If you’re using a high-end laptop or COTS workstation but find it slow, noisy, or warm while rendering graphics or immersive scenarios, the RenderBEAST will simply be a game changer. It has the capacity to power programs that designers, engineers, scientists, and artists need to meet the most graphics and compute-intensive workflows, including: 

• AI and deep learning 
• Simulation or virtual reality (VR) enhanced training 
• Professional design 
• Rendering 
• Modeling 
• CAD 

It may be small and whisper-quiet, but the RenderBEAST packs a big punch with power and flexibility to handle the most complex specifications. Its durable, portable, and compact design makes it an excellent choice for challenging conditions. Coupled with a 240mm liquid cooler, it ensures stable performance even when overclocking.  No wonder you’ll find RenderBEASTS in diverse industries and environments such as military and defense, manufacturing, airports, construction, medical facilities, science labs, industrial sites, astronomy, and architecture.  

Immersive simulations are the future of training for both the private and public sectors. Particularly in a competitive labor market, XR programs offer faster, more cost-effective, and safer training alternatives to physical testing. Moreover, organizations will achieve greater training success when they invest in technologies that consistently deliver realistic and accurate immersive experiences.

The goal: Measure under stress. How something responds under stress tells the REAL performance story. We ran the heaviest possible CPU/GPU workload on a standard computer with multiple peripherals and programs running simultaneously to see which card performed better under those stressful conditions. It’s important to note this goal when looking at our results, because you’ll find our testing numbers lower than most other comparison tests. Here are a few things we did to increase workload: 

• We tested on standardized compute. Experts know the tricks of the trade to overclock and manipulate systems for optimization. But since most users do NOT do this, we chose not to optimize our test system for the software. In a real-life scenario, optimizing for software would further increase the performance and resulting frames per second (FPS) experienced.  
• We tested Microsoft Flight Sim (MSFS), which is known as a rendering hog because it’s difficult to run the software without serious GPU and CPU power. Essentially, MSFS is rendering photogrammetry data to create the massive flying environment. MSFS uses as much CPU/GPU and VRAM as the system has.
• We tested MSFS low to the ground, an important distinction because it wildly increases the images to render, which increases CPU and GPU demand. Many MSFS comparison demos stay high in the sky because there’s less to render when you’re at 30,000 feet and the skies are blue. Staying high will yield artificially high FPS, while staying low drastically lowers FPS due to the increased rending load. To validate this theory, we reran testing while keeping the plane high in the sky, and FPS increased over 90. We purposely ran the plane low to maximize rendering and achieved an impressive 50-60 FPS.   
• We tested with Varjo’s XR-3, the most demanding head-mounted-display (HMD) on the market. If you’ve not personally tried an XR-3, you are genuinely missing out on an incredible XR experience. The image quality on the XR-3 will spoil the user for any other HMDs. However, that crystal-clear immersive clarity requires four display ports just for the headset to function: one 1920 x 1920 display plus one 2880 x 2720 display per eye which combined deliver an impressive 70 ppd (pixels per degree). Adding a 4K monitor to display the user experience (common practice in training and simulation scenarios) requires a fifth display. To confirm that the XR3 required heavy rendering processing, we ran the same tests using a competitor HMD and saw an FPS increase similar to the 30,000 test due to the lightened workload. To note, while we gained FPS when switching to a less demanding HMD, the overall quality and experience was significantly less impressive than the XR-3

With our testing parameters in place, we started testing using a mannequin wearing an XR-3, flying low to the ground, with the mannequin head slowly rotating right and left to capture all the beautiful scenery (and ray tracing) below.