Michael J. Brown Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I've posted this in the hardware/tech forum, but thought I might be able to get some good feedback here too. Is there a way to get the "Building light cache" phase of Vray rendering to utilize all my system's cores/processors? I've noticed that (even though I've got 12 cores) Vray still refuses to run the "Building light cache" phase of the render any faster than it does on my work laptop (which has only 2 cores and 1/5 the power/speed/memory of this system). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ismael Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 http://forum.asgvis.com/index.php?action=printpage;topic=8371.0 "Yes in the light cache Tab inside the V-Ray options you shoul equalize the number of Phases to the same number of threads. Example: i7 = 8 threads = 8 Num. Phases Dual Xeón = 16 threads = 16 Num. Phases" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael J. Brown Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Interesting. Thanks, Ismael. However, I've got 12 cores (dual Zeon X5680s), but they are hypertheaded - producing 24 buckets at render time, instead of just one for each core (12). So in this case should I set the number of phases to 12 or 24? Edited January 21, 2011 by renderhaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ismael Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Michael, Set it to 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 When you set the Phases to a number that is not a multiple of the number of threads in your computer (for example, set it to 8 instead of the 24 you have), the 16 threads remaining will stay idle, not working on the calcs. That's why you're getting the same performance as in your laptop. Setting it to a multiple will not only make it use all your threads, but also increase the quality of the calculation. So you could use 24 or 48 (it only goes as high as 64). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael J. Brown Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 ...So you could use 24 or 48... Very interesting. I've already tried 24 and gotten splendid results. I'll try 48 next and compare. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now