GPU rendering

[Anonymous]

Are there any plans in the pipeline to introduce GPU rendering rather than the current CPU rendering?

[JB-CNC]

Hi @jstadt, thanks for stepping in.

I’d like to highlight that the core frustration in this thread is not about local vs. cloud rendering options. It’s about why Fusion 360’s rendering engine still doesn’t leverage GPU acceleration, and whether there is a clear plan to change that.

Most users have GPUs that Fusion simply doesn't utilise. This means painfully slow render times and a sense that Fusion is leaving significant performance on the table, especially when compared to competitors or even free alternatives. In 2016, this could potentially have been dismissed as a frustration. In 2025, it’s frankly absurd.

Your response, while courteous, doesn’t address this core issue:

• Is GPU-accelerated local rendering on the roadmap?

• If not, why not? Is it architectural, strategic, or something else?

• When can we expect a more transparent update?

With legitimate competitors gaining ground, this issue has become more than a technical gripe, its now a deciding factor when choosing where to invest our resources.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@JB-CNC wrote:

With legitimate competitors gaining ground, this issue has become more than a technical gripe, its now a deciding factor when choosing where to invest our resources.

---

Can you name a legitimate competitor?

When it comes to rendering with CAD software, Keyshot has been the de-facto industry standard for many years.

[jf_guilard]

I'm adding to this post very quickly (and this will be my one and only message). I'm therefore addressing the people of fusion360, whether they are technicians, designers, analysts, or any other internal function:
Here's a concrete example of the importance of this topic, and at the same time, of the occasional uselessness of Fusion360 in specific cases. I'm currently working on a correction for a model containing a huge number of facets. I've been waiting for about an hour for fusion to give me back control because the CPU (Ryzen 9 - 7950X3D, 8 cores 16 threads and 3D cache linked to 128 GB of RAM and 12 TB of NVME) simply can't get the job done, whereas if Fusion had implemented a simple box giving the choice between working with the GPU or working with the CPU, the job would have been done in 30 seconds.
The result? I'm going to stop the Fusion360 session to get back on track, abandon it, and do the job with another software.
For Autodesk, this is very bad publicity because when a friend asks me which software I used to do my design, I won't mention Fusion360. It's a shame because everything else about Fusion360 is great. But what a strange idea to refuse to work with the GPU in 2025... Sometimes the Fusion processing time is so slow that you'd think you'd come back with an Intel 386.
No, frankly, the fact that the Autodesk team refuses to listen to the requests of the many users of this thread is appalling.
I read everything, and sometimes it feels like we're on the front lines of politicians. Not cool.

[Pedro_Bidarra]

From your description you're either talking about viewport rendering (what you see in the viewports when manipulating the model, panning, zooming, rotating, etc.) and not the renders done via the Render workspace.
To be clear viewport rendering ALREADY uses the GPU (DirectX or OpenGL on Windows).

Or, you appear to be talking about the performance hit of working with complex meshes, any CAD program generally has some performance issues when dealing with meshes when compared to mesh 'first' apps like Blender or 3D Max, but again, if this is the case, this is not even a rendering, viewport or otherwise, issue (not related to CPU vs GPU) and it's not on topic.

[nick.somethingunique]

FWIW, even if GPU could be used, it wouldn’t necessarily be faster, and it
might even be slower than CPU. GPU is great for certain classes of problem
and algorithm, but not all. Every software also has its strengths and
weaknesses, and Fusion is simply not good at mesh oriented editing
operations. If you’re trying to operate at the mesh level, poor
performance, and maybe a bad result even if it did complete, is not
uncommon. When I needed to inflate a mesh for example, I tried in fusion,
it was a fail, so I went to blender, did it easily and successfully there,
and then imported back to fusion. Needing to do mesh operations is also
rare IME if designing from scratch, as you’re working at a higher level of
design abstraction where fusion performs well in general. So it simply
sounds like you’re using the wrong tool for the job. ##- Please type your
reply above this line -##

[TrippyLighting]

---

@nick.somethingunique wrote:
... When I needed to inflate a mesh for example, I tried in fusion,
it was a fail, so I went to blender, did it easily and successfully there,
and then imported back to fusion. 

---

Just to be clear (I've used Blender since the early 2000's), Blender does not use the GPU for modeling tasks either.

[benQEUN5]

Greetings,

This is 2026, 10 years after the initial posting and we still have no local GPU rendering. 100% GPU load would a) give much faster results and b) keep the notably hot CPU much cooler.

I don't know why I should get a subscription if I can't have a simple option, a single checkbox that switches from CPU to GPU rendering.

Intel Core i9-13950HX with 128 GB DDR5 ECC RAM and RTX5000 Ada Generation Laptop with 16 GB VRAM. Yes, this is one extreme and not everybody has that. Absolutely fine, you are not supposed to remove CPU rendering. Just add GPU rendering.

Thank you!

[TrippyLighting]

---

@benQEUN5 wrote:

I don't know why I should get a subscription if I can't have a simple option, a single checkbox that switches from CPU to GPU rendering.

---

If rendering is the only reason for you to get a subscription, you are using the wrong software!

[benQEUN5]

It's not about that but "why pay more if you cannot at least add the option for gpu rendering"

[Phil.E]

Adding GPU rendering is not as simple as putting a check box into preferences. 

[benQEUN5]

Don't you say. Do you require the full fletched technical specification and step-by-step-process to be explained?

Nobody said it's simple. Nobody said he'd only subscribe for GPU rendering. This isn't the Public Microsoft Support forum.

It also doesn't matter what "opinion" you have. We're not requesting GPU rendering just because we want it but because we a technical reason to do so.

What is your technical reason to not implement it?

@benQEUN5 - this post has been edited due to Community Rules & Etiquette violation.  

[Pedro_Bidarra]

Well, I understand that Fusion would probably need a new rendering engine to allow GPU rendering.
And I understand that it might not be worth it for Autodesk.
But, Autodesk could at least make the process of exporting/bridging/live-linking to other more capable rendering software much easier. Preserving hierarchies and materials/appearances.
I know this is possible because I've created such a system for myself, a plugin for Fusion and for Blender : https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-design-validate-document/a-keyshot-replacement/m-p/13717792#M3...
(It has a video demonstration)
 

[Phil.E]

I don't have any technical reasons not to implement it. I'm not a developer. It was called a "simple options... a check box" and that's just going to confuse anyone reading this thread. It's not simple or it would have been done, and I felt it is important to point this out. It's not an opinion. 

[benQEUN5]

Well, compared to all the mathematics involved in Fusion, implementing GPU rendering is a comparably easy task. That's the point.
It's not as simple as just adding that checkbox, you are right here. It's just that nobody said that or implied that. Again, it's not the public Microsoft forum where everybody goes.

And we are already where we should not go. Discuss something completely irrelevant. Is it difficult or not. How much is diffcult, how much is easy. It does not matter. I just added my voice to "I want GPU rendering".
We all know that Autodesk sole reason for not implementing it is: money. Simple as that. I bet the developers are great and able to do that. I bet that many customers would love that feature (without knowing it). And Autodesk can have its own reasons for not implementing it. Absolutely fine. But they should make a decision and statement.

Should I stick with Fusion because they may be implementing it or should I directly look for something else because they are definitely not going to do it?

[Pedro_Bidarra]

Just assume they are not going to do it and move on.
Never make a purchasing decision based on not yet implemented features even if they are promised for the future, buy it or not for what it is.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@benQEUN5 wrote:

...Nobody said he'd only subscribe for GPU rendering. Stop acting stupid....

---

I suggest you re-read your own post 😉

---

@benQEUN5 wrote:

What is your technical reason to not implement it?

---

There aren't that many technical hurdles, but there are some.
When you mention GPU rendering, do you mean hardware accelerated raytracing as employed in game engines, for example, or perhaps a better example is Blender's Eevee render engine?
Or do you mean GPU compute through OpenCL , or Cuda or like Blender's Cycles render engine?
What graphics API can you use to support MacOS and Windows and perhaps Linux in a more distant future? Vulcan or Metal or something else ?

There are other, more pressing limitations. You'll have to recruit and gainfully employ available resources to implement that.
If you already have such resources, on board, they are likely already busy, otherwise they wouldn't have a a job 😉

The question then is how do you justify that expense?
To me Autodesk appears to be a rather conservatively managed business, and in 40 years of professional experience in a variety of very conservatively managed businesses ( 30+ of those as an engineer), that unfortunately is often a question that has to be answered before any work can start.

If you don't want to add GPU abilities to the current render engine, perhaps as a larger software company you have an existing render engine in your portfolio that can be used?
Arnold, perhaps?
But then, you might have to use a different approach to materials and lighting. Perhaps better camera control etc.
Will that overwhelm the majority of Fusion users?

What about existing renders, which now don't work anymore, or look very different?

There is a host of other questions that have to be answered, that I haven't even thought of. Usually some of these things co to light when I have a Zoom conference with a member of the Fusions team. 
While it might not occur to many individual/solo Fusion users, the Fusion team is comprised of hundreds of people in a variety of development teams spread literally around the globe. 

[Zoltan3D]

Adding GPU rendering is even more simple then adding a button in fusion...
But it's way more profitable to never add GPU rendering and sell gold
priced Autodesk credits to make cloud rendering.....

[benQEUN5]

Are you done with showing off? Great.

In what world has the customer to do his own research just so he can request a specific gpu rendering pipeline? Normally the customer states his request and the manufacturer does his research and implements the best suitable kind. Because there are many factors to be considered - but that is all on the manufacturers side. Some data is for internal use only, other data must be collected from all customers and so on. A customer can't do that.

Your whole argument is "there's a lot to do". And?  Well, then there's no problem with some work to improve something. And I'm not here to discuss opinions with other users but to get an official answer.

@benQEUN5 - this post has been edited due to Community Rules & Etiquette violation.  

[TrippyLighting]

---

@benQEUN5 wrote:

...

In what world has the customer to do his own research just so he can request a specific gpu rendering pipeline? 

---

Many others have, including myself have requested this feature!

However, you also suggested that this is relatively easy. Based on exactly what?

You asked for technical reasons, and I explained some of those.
I elaborated about other, non-technical reasons. 

Now you complain that I am "Showing off".

You cannot first ask questions and then complain about the answers, because they are inconvenient, and your arguments have little ground to stand on.

This conversation is over 😉

[benQEUN5]

Funny because I never asked you.