Am I expecting too much on upgrading my NVIDIA card?

[JuanR2]

My 2021 laptop has an NVIDIA RTX 2060 6GB, Intel i7 16 GB Ram.  I just bought at Costco a 2025 notebook with NVIDIA RTX 5070 8GB, Intel i9 32 GB Ram: I was expecting it to fly!

I did some tests with a project:

The new one renders images almost 3 times faster: 9 minutes with the old one, 3 minutes with the new.

For videos it is almost twice as fast: 16 min with the old one, 9 minutes with the new.

I was expecting it to perform somewhere between 5 or 10 times faster... and not be waiting forever. I'm thinking about a return, and purchasing the RTX 5080 16 BG

Are my expectations unrealistic? Does everyone spend so much time waiting for Ray Tracing and Videos?

[mtldesigns]

1 hour ago, JuanR2 said:

Does everyone spend so much time waiting for Ray Tracing and Videos?

No.  500 sample passes take about 20 to 30 seconds.  The one attached took 25 seconds and that's with all the light on.

 

Maybe someone on here can explain computers better.  Try ChatGPT and ask "how can I make NVIDIA RTX 5070 8GB, Intel i9 32 GB Ram go faster" . I just did, tons of suggestions.

[tundra_dweller]

9 minutes ago, mtldesigns said:

No.  500 sample passes take about 20 to 30 seconds.  The one attached took 25 seconds and that's with all the light on.

 

FWIW this is about where my performance is as well with an RTX 3080 on desktop for a similar image, using physical based rendering straight from Chief. I usually go 200 samples so it's probably about 15 seconds or so.

[Renerabbitt]

2 hours ago, JuanR2 said:

or videos it is almost twice as fast: 16 min with the old one, 9 minutes with the new.

I was expecting it to perform somewhere between 5 or 10 times faster... and not be waiting forever. I'm thinking about a return, and purchasing the RTX 5080 16 BG

Are my expectations unrealistic? Does everyone spend so much time waiting for Ray Tracing and Videos?

really have to provide your plan file, your settings are likely less than optimal which no card is going to truly blow your mind if your settings are less than optimal

 

[Joe_Carrick]

2 hours ago, JuanR2 said:

The new one renders images almost 3 times faster: 9 minutes with the old one, 3 minutes with the new.

Those numbers seem like CPU Ray Tracing.  Are you sure you have the computer set up to use the GPU?

[Renerabbitt]

1 minute ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Those numbers seem like CPU Ray Tracing.  Are you sure you have the computer set up to use the GPU?

There is no CPU raytracing in X17

[Joe_Carrick]

1 minute ago, Renerabbitt said:

There is no CPU raytracing in X17

Then maybe he's just doing too many passes.  I can't imagin a Ray Trace taking 3 minutes on an RTX 5060.  Something is wrong.

[Renerabbitt]

1 minute ago, Joe_Carrick said:

Then maybe he's just doing too many passes.  I can't imagin a Ray Trace taking 3 minutes on an RTX 5060.  Something is wrong.

We dont have nearly enough info, sample rate too high. surface count can be super high, number of lights could be super high, number of transparent surfaces, resolution and size of screen, backdrop resolution, texture resolution, materials with pattern from texture enabled etc

[JuanR2]

13 hours ago, Renerabbitt said:

We dont have nearly enough info, sample rate too high. surface count can be super high, number of lights could be super high, number of transparent surfaces, resolution and size of screen, backdrop resolution, texture resolution, materials with pattern from texture enabled etc

Thanks for all the Feedback! Part of the Mystery solved! I was using the default 20,000 Samples  

I was misled by the settings when I canceled at 3,000 Samples and the Rendering was poor (attached), after 7 minutes!

Now with Setting at 500 Samples takes 1:18 min

With Setting at 300 Samples -for production is great!- average 30 seconds!

All done with my OLD notebook, 1 interior light (simulating a solar tube inside the shower) spherical 360 photo from the site

WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO MODIFY? I attached my settings also for Video Recording

 

 

 

 

 

[Renerabbitt]

Just now, JuanR2 said:

I was using the default 20,000 Samples

FYI the OOTB default is 250 samples, 20,000 is a setting you put in place at some point
you can often get away with 30 samples if your scene has enough lumens. You can also turn on DLSS realtime for designing in live raytrace or raytracing walkthroughs super fast.
2000 samples is way overkill for most shots.
A spherical 360 photo is okay, but an HDR backdrop is preferred as it has a radiance channel that can take the place of using the reproduce sun settings in chief.
For your older machine in most shots you can turn your bounces to 2 and 2 and adjust upward if you see problems.
PS, seriously turn on DLSS for your walkthroughs

[Renerabbitt]

FYI::

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Renerabbitt

[basketballman]

50 minutes ago, JuanR2 said:

Thanks for all the Feedback! Part of the Mystery solved! I was using the default 20,000 Samples  

I was misled by the settings when I canceled at 3,000 Samples and the Rendering was poor (attached), after 7 minutes!

Now with Setting at 500 Samples takes 1:18 min

With Setting at 300 Samples -for production is great!- average 30 seconds!

All done with my OLD notebook, 1 interior light (simulating a solar tube inside the shower) spherical 360 photo from the site

WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO MODIFY? I attached my settings also for Video Recording

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still looks pretty flat compared to what is possible.

 

 

 

 

[Renerabbitt]

1 hour ago, basketballman said:

 

Still looks pretty flat compared to what is possible.

 

 

 

 

Ha challenge accepted