| ||||||||||
| I agree, Steve, and for a few hundred bucks I have AE ray tracing, real time Davinci Resolve (corrections and rendering) Genarts Sapphire and Monsters are all faster with Cuda. I don't think I can live without this injection of speed. I used to do work on my laptop but now I rarely do, missing my Cuda card at the office. Jack Tunnicliffe www.javapost.ca www.caffeineproductions.ca Sent from my Apple iPhone On 2012-06-05, at 7:47 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote: > lets put it another way, the cost of a CUDA compatible GPU is a couple hundred bucks. thats way cheaper than replacing an entire system sporting xeon CPU's that could easily run $3k-5K. a CUDA GPU is literally 1/10th the price of a CPU upgrade.. assuming you even need to do one. > > S > > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote: > >>> I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray >>> traced renderer they did in AE6. >> >> I just asked a couple of the software engineers involved about this decision, and they say that a ray-traced renderer is more efficient for getting good-looking results for reflections, refractions, and shadows than would be a scanline renderer. Our GPU-based ray-traced 3D renderer is actually quite fast compared with anything that gives comparable visual results for these light-related characteristics. That said, the CPU-based renderer is slow, and we acknowledge that. >> >> As far hardware dependencies: We officially support a couple dozen GPUs, and many of the high-performing ones (like the GTX 580) are not expensive. >> >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> |
