New Arnold but no GPU support.


New version of Arnold released. No GPU support. Disappointing. If they were close to having it, wouldn’t they have waited a bit to make a huge splash with the new version?

Slow (and aimless) Octane development has given other renderers plenty of time to play with, I suppose.



We’ve already got enough GPU renderers out there. I’m glad they decided to focus on what they’re good at, and continued developing a solid CPU renderer. That’s why I use it. That’s why a lot of other people use it. We don’t want Arnold to be something it’s not, and I certainly hope SA isn’t wasting too much time trying to figure out the GPU side of things (look what happened with Maxwell Render- for all intents and purposes, their attempt at GPU render was a complete and utter disaster).

I was more impressed with the fact that there isn’t any GPU support, nor any mention of it. All in all, I’m extremely impressed with v5 so far. It’s quite a bit faster in certain situations, and feels a lot more refined and stable under the hood.

Not everything needs to be on the GPU hype train to be useful.



GPU support will be added “when it’s ready” according to the dev. Arnold is a serious production renderer, so Solid Angle will ensure GPU support is robust and production-ready before releasing it.

I’ve been working with the new texturing system and love how they’ve streamlined the workflow for making complex shaders, it’s so powerful and easy to understand now and the new Coat, Jitter and Thin Wall features are brilliant additions. Making complex shaders with Arnold is a real pleasure now.

I’m seeing a significant speed boost on my cheesegrater Mac Pro when rendering with Quad lights thanks to the engine optimisation, and am actually considering a processor upgrade to get the most out of this speed boost.

Going to play with the new Hair and Volume shaders today which also look vastly improved over previous versions.

For me, along with X-Particles, Arnold is the best reason to be a C4D user.


I believe Marcos has stated that they want the GPU version to be identical to the CPU version in quality so until that happens we won’t see the GPU version. They are working on it though since they’ve shared some tests already on Twitter and they looked good. They didn’t mention it with the 5 release since they didn’t want to get users hopes up as I imagine it’s a ways off. I get that people like Arnold for being CPU and I enjoy using Arnold but if I could use it with my 1080ti for a speed boost then I’m all for it. Until then I’ll work with a Redshift and Arnold combo for certain jobs and be happy with that. :slight_smile:


Never did anybody state that 5.0 will have GPU support nor is it certain that GPU will be coming at all…

I wouldnt want Solid Angle to release a GPU solution that is as immature as every other engine…

Lately I was forced to use Octane, and I was constantly limited by features that arnold offered easily…
Interestingly the same was the case for X-Particles, as it got mentioned here… a colleague was planning to buy it and after we tried to get something useful out of it for over three weeks it became apparent he wouldnt spend one dime…

The 5.0 update is completely “solid” which I greatly respect and demand from this state of the art renderer:)


How on earth did a post about Arnold 5.0 turn into a slagging off of Octane and X-Particles? Boy Daniel, you never tire of boringly beating the drum for Arnold and taking swipes at things you don’t like, do you? Personally, I wish you’d give it a rest.


And yet its true.

Octane has stuck in material editor (beta) for like two years ago, and he isnt the only one talking about other render engines in this thread (octane and maxwell were mentioned on the first two post.)

To continue the discussion, I would be pretty happy with Arnold GPU even of its a beta. I wouldnt mind at all. Arnold Utility node is simply unmatched, or the ease of working with participating media, unlike, you know… Other render engines.


Still, there’s no need to bring X-Particles into it. I know he has a personal gripe with Insydium. That was just a cheap shot.


I didnt… naming X-Particles and Arnold alongside just sounded so wrong…:wink:


Some of the statements and posts by Solid Angle did leave me believing that GPU was coming very soon. That could have been my own misunderstanding.

What I was mainly commenting upon is that it now seems likely that GPU support is a long ways down the road (I think they first started presenting GPU in 2014!). If it was coming very soon then I think they would have waited to include it in 5.

Of course, I could be mistaken.

I am trying out the various renderers and was anxious to try Arnold. Maybe they will get my money in the future. It does sound like a great renderer.

But I’m not ever gonna go back to the old way of working (move a light, render, move a little more, render, etc etc).

And really Octane is the only GPU renderer worth talking about at the moment. Cycles is much slower and offers little incitement for a switch (I did purchase it in case this changes).

Otoy took an infuriating path that wasted time, did nothing for current customers, and failed.

I will consider Redshift if it ever gets released.


With Arnold you won’t have to “move a light and render” all the time as the IPR is super quick to visualize your render as you work. It is slower than Octane obviously but the ease of use and features make it worth using. There are good reasonable farms out there for rendering large jobs as well. Redshift development is speeding along so hopefully it will be out of alpha but I can’t say say when since they don’t share that info with testers. Redshift will be the go to GPU engine once it’s officially released…until Solid Angle has a GPU product but who knows when that will be.


One more thing people seem to forget. A denoiser in After Effercts combined with lowering some setting in Arnold can do wonders (im looking at you, transparency depth <-- sometimes a high value isnt needed yet is computed), and since Octane is actually slower than Arnold in certain situations when you try to render a large scene, millions of hairs, subsurface scattering or millions of instanced polygons (Arnold “ASS”), then its a nice trade-off. And on top of it, you are actually gaining speed working with the nice Arnold Material Network.

On the other hand, if you guys want a Make Pretty Render Engine that doesnt let you control your scenes as depth as Solid Angle product… then, by all means, go for a GPU solution.

pd. I would loved to test Cycles, but its buggy in two machines I own, and Redshift -while its a joy to work with- is still in Alpha.


Innobright Altus works pretty well but it’s 230 bucks a year. Navie was supposed to have a denoiser in the works for c4d but I haven’t heard anything lately. Neatvideo works pretty well too for some quick denoising in a pinch.


Get the Blender fork Bforartists, select “Maya” interaction at startup, import a 3D model into the scene and set the viewport shading mode (the white sphere icon near bottom left) to “Rendered”.

Boom, you have Cycles running realtime on the viewport/model in interactive preview mode.

I am learning Bforartists and I like what I see from Cycles so far.

I found it quite promising. Especially for a free, open source solution.

Whether it can match the depth of Arnold yet is another question.


Agreed… the need for him to strike out…seems almost desperate.


Agree 100%.

Threads like this are indicative that stronger moderation habits are needed around here. Was he intending to take a shot at Cycles4D and not XP? Because his post reads like he’s never used XP / doesn’t know what it is. But even that would be a stupid argument because Cycles4D is a very young, 1.0 product.

Even if someone else brought XP up (in a positive light I might add) there’s no logical reason to compare it (or Cycles4D) and then tell us how ‘my friend’ won’t buy Insydium stuff. Just f-ing petty. Nothing like trying to smear the competition because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.


You’ll always have Indigo! :slight_smile:


Quick question about Vray–I’ve been using, and loving, vray for maya. Absolutelyy love it. Having said this, Arnold for c4d looks great. I’ve watched some tutorials about it and it appears to be a pleasure to work with, and the results look stunning.

What do you feel about the future of vrayforc4d? The current version (3.4 I believe) is not on par with vray for maya, but still (from the research that I’ve done) Arnold seems to be quite a bit slower than vrayforc4d.

I guess I’m asking because I hate exporting my Cinema files to maya for rendering, yet I don’t feel enough confidence in the developres to spend however much for vrayforc4d. I don’t really have a massive hardware setup for Arnold (just the 5960 8-core cpu).

Why have you chosen Arnold over vrayforc4d (I’m assuming you have)? I’m not looking for an agry debate about vray vs. Arnold. But if you HAD to decide between Arnold or Vray what would you choose and why?



The moment Arnold is the main render of two of the biggest 3D animation packages in the industry, for me at least, this discussion is over. If you are planning to work for production or into a bigger pipeline, then you need to learn and work with Arnold, and that really is really great news, because now you can work in your own 3D app of choice and the quality of your images will match your coworkers that are using Maya or 3DS Max.

Of course you can go for a GPU solution if you are a one man studio ( I use Arnold at work and Redshift at home )


Vray is affordable…comes w/5 rendering nodes. You don’t get gouged w/annual fees and such. It has a GPU-based IPR and it does complete final rendering jobs faster than Arnold. The c4d version has lagged behind a bit and I don’t see that changing. They will have a new update “pretty soon” but even that will not bring it to full 3.5 Max parity. Production-GPU rendering is a work in progress, but it’s pretty nimble for a CPU renderer. It’s most definitely full-featured and obviously has super quality.