How Cycles (the render engine in Blender and the engine behind "Superfly") stacks up against some other render engines. For the curious...

http://www.blenderguru.com/articles/render-engine-comparison-cycles-vs-giants/

Thanks for the link, a very interesting article. One thing to note though, he used a GTX 650 for his Octane tests. I'm guessing this due to it's relatively slow GPU performance, he states that  "it performs very similarly to the Intel i7 3770" (or maybe it's because that's what he had in his machine). IMHO that introduced a bit of a bias into the comparison, as you can see from the attached screen grabs below (from: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html), even an old GTX 480 would give over 2X the performance of the GTX 650. So when looking at the results just keep in mind that the speeds for Octane are rather slow compared to what can be achieve with a newer card in the $200.00 range, for example a GTX 960 which would provide approximately 3x the speeds of the GTX 650. If he had used a GTX 960, his Octane render times would have easily been about 1/3 the times he posted, making Octane the clear leader in rendering speed.

I also think that the huge difference in the quality of the hair renders is mainly due to his inexperience the different render engines. They should all be capable of producing hair of the same visual quality as the Maxwell Render example.

It was really interesting to see how Cycles (and the new Lux) compared both in visual quality and speed to Maxwell and Vray. Thanks again for posting the link!

GTX 650 performance (near bottom of list)

Top end GPU performance

__________________________________________________________

My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......