[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 2.png (1.4 MB, 1270x532)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB PNG
I've just found out about Radeon's own rendering engine. https://pro.radeon.com/en/software/prorender/

What do y'all think of it? Seems to be reliable in lighting, but doesn't achieve realism by far.
>>
Anything that uses the term pro in its name will always be anything but.
>>
>>588247
Looks pretty bad, but I guess it's to be expected from a first effort. The problem is that AMD is always playing catch-up, but almost everyone has already settled on CUDA for GPU rendering. Is anyone really going to use their SDK at this point?
>>
>>588247
Radeon flailing trying to get back into the CG workstation market they've been all but falling out of lately.
Haven't seen a Radeon workstation card in real life in years.
>>
File: installing.png (269 KB, 1920x1034)
269 KB
269 KB PNG
Just tried to install the engine and got this.
I can't say it's not expected, but still.
>>
Its also slow compared to Cycles (not to mention Redshift ) and doesn't achieve the same results and it isn't even feature complete.
Maxon has implemented it into Cinema 4d to appease the Apple faggots due to their lack of CUDA, but the implementation is shoddy, the Blender and Maya version (made by AMD) is much faster/stable.

I haven't seen any good renderers, except some stuff made by an Developer at Maxon and even that was mediocre.
There was a minimal hype before release, but it has died, since release nobody speaks about it.
>>
"This looks like sub-par realtime" isn't something that should be said about any offline render, but here we have AMD using it in promotional material.
>>
>>588264
Does it. it looks quite nice for me
>>
>>588265
The page header and this thing both look like they could be out of a game, rendering-wise. Some of the stuff that isn't looks pretty ok, but also pretty much outclassed by other standard renderers if these are the promo shots they chose to show what it can do.
>>
>>588265
Not him, but I had a quick look on their website and couldn't stop thinking "this kind looks like Unreal", so then I decided to google some Unreal images and realized it actually looked better.
I mean, how can you honestly compare this-
>>
File: 2.jpg (60 KB, 960x580)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>588270
-to this?
>>
File: Blender_image04-1244x700.png (1.06 MB, 1244x700)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB PNG
>>588271
or this-
>>
>>588272
-to this?
>>
>>588271
>that ao tho
>>
>>588269
Thats just because the assets are shitty.
>>
>>588247
>radeon
get a real vid card, kid.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.