Potentially BIG News for Cycles4D


#21

I heard that new incredibly powerful Antminers were being launched which usually have the effect of raising the mining difficulty level very quickly which could put mining out of the reach of the smaller GPU farms. This might just mean more GPUs end up in the biggest farms but maybe more will hit local distributors.

There’s a lot of fools ‘buying the dip’ and sustaining an enormous bubble right now. You can see cyclic peaks and falls in the BTC price so the market knows the car tyre is over inflated yet and sooner or later it’s going to drive over a rusty nail and burst. These dips are caused by corporate investors/institutions getting their money out and when it does finally burst it’s the amateur investor HODLers and buy the dippers left holding the losses just like always. Big corporate investors make news when they buy in which raises the price but we never hear when they cash out. You can safely bet as soon as they’ve bought in on BTC they’re immediately reducing their risk by selling off and profit taking.

If sufficiently large numbers of people get burned in the next crash BTC will be over once and for good and take with it all the shitcoins too. Any positive sentiment will be gone, the reputation of shills gone, the cost of mining to value of BTC won’t make sense and the difficulty rating will make it pointless. BTC is a huge tentpole which props up all crypto and once it’s damaged the whole lot will be too.


#22

#23

I should caution you on that Evermotion Cycles vs Cycles-X comparison.

The person doing the comparison doesn’t realise putting Cycles in Progressive Refine mode is actually putting it into an unfair slower state. He should’ve continued using Tile Rendering and set tile size to 256x256 which is generally the fastest setting for GPU rendering.

If anyone does their own benchmarks don’t ever use Progressive Refine in standard Cycles, it’s slower and has issues with fireflies. It’s only useful for viewport (IPR) rendering. Cycles-X has been completely rewritten from the ground up to render progressively and no longer uses buckets as standard. Bucket rendering will continue but for rendering enormous image sizes but it’s not the high performance mode.

That said, in my own testing of Cycles-X I have seen that 1 GPU (note, Cycles-X currently only supports 1 GPU for the time being) out performs 2 GPUs with standard Cycles in every single scene I have tested. Once Cycles-X supports multi-GPUs and if a near linear performance is maintained we could see some very short render times. The hype is most certainly deserved. In an age of GPU scarcity this is huge news.

I don’t know if Insydium has said anything official yet, it’s probably too early for that given it’s not even an Alpha feature in Blender but I can’t imagine them not bringing Cycles-X to Cycles4D. With the new Cycles-X engine Cycles4D will announce itself in the C4D 3rd Party render market as the most exciting renderer on the market. This could be huge sleeper hit for Insydium and payoff their foresight in bringing the bridge to C4D all those years ago.

*Speculation and reading between the lines.

I think Apple are helping the Blender Devs with a Metal port of Cycles just like they did with Redshift. Brecht said the way forward for Cycles on MacOS would be with a Metal backend and there was a hint during a livestream which probably shouldn’t have been mentioned that Apple were involved. Make of that what you will, Cycles4D might return to the Mac with any luck.


#24

Tried Cycles X this weekend. Color me super impressed.


#25

Can you be more specific BbbgD?


#26

The sheer speed of the renders. The interactivity in the viewport is so darn fluid. Lightning fast on my 2070 super. Can’t wait to get a 3080 if I can find one at a reasonable price and test again.


#27

Thanks