However, it's just extremely hard to believe that this could be true, particularly when I consider the many other kinds of rendering that you can do on either CPU or GPU, where GPU pulls away with a 10:1 lead if not more. Use Iteration Tracking feature that would assist senior designers to keep track of multiple iterations. Add Multiple Light sources in the Rendering environment. This one I have no expertise on and so I can't really say one way or another if it is true, and if it is, this alone would be enough of a reason for using CPU over GPU I guess, despite the validity of any other point. Computer-Aided Manufacturing Software Fusion 360 Fusion 360 Discussions How do we 1. Being lots faster on the easy scenes is not really important to us. And the biggest, most expensive scenes are the ones where GPUs are only marginally faster.

It's only very recently that GPU ray tracing could match the best CPU-based ray tracing code, and even though it has surpassed it, it's not by much, not enough to throw out all the old code and start fresh with buggy fragile code for GPUs. Ray tracing is very incoherent (each ray can go a different direction, intersect different objects, shade different materials, access different textures), and so this access pattern degrades GPU performance very severely. GPUs are great at highly coherent work (doing the same things to lots of data at once). Don't believe the hype, ray tracing with GPUs is not an obvious win over CPU.

Fusion 360 video render