Just started rendering. It's going to take 2 days to finish.

>What's everyone's render times?
> I know it depends on the project but fuck

1800 hours
No wait, i mean 10 seconds.

Retard

hmm but what do you render? it matters

>>516114
For a still, I render out a few frames so I can average out the noise.
That takes anywhere from like 6-12 hours depending on the project.

My computer isn't really built for this kind of shit, but it's not really a big deal for me.
Just render that shit overnight, go to class, and have it done when I come back.

Which is more power consuming? Having one computer only for rendering, or two or three for network rendering?

>>516147
In theory, multiple computers. However, the cost of a render farm can easily work out less compared to going for a single computer with a top end CPU (like a Xeon).

>>516114
Are you still using CPU based renderers in 2016?

Get Redshift.

>>516570
arnold > redshift

I'm a noob when it comes to rendering, but I often see people talking about redshift and GPU rendering.

Would my 980 be better / faster to render from than my 6700k?

>>516570
i use gpu but usually i am out of vram. sometimes i need like 16gb only for rendering

>>516570
Redshift is very promising.
But CPUs are not out of the game.
Take a look at Clarisse IFX.
>>516572
apple > orange
Redshift is superfast. Arnold isn't.
>>516589
In some cases yes, up to 10x more performance than a cpu.
>>516762
That shouldn't happen with Redshift. It streams in the scene in parts. No more VRAM bottleneck.

>>516804
arnold is faster than gpu renderers. Redshift is just blurry and noisy.

>>516804
>That shouldn't happen with Redshift. It streams in the scene in parts. No more VRAM bottleneck
cool i need to check that out !

>>516120
pretentious bedroom amateur detected

>>516807
This isn't true

File: 1426133568532.jpg (14KB, 294x273px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 294x273px

>>516114
>>516140
>I render out a few frames so I can average out the noise.
..........wtf man, just render one clean frame and add noise in post if you really want some.

I've worked on pretty much any type of possible render situations and a frame never really went over 16 hours for a very complex 15K-wide image for AAA marketing piece. Optimize your scene, learn what the settings are for. 2 days is just ridiculous. Most renders should take around 10-60min, broadly speaking.

>>517806
That guy is probably using several noisy but fast images as samples to remove noise in post though.

>>517806
>>517858
>That guy is probably using several noisy but fast images as samples to remove noise in post though.
This.
Like I said in my post, I'm working from a laptop. So apart from optimizing, I render out a few frames at 500-750 samples.
I've tried rendering out the equivalent in samples from just one frame, but it doesn't really smooth things out as well.
There's diminishing returns.

I don't need a long drawn out/smart reply about how the way you do it is better or something like that, I'm just clearing up what I said previously.

>>517948
I guess I didn't say I was working with a laptop, but in any case, it's not really great when it comes to renders.
>inb4 get a better computer
Working on it