![]() Operating System: Windows Server 2016 DatacenterĬPUs: 64 Memory Usage: 17.4 GB / 488.0 GB (3%) Free Disk Space: 91.781 GB Device 1111 (x1 GPU)Ġ:04 – Deadline job start, launch Cinema4DBatch pluginĠ:19 – Redshift scanning scene, updating lightsĠ:23 – Redshift Extracting Geometry, Mesh Creation, Mesh Geometry Update, Acquire License, etcĠ:01 – Redshift preparing materials and shadersĠ:00 – Redshift allocating GPU mem and VRAMĠ:01 – Redshift apply post effects and end renderĠ:08 – Redshift return license and free GPU memoryĬPUs: 64 Memory Usage: 10.3 GB / 480.3 GB (2%) Free Disk Space: 10.240 GBĠ:05 – Deadline job start, launch Cinema4DBatch pluginĠ:08 – Redshift scanning scene, updating lightsĠ:07 – Redshift Extracting Geometry, Mesh Creation, Mesh Geometry Update, Acquire License, etcĠ:07 – Redshift preparing materials and shadersĠ:06 – Redshift allocating GPU mem and VRAMĠ:02 – Redshift apply post effects and end render ![]() Operating System: Amazon Linux release 2 (Karoo)ĬPUs: 16 Memory Usage: 6.7 GB / 62.1 GB (10%) Free Disk Space: 9.811 GB I ran the same task through a few different instances and went through and summarized times for various “chunks” of the process: It’s this part of the rendering process that I’d like to speed up as much as possible. However, there’s a lot of “setup” involved in rendering Frame 0 that gets cached. Since we’re using Cinema4DBatch, all of the frames after the first one render very quickly. c4d scenes directly instead of exporting proxies first. rs files using the Redshift Standalone plugin is faster, but from a QoL standpoint we’d prefer to just render the. From my tests, it’s clear that rendering. I’m trying to optimize render times using the Cinema4DBatch plugin, so the scene file stays loaded in memory in between frames. I'm sure Apple can likewise convince millions of customers to settle for Apple GPUs for certain models of Macs.I’m currently experimenting with rendering C4D+Redshift scenes on various AWS Portal instance types. Intel managed to persuade millions of customers to settle for built-in Intel Iris graphics. You bought Apple's monitor, so you accept Apple's video technology with it. The iMac is unlikely to support external GPUs, because of its built-in monitor.A single 5K monitor would use 60% of Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth and a 6K monitor (or dual 4K monitors) would use 75% of the bandwidth. The Mac Mini (future versions) might support external GPUs, but I wouldn't count on it. The Mac Mini (and iMac) would burn most of its Thunderbolt 3 bandwidth (at least for one of its two busses) on video traffic if it allowed people to obtain external GPUs for 6K monitors.Apple will not add an extra layer of API translation which nVidia expects to be built into macOS. I don't think nVidia is willing to support the Metal 2 API in their video cards' firmware. The future Mac Pro is likely to support "decent GPUs." Although I'm not sure how you define the word "decent." If your definition includes nVidia GPUs, then no.(a) the Mac Pro or (b) the Mac Mini or (c) the iMac? Depending on what you meant, I have different opinions: Really hoping we're finally getting decent GPU's on the mac.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |