRAM. Gaming is no problem with my card, but I wonder how much the 10gb is holding back my render times. Would 24 gigs be a serious improvement for rendering with Daz?
After getting the 3090ti for a great price and selling my 3080, my net expense would be $300-$500. Just trying to determine if it's worth it. (I already know the tricks for shortening render times, just asking about the VRAM.)
If you're rendering large scenes (lots of props, high-res textures) and the total VRAM usage goes beyond 10 GB, Daz will fallback to CPU only render which is significantly slower. Other than that, more VRAM wil not speed up render times.
🙂
Try this for a couple of weeks.
Disable CPU in your render settings. That way you're only ever using the GPU.
If Daz can't fit the scene into your GPU's memory, it'll just fail. If you find that it never fails. Then you're not using the 10GB you currently have. And like 3dnoob said, in that instance upgrading to 24GB isn't going to make a difference.You'd think having both the CPU and GPU rendering a scene together would be faster. But it doesn't always work that way.
The GPU and CPU have to communicate constantly when rendering together. It's not always efficient.
Imagine you have a hole that needs digging that's the size of a typical burial plot. If one person was digging the hole it'd be done in no time, they could just get on with it.
But if a hundred people were digging that hole, having to constantly check in with each other to discuss what part of the dirt they were going to remove and where they were going to put it. Then check in with each other to confirm that they've removed it, then to tell the other person they could take their turn digging their bit. It'd take a lot longer.
I found that rendering with both the CPU and GPU at best shaved 2 minutes off every 60-minute render. Hardly worth the extra electricity, and definitely not worth running the CPU into the ground by having it at a constant 100% on all cores for an hour as well as the GPU.
By disabling the CPU and relying just on the GPU. My CPU never goes past 20% during rendering times. My system’s also a lot cooler because of it. And the time difference isn’t even noticeable.
Okay. I'll give it a try. I do render some large scenes, ones where I have to bump max samples way up to get a full render. Usually, what happens is that things go blazing fast for a few, with my GPU running in the high 90s percentage wise according to HWMonitor. Then, the GPU drops to almost nothing and it's just the CPU at 100% the rest of the way, with the "Percent Completed" going at a snail's pace compared to the earlier stage.
Probably just my confirmation bias, but it almost sounds like my GPU is maxed out on the RAM and the CPU has to take over, which would indicate "yes".
Increasing max samples doesn't increase the VRAM required to render a scene.
Usually, what happens is that things go blazing fast for a few, with my GPU running in the high 90s percentage wise according to HWMonitor.
You can use Task manager/ HWMonitor to check the VRAM usage.
Yes, it has the same requirements regardless of where max samples is set. And large scenes with a lot of polygons require a lot of samples. If fully rendering a scene requires 8000 samples and your max is 5000, the render won't be completed. It will just stop at 5000, so I have to raise it to accommodate the 8000 samples. At least that's my understanding.
I always use only GPU & disable use of CPU in Render hardware settings.
The CPU has enough to deal with without thinking about the render process!
🙂
Always found the 11gb on my former 2080ti was easily saturated as I tend to render fairly large scenes with detailed backgrounds, so would have to compromise scene detail to avoid problems. On the 3090 have yet to push much past around 20gb total usage with any scene.
So, if like you say 3090ti can be yours for below average used price for the card; yes it'll be worth the move if you are saturating the 3080 memory.
Well, I pulled the trigger and the verdict is in:
It does speed up render times enormously, whether it's two characters and a prop with no background or a complete scene saturated with polygons.
Upgrading to 24gb of VRAM is the single best upgrade I've ever done.
I also upgraded my CPU from a 5900X to an Intel 265K for a reaaally reasonable price. I don't think it's the CPU though. My old CPU was great. I just had to graduate to DDR5.
Anyway, I would STRONGLY advise others to spend the money if you love doing renders. Two hour renders with my old rig are getting done in 10 minutes with this thing. And my old card was no slouch. It was a 3080 with 10gb of RAM (yeah that's a little low on the RAM). Just going from that to a 3090 with 24gb, which isn't even a generation upgrade, was like warp drive. It's ridiculous, and after I sell the 3080 for about $300, my net expense will be like $400. I used to do internet rounds, whatever else around the house, and go to the grocery store while I waited for renders. Any kind of creative energy I had was put on hold for a couple hours. Now, I run out of creative energy bc I can get so many renders done.
Going to a 12GB 3060 card from an I'm-too-embarassed-to-say-what-I'd-been-using card was a HUGE deal for me so I can imagine how your improvement was.
Happy rendering!I think upgrades are worth it. I went from 3060 12Gb to 4070 Super 16GB earlier in the year. I'd love to have a 4080 in my system, if I could find one back when I brought my new graphics card back earlier in the year.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
