I benchmarked 6 render engines on iRender's single RTX 4090 using the same test: a 300-frame animated scene at 1080p with SSS, reflections, motion blur, and one area light.
Last Updated: May 2026
I benchmarked 6 render engines on iRender’s single RTX 4090 using the same test: a 300-frame animated scene at 1080p with SSS, reflections, motion blur, and one area light. Fastest to slowest: Octane: 4.3 sec/frame. Redshift: 5.2s. V-Ray GPU: 6.8s. Arnold GPU: 8.1s. Blender Cycles: 6.1s. EEVEE: 0.4s (real-time engine, not comparable). At iRender’s ~$8.20/hour rate, a 300-frame animation costs $2.95 on Octane, $3.55 on Redshift, $4.65 on V-Ray GPU, $5.55 on Arnold GPU, $4.17 on Cycles. The RTX 4090’s 24 GB VRAM handled every engine without swapping. These numbers are your baseline for estimating any animation project on cloud.
| Engine | Sec/Frame | 300-Frame Time | 300-Frame Cost | VRAM Used | Speed vs Local 3070 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Octane | 4.3s | 21 min | $2.95 | 11 GB | 5.8× faster |
| Redshift | 5.2s | 26 min | $3.55 | 9 GB | 5.1× faster |
| Blender Cycles | 6.1s | 30 min | $4.17 | 8 GB | 4.6× faster |
| V-Ray GPU | 6.8s | 34 min | $4.65 | 13 GB | 4.2× faster |
| Arnold GPU | 8.1s | 41 min | $5.55 | 14 GB | 3.8× faster |
| EEVEE (real-time) | 0.4s | 2 min | $0.27 | 4 GB | ~1× (GPU-bound) |
Why Is Octane Faster Than Redshift Per Frame but Redshift More Popular?
Octane’s path tracing architecture is extremely efficient on a single GPU. It gets to a clean image faster with fewer samples. On this benchmark, Octane was 17% faster per frame than Redshift. But Redshift dominates the MoGraph market for other reasons: it’s integrated into Cinema 4D’s node system, scales better at 4+ GPUs (92% vs 81% efficiency), and handles production features like AOV passes and multi-light editing more cleanly.
In practice, most animators don’t pick their engine based on a 0.9-second-per-frame difference. They pick based on ecosystem. If you’re in C4D, Redshift is the natural choice. If you’re in Modo or standalone Blender workflows, Octane often fits better. The per-frame cost difference between Octane ($2.95) and Redshift ($3.55) on a 300-frame project is $0.60, less than a cup of coffee. Choose your engine for workflow, not for benchmark bragging rights.
How Does the RTX 4090 Compare to My Local GPU for Animation?
Against my local RTX 3070 (8 GB VRAM), iRender’s RTX 4090 is 3.8× to 5.8× faster depending on the engine. The speed gap is widest with Octane (5.8×) because Octane scales particularly well with more CUDA cores. Arnold GPU shows the smallest gap (3.8×) because it’s still maturing in GPU optimization.
But raw speed isn’t the whole story. My local 3070 has 8 GB VRAM, half my test scenes wouldn’t even load without texture downscaling. The RTX 4090’s 24 GB VRAM means I can render scenes at full quality that my local machine literally can’t handle. That VRAM headroom is the real reason I moved to cloud, not just speed. At $8.20/hour, one hour of RTX 4090 time produces what would take 4-6 hours locally and without tying up my workstation so I can keep working on the next project.
This is the RTX 4090 I benchmarked → Try iRender’s RTX 4090 for animation
FAQ
What’s the fastest render engine on RTX 4090 for animation?
In my single-GPU benchmark, Octane was fastest at 4.3 seconds per frame, followed by Redshift at 5.2s, Cycles at 6.1s, V-Ray GPU at 6.8s, and Arnold GPU at 8.1s. EEVEE at 0.4s is in a different category (real-time engine). The test used a standardized 1080p animation scene with SSS, reflections, and motion blur on iRender’s RTX 4090 (24 GB VRAM). Results will vary with scene complexity, heavy volumetrics narrow the gap between engines significantly.
How many frames per hour can an RTX 4090 render for animation?
At standard MoGraph complexity: Octane renders about 837 frames/hour. Redshift: ~692 frames/hour. Cycles: ~590 frames/hour. V-Ray GPU: ~529 frames/hour. Arnold GPU: ~444 frames/hour. At iRender’s ~$8.20/hour, that translates to roughly $0.010-0.018 per frame depending on engine. For heavy scenes (volumetrics, 4K, deep SSS), divide these numbers by 2-3×. I always render 10 test frames on my actual scene to get a real per-frame time before committing budget.
Is the RTX 4090 on iRender the same as a desktop RTX 4090?
Functionally identical for rendering. iRender uses NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPUs with 24 GB VRAM, 16,384 CUDA cores, and 256 GB system RAM. The rendering performance matches a desktop RTX 4090 I’ve verified this by comparing frame times with a friend’s local 4090 build, and the results were within 2-3% margin. The only difference: server GPUs sometimes have slightly different cooling configurations, which doesn’t affect render output. What you gain on cloud that a single desktop 4090 can’t give you: the ability to rent 2×, 4×, or 8× GPUs simultaneously.
You may want to read other articles of mine here.
Image source: blenderartists.org
COMMENTS