View Full Version : Renderdrive / PURE vs maya software render

02 February 2005, 01:15 PM

I'm considering the purcase of some more muscle for rendering, as the projects I work on is getting heavier.

I've been looking at Renderdrive and PURE from ART (

Does anybody have experience with such?

Currently I'm on a pc (p4 3G 1GB mem, some fast graphic card) how much faster is the PURE card? How much faster is the renderDrive?

Is there something I should be aware of when it comes to maya? Like light types that can't be rendered, shading nodes etc.

Is there any alternatives to ART's renderdrive and PURE

I really don't know much about all this, so any help will be apprciated.

: ) Jakob

02 February 2005, 01:47 PM
i wouldn't buy a pure

i don't like hardware solutions
they are costly
i would suggest you to buy a bunch of fast pcs
and build a cluster
it's more work but more useful

02 February 2005, 03:32 PM
No one..?!? Realy? No one?!? :)

02 February 2005, 04:00 PM
I have absolutely no experience with it, but from what I can tell from their web site ( ) it seems damned fast for raytracing.

I would assume that a lot of maya specific stuff like fluids paintfx and probably particles is not supported. You can actually download the interface & test scene from their web site to check it out for yourself:

PURE costs around $3500 ( and Renderdrive starts at $14000 (

Let us know how what you find!


02 February 2005, 01:55 PM
thanks for answering - if I end up buying any of those, i'll post some results here.

Thanks, Jakob

02 February 2005, 03:22 PM
Unfortunately I have no experience with them, but I found some threads in the Lighting & Rendering forum that might be interesting for you;

"Renderdrive RD 5000"

"Nvidia Gelato vs ARTvps RD5000"

03 March 2005, 11:09 PM
the Pure Card is an excellent raytracer - I ve recently got into Paint Effects in Maya - I ve produced some top results in record time with the card.

HDRi is really fast with it too

03 March 2005, 08:45 AM
pete016 > Thanks for the comment. A lot is speaking against the PURE solution, but I havn't made the final choice yet.

: )

03 March 2005, 08:47 AM
hehe... now that was directly translated from danish. Not sure if the meaning is the same in EN. What I ment was, I think the PURE will be a good solution... : ) ... Damn, I'm getting rusty at this...

03 March 2005, 11:21 AM

I use pure and renderdrive regularly. It is the most physically accurate renderer that I have used. Because its hardware rendering it means it can do a lot of things that mental ray 'says' it can do but cant because of its humungous render times. The thing is I was sceptical about it being a unique piece of dedicated hardware, however you really need to use it in order to appreciate it.

It uses this cool technology called 'parallel raytracing' which basically means it chucks all of the rays into the scene and gives you back a fully raytraced image in seconds! It then increases the quality over time. This means you can work faster than the bucket style of rendering that typical software does.

If you want to test it out, send me a heavy model (that isnt confidential)and Ill render it out for you.

cheers :)

03 March 2005, 05:25 PM

Thanks alot for the generous offer, but I have no doubt that the PURE card will deliver a top quality. I was mainly interested in hearing the oppinion from advanced users like your self, and make sure that it really was as stunning fast as they say (never trust a sales man - hehe) It seems thuogh, that it's true.

Is it possible to add more than one card to a machine, and make them work together? (not that I'll need that now, but perhaps later)

: ) Jakob

pixel mixer
03 March 2005, 08:02 PM
yes, you can have a dual PURE in your system

CGTalk Moderation
03 March 2005, 08:02 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.