I sent the exact same 600-frame Maya Arnold GPU animation, a character walk cycle with SSS, cloth sim, and environment lighting at 1080p to iRender, GarageFarm, RebusFarm, and Fox Renderfarm on the same day.
Last Updated: May 2026
I sent the exact same 600-frame Maya Arnold GPU animation -a character walk cycle with SSS, cloth sim, and environment lighting at 1080p to iRender, GarageFarm, RebusFarm, and Fox Renderfarm on the same day. iRender was fastest: 52 minutes, $14.20. GarageFarm was most reliable: 0 failed frames, zero issues, 68 minutes, $16.40. RebusFarm had the best support: they flagged a shader warning I hadn’t noticed and fixed it before rendering. Fox was cheapest at $13.80 but had 8 failed frames from a texture path error. No single farm won every category, which is exactly why I use more than one.
| Metric | iRender | GarageFarm | RebusFarm | Fox Renderfarm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Render Time | 52 min | 68 min | 64 min | 71 min |
| Total Turnaround | 78 min | 75 min | 72 min | 82 min |
| Total Cost | $14.20 | $16.40 | $15.60 | $13.80 |
| Failed Frames | 0 | 0 | 2 (re-rendered auto) | 8 |
| Support Response | N/A (self-managed) | 12 min | 8 min | 35 min |
| Setup Effort | High (manual) | Low (plugin) | Low (plugin) | Low (plugin) |
Why Is iRender Fastest but Not Best Turnaround for 600 Frames?
Because render time and total turnaround are different things. iRender rendered my 600 frames in 52 minutes, 16 minutes faster than any SaaS farm. But my total turnaround was 78 minutes because I spent 15 minutes uploading, 5 minutes on a test render, and 6 minutes downloading the output. That overhead only exists on IaaS.
RebusFarm’s total turnaround was actually 72 minutes, 6 minutes shorter because their plugin handled upload and download in the background while I worked on other things. Their render itself took 64 minutes, but I got the finished files on my desktop without actively managing anything. For 600+ frame sequences where I don’t need viewport access, SaaS turnaround can beat IaaS even though raw render speed is slower. That’s a nuance most comparison articles miss.
Which Farm Should You Pick for Maya Sequences Over 500 Frames?
My decision tree after running this test: GPU rendering (Arnold GPU, Redshift)? Go iRender: raw speed matters more on long sequences because the time savings compound over hundreds of frames. CPU rendering (Arnold CPU, V-Ray)? Go GarageFarm or RebusFarm, they distribute frames across nodes and their reliability is perfect for overnight batch jobs. First time on cloud with a big sequence? Go GarageFarm, their plugin prevents 90% of the mistakes that cause failed frames.
The one thing I’d warn about for 500+ frame jobs on iRender: check the billing timer before walking away. A 600-frame render at 52 minutes means roughly $7 of render cost. But if you fall asleep and the server runs 8 more hours, that’s $67 wasted on top. I’ve done it. Now I use a script that auto-disconnects after the render completes. GarageFarm and RebusFarm don’t have this problem; billing stops when the job finishes.
This is the farm that won the speed test → Try iRender for Maya animation
FAQ
How long does it take to render 600 frames of Maya Arnold animation on cloud?
On iRender with Arnold GPU (single RTX 4090), my 600-frame character animation at 1080p with SSS and cloth took 52 minutes of render time, plus 26 minutes of overhead (upload, test, download), 78 minutes total. On GarageFarm (Arnold CPU distributed), the same job took 68 minutes render but only 75 minutes total because their plugin handles transfers in the background. For planning: budget 1-1.5 hours for a standard 600-frame sequence on any major cloud farm.
Why did Fox Renderfarm fail 8 frames in the battle test?
A texture path error. My Maya scene referenced textures with an absolute path (D:\Projects\textures\) that didn’t exist on Fox’s render nodes. GarageFarm and RebusFarm auto-resolve relative paths during their pre-flight checks, Fox’s plugin missed it. This isn’t unique to Fox, any SaaS farm can hit path issues depending on their scene analyzer. The fix: always use relative paths in Maya, and run the farm’s pre-flight check before submitting. I’ve had similar path failures on GarageFarm with XGen collections in the past.
Is it cheaper to render 500+ frames on IaaS or SaaS farms?
For GPU rendering, IaaS is almost always cheaper at scale. My 600-frame test cost $14.20 on iRender versus $13.80-16.40 on SaaS farms. But the real cost difference comes from overhead: on IaaS, you pay for upload and download time too. For sequences over 1,000 frames, iRender’s cost advantage grows because the fixed overhead becomes a smaller percentage. For CPU rendering, SaaS farms like GarageFarm are often cheaper because they distribute frames efficiently across multiple machines.
You may want to read other articles of mine here.
Image source: What Make Art
COMMENTS