PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro performance question concerning render times...



virtualcomposer
04-16-2011, 07:31 PM
I just made a comparison ordered list of what Mac Pro I want to buy and was wondering if there is a major difference in these numbers for render times. I see a ton of 2008 Mac Pros from 3.0 and 2.8 but I'm having a hard time finding the 2.67 2009 model. There seems to be a performance jump in these numbers but I'm not sure if that means my render time would be cut in half or just 10% or so.

virtualcomposer
04-16-2011, 10:36 PM
Would RAM help render time as well?

JonW
04-17-2011, 12:30 AM
Remove any x54xx CPUs. Radiosity is a lot slower on these, my 940 takes about the same time to render a typical frame (architectural renders) as a pair of E5450 CPUs, sometimes it's quicker. My W5580s are typically twice as quick as my E5450s for a typical render with radiosity. If you don't use radiosity the difference in performance is not so great but it is still there.

Also the x54xx CPUs are power hungry when idle or doing minimal CPU work (& mine are the E & not the X CPU!). I noticed this via my UPS that my W5580 was a lot better. My W5580 is 130 watts per CPU when rendering but it's rendering so fast it doesn't matter.

The W3565 would be good if you can stretch the budget this far (this is the same GHz as my W5580, but I have 2 of them, & it's the same performance as my 940 if overclocked to the same GHz). The W3520 will render 17% slower, but that's not too bad. The E5520 at 2.27 is getting a bit slow for that single core work which there it still too much of these days. The X5550 would be nice, & the X5570 would be great.


As long as you have enough ram for the scene that's all you need. Plus some up your sleeve. Don't have too little that you start using VR. Doubling your ram is not going to render the scene any faster if you have enough ram anyway.

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 12:52 AM
Remove any x54xx CPUs. Radiosity is a lot slower on these, my 940 takes about the same time to render a typical frame (architectural renders) as a pair of E5450 CPUs, sometimes it's quicker. My W5580s are typically twice as quick as my E5450s for a typical render with radiosity. If you don't use radiosity the difference in performance is not so great but it is still there.

Also the x54xx CPUs are power hungry when idle or doing minimal CPU work (& mine are the E & not the X CPU!). I noticed this via my UPS that my W5580 was a lot better. My W5580 is 130 watts per CPU when rendering but it's rendering so fast it doesn't matter.

The W3565 would be good if you can stretch the budget this far (this is the same GHz as my W5580, but I have 2 of them, & it's the same performance as my 940 if overclocked to the same GHz). The W3520 will render 17% slower, but that's not too bad. The E5520 at 2.27 is getting a bit slow for that single core work which there it still too much of these days. The X5550 would be nice, & the X5570 would be great.

so which ones are the W's and which ones are the E's? How can I tell the difference when I'm looking on Ebay? I do use allot of radiosity. From the list that I have on this forum, which one do you recommend will render the fastest but won't make me broke? I need a machine that I can keep at least 3 years and render quickly. I was looking at the 2008 models but also willing to buy a 2009 model as well if it will greatly reduce render time and have a great performance boost.

JonW
04-17-2011, 01:15 AM
E is low power X is high power. W is the single CPU (x35xx), except for some reason the 5580/90 got a W. The important thing is go for a x35xx (single CPU) or x55xx (dual CPU).



I just looked at a few intel CPUs:
E is 80 watts
X is 95 watts
W is 130 watts

x35xx CPUs are i7 CPUs with a Xeon price tag, i7 are 130 watts

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 01:21 AM
E is low power X is high power. W is the single CPU (x35xx), except for some reason the 5580/90 got a W. The important thing is go for a x35xx (single CPU) or x55xx (dual CPU).

So do you think that the Mac Pro early 2008 3.0 GH 8 core would be my best bet then from a render standpoint and being an X5472?

JonW
04-17-2011, 01:49 AM
No, it's a x54xx (idle power consumption!), rendering it will be very similar to my E5450, which if rendering with radiosity is about the same speed as a W3565 (single CPU).

I would go for a single x35xx over a dual x54xx. Some other programs may utilise x54xx resources better, but LW rendering with radiosity & baking radiosity is just brilliant on xx5xx & xx6xx CPUs, it's such an improvement over xx3xx & xx4xx CPUs.

My E5335 I quite often don't use on the farm it's so slow, it adds a lot of heat to the room for next to no rendering resources, & the Intel heatsink fans (7000rpm, ok in a server room but not in a workroom) start screaming because this is the only box I couldn't fit tower heatsinks.


3dspeedmachine
5580 3.2 Ghz 1.03
5450 3.0 Ghz 1:38
940 @ 3.83 Ghz 1:49
920 @ 3.15 Ghz 2:06
5335 2.0 Ghz 2:31

Compared to the E5450 V8:
Radiosity is done in 56% of the time.
Rendering in done in 68% of the time.
Overall typically 63% of the time.

For my architectural renders the 54 & 53 CPUs would be even slower relative to the 55 CPUs.


A benchmark from Boris from one of his own scenes X5365 411.2 2CPU W5590 2CPU 226.6. (A x54xx is about 7% quicker than a x53xx CPU).

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 01:57 AM
No, it's a x54xx (idle power consumption!), rendering it will be very similar to my E5450, which if rendering with radiosity is about the same speed as a W3565 (single CPU).

I would go for a single x35xx over a dual x54xx. Some other programs may utilise x54xx resources better, but LW rendering with radiosity & baking radiosity is just brilliant on xx5xx & xx6xx CPUs, it's such an improvement over xx3xx & xx4xx CPUs.

My E5335 I quite often don't use on the farm it's so slow, it adds a lot of heat to the room for next to no rendering resources, & the Intel heatsink fans (7000rpm, ok in a server room but not in a workroom) start screaming because this is the only box I couldn't fit tower heatsinks.

so out of the list, which Mac Pro would you recommend? I guess I'm a bit confused with the xx35 stuff.

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 02:18 AM
would the new 4 core low end Mac Pro be best then since it's a W3585?

JonW
04-17-2011, 02:25 AM
Hopefully I have made this fairly clear in post 3. Tight budget W3520, a W3565 would be preferable, a X5570 at top of the list. Some x54xx CPUs will be quicker but with LW the margin is smaller. Fast single core work is a factor too.

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 02:32 AM
Hopefully I have made this fairly clear in post 3. Tight budget W3520, a W3565 would be preferable, a X5570 at top of the list. Some x54xx CPUs will be quicker but with LW the margin is smaller. Fast single core work is a factor too.

Well, I will definately keep this all in mind. ( :

virtualcomposer
04-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Well, I will definately keep this all in mind. ( :

Does LW 9.6 even utilize 8 cores?

jrandom
04-19-2011, 11:37 AM
Does LW 9.6 even utilize 8 cores?

9.6 can utilize up to 16 cores. I'm not sure what the upper limit on 10 is, but it maxes out all 24 hardware threads on my Mac Pro.