Research: Blender 2.83 CYCLES vs Maya 2020.2 ARNOLD (4K) – Speed 400%

More:)

rn, cycles is lot faster than arnold, but if you care about Quality it's arnold, if you don't care about Quality you should use cycles.
arnold is used in almost every big budget film, it has best quality, but it takes lot of time to render on single pc,
cycles is not used in lot off films, it doesn't have the best quality, but it gets job done in less time

That is not a fair comparison. You are just considering one single static scene with almost no complexity and without any particular lighting conditions. In this line, ANY render engine will succeed somehow. If your point is that you can get a very similar result with Cycles in some scenarios, that is out of the question. But we don't have to be so condescending with our working resources. I feel a lot of frustration with Cycles in many cases where something conceptually simple like contact shadows get completely off, or the skin of the character looks plastic and unrealistic and you have to spend a lot of time trying to get work, the poor ACES workflow performance adding to the lack of personality of Filmic workspace, and the general low appealing of straight Cycles' beauty, which is not the case with Eevee when you can properly get it work. I think Cycles is at a good pace and the last update was huge, but it is still not at the competition level in many scenarios, like hero products visualization in Motion Graphics. Not to mention that I have gotten rejected renders many times in the early stages of the project with Cycles because of the render engine limitations, something that has never happened to me with Arnold, but neither with Unreal (also free) or Octane (free inside Blender). In any case, thanks for sharing, any work that allows for placing Blender in the CGI ecosystem is always welcomed.

In Blender, if you're gonna render with GPU you have to change the tile size to around 256-512 pixels. 16-64 pixels is meant for cpu's only so this could be done in less time if settings were right.

Which settings did you use for min max samples at Arnold's bucket?
I mean it's just too fast. I have a i7 6700 and a gtx 960. Renders take at least 10 min for Arnold and Vray.

And now cycles x coming 8x faster than current 🔥💥

But did he have his window shades closed for ALL tests? If not, the test can only be inconclusive.

It's all nice and dandy until you want to render something that doesn't fit on VRAM. Then you're back to figuring hacks to make it fit on the GPU while Arnold is eating away frames in his pace. Source: I gotta work w/ both in production.

No matter how much maya costs I bet some of you or perhaps all of you were gonna use the pirated version of it if blender weren't free. So why wasting money or risking your pc with virus if you can get an original software for free?

redshift must be laughing

why Maya is soooo expensive WHYYY!!????

GPU +CPU + optix denoiser blender wins

i m starting to blender, bb maya

Could you suggest me best sytem settings in rzen 3500 for faster render mode and rendering

Not sure if this is still the case, but if you redid the test with blender on linux you should get a ~10% speed bump in blender. Windows 10 adds it's own overhang for nvidia cards, the only way afaik to get around that is to have a titan or quadro card set as some sort of computing cluster.

Maya goodbye. And 3ds same

This comparison is useless and umcomparable. The results and setting clearly too different between those two render engines.
For example.
In cycles the reflectivity of object is much higher, (possibly due to different freshel).
And Arnold has clearly smaller f-stop value of the camera focus. Which certainly add a lot of time to computation (i just checked it myself with cycles going from 5.0 to 2.8 increased render time 7.5% on a very simple scene. God knows how much this blurred foreground stressed Arnold.
The cycles render overall looks significantly brigher, and i believe the reason maybe not only in bigger reflectivity settings but also in the larger amount of light bounces in cycles.

GPU rendering should be set to large tile sizes like 1024x1024.

I really enjoyed this material, but I'm not sure if it's really conclusive. I'm surprised that cycles could deliver the same results as the commercial product, however I think that more testing is required. I'm glad that there is hair on kiwi, and that both renderers could handle it. But I think that you should test out more scenes, mainly
Scenes that feature a lot of light sources (to check if both renderers handle sampling all light sources efficiently)
Interior scenes, preferably lighted by hdr through a small window
Scenes that feature a lot of glass objects, to show how both handle caustics (Arnold doesn't advertise being bidirectional path tracer specifically, but if it is, it would have a huge edge over blender's cycles)

Also, you didn't show some info about render settings, mainly bounce count.
That's all I have to say, thanks for attending my Ted talk

I genuinely did not expect cycles to be faster ... Now compare it to Octane