- #Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 drivers#
- #Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 update#
- #Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 driver#
(I didn’t finish Victor on either OS because I was just tired of waiting haha)
#Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 update#
(I didn’t do the CPU on Windows on any of the rest I’ll update this later if I do)
#Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 drivers#
– Windows 10 (using latest drivers for both the GTX 770 and GTX 970)Įverything used Blender 2.77 RC1 and CUDA on the GPU scenes.
#Geforce gtx 770 drivers for os x 10.11 driver#
+ GTX 970 driver was Nvidia Web Driver 346.03.05f02 I have Hackintosh setup with dual booting: – GPU – I replaced the 770 with the 970 after going through all the tests with the 770. What you said about used Xeons is also a good point. I don’t mean to sound arrogant but I have a lot of experience in scene optimization and I can count how many of my scenes couldn’t fit in the GPU. Planning would let you know in advance what will be near to the camera and what won’t be so you would know where the detail needs to be and if camera angles change have different level versions of the model on other layers. Yet in the current chosen camera angle the desk items account for less than 5% of the shot. Not to criticize the scene but just as an example, the classroom in these benchmarks has so much detail on the desk you could do a full HD close up render of it. Add to the fact that Blender now pretty much allows keyframing any setting means that subsurf levels can be animated according to the distance of the objects, or decimate modifiers etc. I have however built many scenes with a fair level of complexity and they rendered just fine on my old Gtx 570, and that was a 1gb card. Same, or slightly longer with the exception of ‘koro’ where the gains made by setting the tile size to 160*120 seemed to disappear. Render time using the “magic” tile size of 160*120.įrom the March 23 to Apbuild, the render times were about the _3_1:13:04.44_43:19.95įor most (but not all) files, there was a fairly substantial reduction in RAM: DDR4 2667 MHz – 64GB Total (16GB x 4)Ĭorrected crashes due to using a single graphics card, both for renderingĪnd display, by increasing the TDR timeout value as described at:īlender version used: 2.77 Build date: March 23,2016 But… who knows what the future brings.įeel free to post own stats and observations on this blogpost! Maybe other .blend files should be added?ĬPU: Intel Xeon W-2145 8 Cores, 16 Threads 3.7GHz That confirms our own experience that fast GPU is great for previewing and lighting work, and fast CPU is great for the production rendering. When shots get more complex, CPUs win the performance battle. Most strikingly so-far is that the performance of CPUs is in a similar range as GPUs, especially when compared to costs of hardware.
We aim at updating it regularly, also when new hardware comes in – and especially when render features improve in Cycles. The goal is to have an overview of systems that are used or tested by developers of Cycles. On the links below you can inspect the spreadsheet with results, and load the. Blender Institute prepared six Blender files for testing Cycles rendering with CPU/GPU, using various settings and design styles but based on actual production setups.