I am working of this chart for myself and for a friend, and I thought I would share it.
-
Basically, what you are looking at is a relative performance chart, using Cycles, albeit with Blender, but the relative performance should be similar. I wrote the person who manages the scores, and he thankfully said that the CPU and GPU scores were directly comparable.
-
The CPS column is cost-per-score.
-
The factor I used for reference is a GTX 1080 as 1x, but it’s also close to a 16-cored AMD chip, an Intel would be a bit faster.
-
The chart suggests that buying a bunch of low-tech video cards–isn’t the cheap way to go. Also, the prices on the RTX 30-series are way too high. Also power improvements have happened.
It shows some interesting things, such as a dual-Epic with 96-cores cannot render even as fast as a RTX 4070.
It shows that memory is expensive, but likely necessary. Especially looking at A6000, which if I could have any card, the A6000 would be it, but it’s too expensive for mere mortals–unless your company needs to close out the quarter and show a loss. Why would I want it: the memory makes it future-resistant. Given that the A6000 is last-gen, that thing must have a whole lot of shader cores.
I have read rumors that they were coming out with a 16GB RTX 4060 Ti, but I am not hearing about a RTX 4070 Ti with 16GB, as in WTF?
Also, there may be a different 4070:
“One more thing…” Actually two, because the A6000 replacement is on the way. If you want this stuff, you want a 1200 watt power supply, as the card itself might take 800-watts!
[I needed to upgrade the memory in my last computer, and it didn’t have NVMe. I am glad I bought a 850-watt power supply. When I bought it, everyone was telling me that we didn’t any longer need the power LOL!]