siditious wrote:
I'm not really sure I understand how you came up with your numbers 4.6 GB can you please explain this? Because according to the rendering FAQ a 9930 by 7020 image should only use 4.2 GB at AA2.
There is a formula that gives an estimate of the RAM usage for any width - height - AA, but it is rather complicated and I prefer just doing the math myself and sharing numbers.
My answer is in accordance to the FAQ:
FAQ says 7020 x 9930 uses about 4.2 RAM
Your test:
width 7680 and height 10031 - this is bigger than 7020 x 9930, so it uses more RAM too.
At any rate, you should try setting something SMALLER than 7020 x 9930? As it needs over 4GB RAM, your computer will not be able to handle such resolutions at AA2, no matter how hard you try - you either need a smaller resolution or AA1 or a better computer.
siditious wrote:
And as mentioned previously, I am able to render at the dimensions in the screenshot above at AA2 settings with exactly the same computer specs that I have had all along if I simply change the aspect ratio in a different order.
Please post screenies. Whatever you wanna report, post screenshots. There is no way i can figure out what is going on unless you post a screenie. Like, how can you keep the same resolution and "I simply change the aspect ratio"? It is not possible in my head - you either change aspect ratio or keep the same resolution.
Screenshots please, man. Seriously. It is no way to help you if you say "well, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesnt, it i sprobably broken or something". Screenies and specific numbers, like "it renders at width= 35242635 and height = 2563527 AA2, but fails to allocate histogram at width =3254236 and height = 234523626 AA2".