Haven't used quixel suite 2 yet.
But I noticed that Substance Painter is fucking slow with 4K textures. I know you push down the resolution so your viewport can become more responsive. I know that, but what about the fucking dirt/edgewear generators?
It fucking takes 8 seconds waiting time for incrementing 1 little fucking parameter.
So Quixel faggots do you have the same issue? Is Quixel slow?
This is not a popularity contest which software is better. I need tools that are fucking stable, reliable and fast. I will be 50 by the time I finish this fucking texture in substance paintfag.
Are you using an AMD GPU? If so, that's probably why. The painting in Substance is GPU accelerated and requires a good GPU to do 4k and 8k painting. Quixel is faster at high res texture painting though due to the Photoshop core it's running on.
AMD GPUs are trash these days compared to Nvidia. They have almost no R&D money anymore. And all of Allegorithmic's products are developed on Nvidia hardware, they even have a CUDA accelerated path-tracer in Substance Designer. So their software performs better on Nvidia cards.
>AMD GPU's are more powerful than Nvidia GPU's and much better for compute.
Wrong. AMD's GPUs simply have higher artificial throughput because they take a smaller, less powerful, but more of them approach to their cores. So when you do tests of extremely simple operations like hash crunching, yeah, AMD GPUs come ahead in that case because that's an extremely simple operation to do and is really only bound by how many threads you can execute at the same time.
Nvidia's cores have a lot more CPU-like features that enable to to perform better in actual complex compute situations. And if you're one of those idiots that thinks AMD is better because of that whole "ASYNC Compute" bullshit, you're very wrong. Nvidia does ASYNC compute, just in a different way that actually performs better. A CPU is able to handle managing the ASYNC queue a lot faster than a GPU can, which is the approach Nvidia took, and the ASYNC compute benchmarks proved this, their cards will still performing much faster despite seeming like they couldn't do ASYNC Compute in DX12.
>How about you learn what the fuck you are talking about.
I've probably been building computers since you were in your diapers. I actually read and understand the technical white papers that Nvidia and AMD release for their new architectures. Unlike you I don't just read the headlines on my favorite biased website.
Holy shit you are stupid.
>Nvidia does Async compute better in a different way
>Nvidia cards do OpenCL like a piece of shit so use Cuda instead! It's basically the same thing!
This is what you are saying right now.
You call me stupid, but don't actually refute anything. GG, so mature and educated.
It has nothing to do with how well Nvidia cards do OpenCL, in fact, it is well known that Nvidia has had much better OpenCL support than AMD. If you had any sort of interaction with the GPU computing community, you would know this.
CUDA is much more advanced than OpenCL, it is definitely not the same thing, though they access the same cores. CUDA is an architecture, an API and a programming language. It's C with Nvidia GPU extensions, making it much easier to program for than OpenCL. It's a finely tuned ecosystem tweaked for a single type of architecture, instead of OpenCL's broad reach.
Come back with some substance or don't bother replying.
Quixel is more responsive, it's already been answered. Quixel does 8k painting no problem. The only downside is, the interface is a bit less intuitive, and you have to wait for smart materials to recompile for longer.
>But I noticed that Substance Painter is fucking slow with 4K textures.
>compute 3d strokes, seamless texture computing, render compute, and what the fuck ever
god OP i wish your dick will fall off.
>Cuda is much more advance than OpenCL
This is demonstrably false though retard. Cuda is garbage for certain types of calculations. It is easier to program then OpenCL but lacks a ton of features and is a specialized toolset and is mainly there because Nvidia cards are terrible at compute.
>Cuda is garbage for certain types of calculations. It is easier to program then OpenCL but lacks a ton of features and is a specialized toolset and is mainly there because Nvidia cards are terrible at compute.
Yeah, tell that to the massive industry of scientists and engineers utilizing Nvidia GPUs and CUDA to do work that your little brain could barely comprehend. CUDA is much more matured than OpenCL is.
Yep, ignore how everyone with AMD cards was complaining about AMD taking forever to get OpenCL drivers out the door all the while Nvidia had full support and OpenCL programs were being made for Nvidia GPUs. Completely ignore the fact that Nvidia's drivers work immensely better on Linux, where OpenCL/GL are king.
fucking niggers argueing about which gpu is better. Like a fucking amateur 3d niggers argueing which computer to buy for rendering particles. In the end these faggots end up with a portfolio consisting of few particle demos with no actual worthy content.
How fucking retarded can you be?? I have a quite good AMD card on my laptop and painter runs butter smooth at any resolution whatsoever. Nvidia are a bunch of pigs, and their fans are fucking autistic piglets
Topkek. Nvidiafags will say literally anything to justify their purchase.
Totally great OpenCL performance compared to AMD there bro, Nvidia is great for the gamers™ !
Lmao, yeah, post a benchmark that was made when AMD had released a new series that is being compared to Nvidia's that is more than a year and a half older.
How about a more recent one?
Cry more feggit.