Need new workstation.Can go up to £3000. But I think this'll largely get the job done at around £2500, right? Thoughts anyone?https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/w9WsLJ
>>622676>https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/w9WsLJAnd before anyone goes off about the expensive CPU - I do as much offline rendering as I do realtime work.
>>622676Wait for Threadripper 2 coming out next monthor buy Threadripper 1920x if 1950x is too expensive for you.
>>622679Ok - don't flame me here; I'm pretty ignorant to the Threadripper, and indeed anything to do with CPU stuff which is not Intel.Please feel free to sell me on this 'Threadripper' of which you speak. I know they supposedly offer more power for less cash, but what's the catch?
>>622681It has a shit tonne of cores, so as long as you're not gaming on the rig, it'll monster anything you throw at it plus still have enough cores and grunt to mine some ShitCoin's or whatever. Assume it's power usage is high, but as long as you don't have to pay for the electricity and have a good air flow you'll be good.
>>622687The i9 I'm considering has 10 cores at 3.3ghz, and will turbo up to 4.3ghz I thought that was a pretty good balance between clock speed and number of cores desu, so that's what attracted me to it.Does AMD offer a similar chip then? (I've not looked and y'all seem to know more about this shit than me).And again - not trolling, so don't flame; is there any kind of compatibility issues? I've *never* had anything that wasn't Intel, so please understand my reticence for changing that now....
>>622688'turbo' only clocks up 1 or 2 cores at a time, so it's not as important as you thinkA ryzen 1700 will do just fine. But if you really care about the extra clock speed get an 1800XI can only guess, you need to tell us what you need the thing for. If it's sculpting or anything like that then you should know any decent sculpting program is going to use the GPU for almost everything. If it's rendering then a 1950x if you're not comfortable with spending £3000 on a processorWhat so you need it for?
>>622688Not being a dick, but Google will give you a better overview on how many cores each AMD processor has (look for Ryzen/Ryzen 2 and Threadrippper/Threadrippper 2 CPUs).Though as other anon says, depends on what exactly you'll do
You need to build your own CPU
>>622699>ywn get to play with ternary logic CPU
>>622700what did you mean by this?
>>622704Don't worry, it's just his arsehole, it went loose.
>>622676Modified slightly and added a monitor. £2899.https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/zTcsLJStill haven't been convinced of non-Intel CPU: again, what's the catch? Are there compatibility implications?
>>622742>what's the catchIntel has a monopoly on datacenter and HPC CPUs and can get away with consumer-unfriendly prices.Intel has better per core performance, and better cooling. AMD has greater core number, and slightly worse cooling (much improved with the Ryzen series).If you plan to rely on multithreading, I would suggest to carefully consider taking the AMD path.In any case, don't go AMD for GPUs. They are fine for games but not for serious graphics/compute work, due to the industry's reliance on NVIDIA CUDA.
>>622676consider using older server stuff(two X5570 for instance) for it if you strictly need a workstation onlyif you do it correctly you can get a moderately powerful rig to model stuff cheap and even save dosh for your own small i7\xeon renderfarm
>>622742Had a quick look at your list. I get the impression you are getting weaker parts for the rest of the system due to your choice of CPU.Up the RAM to 64 GB. Maybe consider two GTX 1070, if you are going to do GPU rendering. Go for a 2160p or 4K monitor, or two 1440p. Consider making a RAID with, say, five 1 TB drives, and use just one 512 GB SSD for your OS.You can juggle like that by switching to a Ryzen 2700, for example.
>>622744I'm gonna go for the i9 right now, and keep my eye on AMD chips. If I'm convinced in the next couple months, I'll eBay the i9 and check out the ThreadRipper.
>>622681https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1ZlUu8v_Qhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9voQqU73-MgThey are both x86_64 based chipsets so there wont be any compatibility issues.
>>622749You cant just swap out a processor. You will need to pawn away your motherboard as well and buy a new license for Windows and re-install everything from scratch.Its more trouble than it sounds. Just do your research and pick a processor. Read reviews, watch comparisons, look up forum discussions.If you are not sure, just go with what you have. Though you will get a better bang for your buck with Threadripper, there is no debate about that anywhere.
>>622748>> I get the impression you are getting weaker parts for the rest of the system due to your choice of CPU.Maybe there's a little truth to that, but it's all scale-able.>>Up the RAM to 64 GBI already have 32gb sitting in my current machine which is gonna be added to this build.>> Maybe consider two GTX 1070, if you are going to do GPU renderingI'll get by on the one GPU just fine for now, and I'll add another 1080 down the line when they fall in price. >>Go for a 2160p or 4K monitor, or two 1440pI have a separate monitor already. I tried a 4k display for about 2 months a while ago - it just caused problems with interface scaling (edges in 3DS Max, for instance didn't scale up and therefore became invisible), and it put unnecessary stress on the GPU. It added nothing to my work. It looked nice, sure - but it wasn't worth it.>>Consider making a RAID with, say, five 1 TB drivesNo thanks.>>and use just one 512 GB SSD for your OS.No thanks, I'll go for 1tb and keep all my current project files located on it too. The price difference isn't that much over the 512.
>>622752>>and buy a new license for WindowsWhy am I gonna need to buy a new license just because I changed my CPU?
>>622751Thanks for these, watching now. I'm open to persuasion. For added lols, watch that first video with the playback speed set to 1.5x :This is what we sound like to our grandparents/hot women.
OP again... ok so you fucks persuaded me. Here's a ThreadRipper version of that build which nets a saving of.... £22!But we now have 6 more cores... https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/BPL1980/saved/c4qTHxZbrush benefits from more cores. Vray benefits from more cores. Substance Painter (when it does actually use the CPU for anything) benefits from more cores.I might be coming round to this way of thinking.....
ThreadRipper is by far the better option, even if we take performance differences off the table. TR supports native NVME RAID, has way more expansion (only the most expensive i9 mobo has four x16 slots), and even supports ECC RAM. Stuff that isn't really discussed in terms of performance is that TR also runs a heck of a lot cooler, you only need one of those custom Noctua air coolers for this socket and it's perfectly fine for 24/7 rendering, Intel meanwhile basically requires watercooling and eats power.Others have already mentioned that TR can be made to turbo all its cores at 4Ghz all the time, Intel can crank two cores up to 4.5, but it's really not that much of a difference. The biggest difference is actually if you compare to Intel's consumer 8700K, which is a hell of a lot faster on less-threaded tasks than even the i9s, on the order of 30% compared to AMD's chips. If someone mostly does game dev, modeling or particle sims, an 8700K is a better pick. It's also not that shabby at rendering, as it still has 1400CB vs the 1950X's 3000CB
>>622763OP again:I do environment art for games but also a decent bit of VRay rendering.I'm getting confused now.Ok lets look at this though the lens of my core tools:3DS Max - only uses multiple cores during rendering = Go for 8700KZBrush - uses multiple cores throughout = Go for 1950xVRay - depends very much on multiple cores = Go for 1950xSubstance Painter - doesn't care about CPU really but when it does it uses multiple cores = Go for 1950xWorld Machine - Uses multiple cores = Go for 1950xUnreal - No multiple core use at all = Go for 8700KSO...Given that whenever I'm in Unreal or Max or Substance Painter (which is a LOT) all those extra cores don't mean shit and I paid literally 3 times the price of 8700K - Maybe the 1920x might be the best price/power balance?Half the price of the 1950x, but still with 12 cores (very decent) and a 4.0ghz clock.Rough prices are currently:1950x / 7900x are both around £8001920x is around £5008700k is around £280I'm thinking 1920x = good core count, good clock speed, good price.Thoughts?
>>622755Windows licenses are tied to your motherboard. So new motherboard, new windows license.
>>622759The threadripper processor is really big in size. H100i cooler is not big enough to cover it. Noctua has a few coolers for threadripper that provide full processor coverage.You could use a bigger hard drive. 8 or 10tb will last you long. Get a Hitachi/HGST for better reliability.Overall, its a good build. I like it.
>>622767You do know you can deactivate a license and use it elsewhere, right?
>>622766You have to remember, all these softwares will get updated and have better multicore performance and hi-res interface in the coming versions.Don't make a decision that will bottleneck you in the future because current gen software is lagging behind.
>>622770Only for retail Windows, not OEM>>6227661920x is a damn fine processor too
Rate my build broshttps://pcpartpicker.com/list/YZR3yX
>>622679The next threadripper will be using zen+ not zen 2. Theres a difference but not big enough to get unless it's cheaper than the 1st threadripper
>>622776Its jumping form 14nm to 12nm. That's a big difference.Next year will be 7nm, which will be a massive leap.
>>622769In that video up there the guy is using the H100i on the 1950xI've got shitloads of drives all over the place.
>>622778Call me back when it leaps into not being AMD
>>622783Alll thread ripper videos were made when it was newly launched. The full sized CPU coolers came a couple months later. That's why all reviewers are using regular sized coolers in their videos.>>6227842700x is an amazing chip. TR2 will be based on that. Not much left to the imagination.
>>622787What cooling for the 1920x then? I thin I'm gonna go for the 12 core. I'll spend the £300 I save from the 1950x on Heineken and pies.
>>6227981950 and 1920 are the same sized, so get a full sized TR4 mount cooler.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9chu63FCWAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FffaOYQpI6k
>>622744>AMD has greater core number, and slightly worse coolingAs long as you buy a good third party cooler, you will be fine.I managed to get an 8350 down to 16c on an aircooler. So Ryzen should be able to reach near ambient on a good cooler.
>>622744>CUDAlol*compiles your donut shaders into SPIR-V*
>>622833I don't render with Cycles. Does Cycles even use CUDA? I thought it was OpenCL.
>>6228051920 and 1950 are not the same because the War changed everything. When is it going to end? When it is it going to stop?
>>622676You'll burn down your house with an i9 so I wouldn't if I were you
>>622676If I were you I'd wait for the new threadripper lineup
>>622859cycles is cpu
>>622884So is standard blender render if you aren't using CUDA, you can use CUDA with cycles too though
>>622882OP again; I'm thinking this. But it seems kind of a way off right now. Rumours are September/October and I don't wanna wait that long.
How does the 1920x stack up against the i9 in single core tasks? I can't find much data on that comparison.The more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm concerned that the 1950x is actually gonna perform worse than the 4790k I have now in Max and Unreal (4 cores, 4.0ghz base speed).But those two are gonna benefit from the nicer GPU I'm getting, I guess....Decisions, innit.The 1920 and 1950 both use the same chipset etc right? So theoretically it wouldn't be too much of an issue to swap a 1920 for a 1950 later on, right?
I cannot believe I have had my opinion swayed this much by fucking /3/ btw.If you'd asked me two days ago if I'd consider buying an AMD processor I would've spat in your face, and here I am all waving the flag for something called a 'threadripper'.'Threadripper' could've been a legit Earache Records grindcore band from the late 80s tho, so there is that....
>>622956>UnrealBe sure to ask AMANDA BOTT for approval before you buy anything. It knows what's best for you.
OP here again:Ok well things have just taken an unexpected turn because I've just bought this off eBay:i9 7900xAsus GTX 1080Ti (yep - the 11gb version)Asus ROG Strix X299-E GamingGSkill Trident Z RGB 32gb RAMCorsair HX850+ PlatinumFractal Define R6 TG Case250gb Samsung M24tb WD 7200rpmIt's all mint. Pretty much new. Seller has got boxes, receipts, and warranty for all components. Kid just started Uni and wants a laptop.I invite you to guess what I just paid for this... (PCPartPicker has it all at £3290)
>>622979This is what I just bought.https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/PHTk9JMint condition. Please guess what I paid.
>>622957>'Threadripper' could've been a legit Earache Records grindcore band from the late 80s tho, so there is that....Heh, then you'll be happy to know that their line of datacenter-oriented processors is named EPYC.
>>622947Buy threadripper 1 right now and use your machine, swap out for threadripper 2 when it comes out.Both processors will use the same socket, so you will be able to swap them out and sell the old one.
>>622999I just bought a complete i9 build with a 1080ti.But I came *this* close to getting a ThreadRipper machine. So close.
>>623000>>622980>>622979Still don't know why anyone would buy a 7900x over a 1950x, you get less cores, higher power consumption, and primarily lower scores for more money.
>>623020I don't know why anyone would buy a discrete video card when integrated chipsets are more than good enough.
>>623000Are you OP?
>>623038Yes.>>623025>>623024>>623020Ask me how much I got the above build for. Go ahead. Ask.
>>623039I don't care
>>623039What tipped the balance? Last I checked you were getting feedback on your threadripper build
>>623043>>623043I got a brand new build that would retail at £3300 for £2200.I wasn't about to turn it down. The GPU and CPU in this build alone are worth nearly two grand. Picking it up tomorrow. This is the complete build:https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/PHTk9J£2200.
>>623044>https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/PHTk9JYou're gonna need a bigger cooler and power supply for that CPU
>>623046Well, we'll see. Fortunately now alterations like that are kinda trivial in the grand scheme of things. I'm definitely gonna get a bigger M2 module right away. Got a fair bit of money left over.
>>623049>being able to actually supply enough power and properly cool your CPU so it doesn't burn down your house is trivial
>>623051AFFORDING it is trivial. You cocksocket.Done with thread now. Bye.
>>623052Not very bright are you
>>6230441000 pound discount is a pretty good reason to be honest.You guys are being too harsh on him. i9 is a perfectly good processor and he wanted that in the beginning, so good for him.
>>623060A waste of money compared to how he could've gotten a better processor for cheaper
>>623063Really? Please explain how we get this 1950x build with a 1080ti and 32gb for less than £2200.
>>623068>Please explain how we get this 1950x build with a 1080ti and 32gb for less than £2200AMD quite literally has better deals on partpicker. How did YOU get it for less than 2200, either way your power bill will make up for it.
>>623071Ok... I'm talking to a Russian.
>>623072No you aren't
Come on people, it's his money. Let him spend it as he pleases.
>>623074Then why make the thread for advice, just pick the most expensive shit and be done with it.
>>623079Yeah, it's not sound. It's better to spend a week or even two reading about what would be the best build for the required use scenario, but everyone's free to do otherwise.I don't think he lost time here. He learned that alternatives to his preferred brand exist, and that they might (*gasp*) be better. Facts like these take time to sink, though.
Why are these threads allowed?
>>623111What, you think he'd find answers on /g/?
>>623130Not him but yeah he'd find way better answers, most people here are hardware illiterate.
OP here. Picked it up yesterday.Still dying to hear how I'm supposed to have gotten all this hardware, but with a 1950x, for less than £2200.Please don't keep me waiting...
>>623302Doesn't matter what brand you bought in the end, fact is that without AMD's success on the market, you would have paid a fuckton more $$$ on a 10 core. You can thank AMD for that, in the meantime enjoy your Machine and do some nice renders/sims whatever you do.
>>623302Looks well. Can you post its OctaneBench score?
>>623321Running through all the updates and assorted bullshit right now. Intend to run some benchmarking stuff tomorrow. Will post results.
>>623302The person who put it together has good taste, I'll give em that, if money was no object I'd probably build something similar... the only issue I see here is that this specific combination of GPU, motherboard and case means you can only add one extra video card aside from the 1080 Ti that's already in there. For a platform that can support 3 to 4 dual-slot devices, it's not the most optimal arrangement. At least you get the extra RAM capacity vs. the consumer platform.For what it's worth, the 7900X is still going to have pretty decent performance in tasks that rely more on latency and clock speed than core count, better than Ryzen, but not as good as the 8700K either. You better post some worthwhile shit with a rig like that in any case.
Primary importance right now is finding the software that stops it lighting up like a Gay Pride float.>>623335>>The person who put it together has good taste, I'll give em that,He was overgrown manchild who still lives with his mum. The only thing I've found wrong with the machine so far is that it is making my room stink of his fucking horrible body spray.
>>623337>> it is making my room stink of his fucking horrible body spray.Pic related; I have actually resorted to putting a refrigerator odour neutraliser inside it in an attempt to reduce the Lynx Africa content which is being sprayed around by the case fans.Seriously - to any juvenile anons who are reading this; do not wear body spray. It is disgusting.
>>623338I hate those fucking LEDs, I had to put up with them in my machine too. Even the CPU's stock cooler has a damn LED on it.
>>623349I have some fancy gay pride christmas tree illumination in my computer but i have a solid case standing under the desk, and the light doesn't bleed out. But damn, i recently opened the case and this shit was illuminating my whole room. This gamer shit is going to far, why the fuck don't they build 2 versions and take more cash from those idiots who actually want the light show?
>>623350As a former Mac user - the lightshow shit, and the logos of like, Wolves and snakes and shit like that all over different pieces of hardware is particularly hard to swallow.Call Macs pretentious status-symbols, overpriced, or whatever else - I won't deny any of that. But what they definitely are not, is *fucking embarrassing.*
>>623321Oh... you asked for OctaneBench. I thought you said CoronaBench. Oh well... Here's the CoronBench result, I think? Is that all there is to it? Did I miss something? It means nothing to me. Anyway, have at it.
>>623321>>623354And here's the CineBench score(s). Again - this shit means sweet fuck all to me, so - y'know if it's bad or whatever... then c'est la vie. Enjoy.
>>623355What the amount refers to is unimportant, just the relative amount. Twice the cb = half the render time, so your CPU is around 2.7x faster than a 4770K, which just a few generations ago would have been considered a top consumer chip. For a more practical comparison, the 8700K is around 1400cb, the 2700X is 1900cb and the 1950X is 3000cb, you can extrapolate the speed differences from that.Rendering tasks scale almost linearly with [cores * clock speed * IPC], so it's a good indicator for almost nothing other than rendering, but if you do care about rendering, then you can expect similar deltas with VRay, Arnold, or any other CPU renderer.
>>623354>>623355Pretty solid marks, I think you did well.I don't know about CoronaBench, but Cinebench is a good one: OpenGL relates to performance mostly while interacting with your DCC tool, and CPU for (duh) CPU rendering. OctaneBench is good for estimating GPU-only rendering, but given your card, the results would have been undoubtedly good.Here are my results for the sake of comparison, considering only the processor and the GPU.0.1889 €/cb (CPU)6.818 €/fps (GPU)
>>623355Your CPU is 3.33 times faster than mine and i paid 350€ 4-5 years ago for my CPU (I7-3770K). So if i buy an 2700X soon, i'll get 2.87 times the performance i have now for even less money i payed back then. Nice!Thank you AMD.
>>623302We already told you, you absolute moron.
>>623368Got this 2700x for $280Such a good fucking deal
>>623367>your CPU is around 2.7x faster than a 4770KCool, because that's what I've just upgraded from, and I paid almost exactly the same money for both machines.>>623381Chill out, Autismo.
>>623391>Lmao tell me how to do it huh you cant lol>*tells you*>Lmao tell me how to do it huh you cant lol>we told you already>you're just autistic
>>623392Ok, I'll bite.Where, and when did you tell me how to get this build - but with a 1950x - for less than £2200?Because, that's the question - and no one has answered, because it can't be answered.So now, you didn't tell me. And stop saying 'we' - it's just you, you weirdo rage-virgin. Everyone else in this thread is totally cool but you.
>>623393Not me >>623071threadripper deals are better at the moment to make room for new threadripper
>>623394Ok - go ahead and price up a build for a 1950x, a 1080ti, 32gb RAM, 256 m2, 4tb HDD, water cooler, power supply and case for less than £2200.I'll wait.
>>623396Well yours was 3200 in PC part picker, swapping out the mobo and CPU with a threadripper variant get's you down to 3000. Along with the 30% off threadripper combo you'll get a grand total of 2100 dollars.Kind of off topic but why do you type like a pompous douchebag, you're really in no position to act superior when you literally bought and inferior product for more.
>>623397You know what this symbol is £, right?Please post links.
>>623396No need for a 1950x. A 1920x has more performance that your CPU of choice.This setup stomps your machine at £2600, new: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/jBMRvn
>>623410So.... when I repeatedly said, build a machine with a 1950x for less than I paid.... you offer a build with a 1920x for *more* than I paid?Sorry, but were you the person that called me a moron earlier?
>>623409Hence the deal anon
>>623416not even me
>>623416That build, second hand, could probably be bought for £2000 or less. Your setup, new, would be way over £3000, and still less powerful for the assumed purpose.Besides, I didn't make an effort to optimize in price. Between £200 and £400 could be shaved off it by better picking parts.
>>623422He’s not going to admit it, you know that right? It’s honestly just best to leave him to his own mistakes at this point.
>>623416Nigga that's the same price as your original partpicker link.You're getting more cores, better performance, unlocked cpu, better power consumption and easy upgradability, real liquid metal solder unlike cheap thermal paste inside intel cpus.and somehow you are still penny pinching? Why don't you buy all components based on the amount of discount and end up with a 6th gen i3 and a bunch of chinese components. Then ask us to make a 1950x build for under 600.
>>622755You don't need to buy a new licence.
I do cpu rendering on a shitty old i7 4790. Anything that could double my render speed for less than a grand all in?
>>623801an 1800x renders faster than a 5960x which is around 40 seconds faster than the 4790 (k variant)So best option is a 2700x for maximum speed
>>623814Have AMD really closed the gap between them and Intel? A few years back when I bought the Intel cpu the general consensus was "AMD are shit for rendering". Has that changed?
>>623865yesNot only has AMD closed the gap , it is in the top position. Intel is more expensive AND less powerful. The reason why CPU prices are fair and cheap now is because of AMD. Without them we would still pay 1000$ for a fucking 8 core.
>>623865That was before Zen, with this new architecture AMD really stepped up their game and offers not just the best overall performance for tasks that greatly scale with core count, but also at a better price.While it's good for competition and such, the issue is that even with the new chips that came out AMD lags behind on performance in tasks that use 4 or less cores by like 10-15%, and the reality of the matter is that those tasks comprise 95% of workloads you generally do in 3D.Modeling, animation, baking and real-time graphics are obviously poorly-threaded. Tasks that do benefit from threading, like simulations, effects, procedural generation and photogrammetry generally don't scale well above 6 cores or so, because these workloads quickly bottleneck due to memory and storage, and also have a limit to how much can be processed in parallel, as they need the results of the previous step to calculate the next one.Rendering is the one true scale-out aspect of 3D, but with the increasing shift to GPU acceleration, the need for focusing on fast CPUs for rendering tasks may soon be over, particularly since even a basic PC can support multiple cards.The biggest use case for a high-end chip is whether or not you do a lot of stuff at once, for example you could be batch baking high polys in one program while still having enough power to say tweak a material in Designer. It's not an unreasonable proposition given that a typical 3D artist's toolkit consists of like 4 or 5 programs that they have to juggle between, but most of the time its just extra load on your RAM, not the CPU itself, unless you're actively processing something in parallel.
>>623865>Have AMD really closed the gap between them and Intel?Completely
>>623814>>623872ok so the ryzen 2800x is iirc 299GBP from amazon. I need a compatible motherboard and a better PSU (all other components don't need changed right?) How much am I talking here.>>623926I can't afford to start from scratch and in hardware and learn new a new render engine again. I like the results i currently get and just want them faster. Plus I do multitask on my pc since it's my general use pc as well as my renderbox.
>>623986What engine are you using for rendering? Many are trying to move into the GPU space (Arnold, Renderman, V-Ray...), so CPU is probably going to be less relevant there.
>>623991I'm using Luxrender. I know it's slow af but I get exactly the finished results I want with it. I'm a hobbyist and not rich enough to start from scratch again.
>>623993Why LuxRender, if I may ask? There is a high chance a different render engine gives you the results you want, faster, and possibly for free for non-commercial use.I get your point about not wanting to start from scratch again, but you'd transfer a lot of knowledge you already have to any new engine you might decide to try. It may be worth it.
>>624081It was free, uses system ram, has good bridging software (which I was given for free) with great materials settings.
>>624151If you aren't too dependent on certain important features of LuxRender, like spectral light transport, you could probably do well with Pixar's Renderman. It comes with stellar quality shaders, it's one of the industry heavyweights as you probably know, and it uses CPU -- but it's expected to also use GPU by 2019. And it's free as long as you don't use it for commercial work. It's worth a try, I think.Also,>I need a compatible motherboard and a better PSU (all other components don't need changed right?)You'll need to change your RAM to DDR4, too. Maybe you won't need to upgrade your PSU if you aren't adding GPUs; some Ryzen have quite low energy needs.
>>622676what for do you need it?
>>623991WHy the fuck do all these render engines only use NVIDIA cards.OpenCL works on both Nvidia and AMD, but these cuntlickers only develop for CUDA.
>>624156If I only care about the quality of the render. Which one is better - Renderman or Redshift?
>>624165because AMD is irrelevant in the GPU market and CUDA is faster>>624166Renderman