PDA

View Full Version : The Ghz



We-Co
04-30-2012, 12:43 PM
This question has probably been asked before so sorry in advance for that, but I'm looking to purchase a new rig (building a server) for video editing and 3d rendering.

There's two CPU's I'm looking at one is 2.0 Ghz the other 2.3 Ghz. And I'm getting two of them sense the server board is dual sockets.

My question is, how many Ghz til it makes a difference?

Of course I'm going to overclock, I figure --
2.3Ghz - OC'd to 3.5Ghz (E5-2630)
2.0Ghz - OC'd to 3.2Ghz (E5-2620)

Of course I'm just guessing, but does .3 really matter? I'm guessing maybe for longer renders, but I honestly don't know that.

Dexter2999
04-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Look at it as a ratio of percentage of performance to dollar, if your object is best return on investment or "bang for the buck".

Rayek
04-30-2012, 01:52 PM
Depending on the method of rendering and the specific NLE, it may be a good idea to budget for a good GPU as well.

For example, Premiere and Photoshop CS6 both accelerate a lot of functionality through OpenCL, which is *much* faster than any CPU. And with more render engines taking advantage of both cuda and opencl, again CPU just cannot compete.

But it depends on the type of work you do whether a GPU can be beneficial or not.

*edit*
http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2012/04/16/adobe-and-amd-bring-opencl-powered-real-time-editing-and-effects-to-adobe-premiere-pro-cs6/

More than 200% boost in video render speed with the new Premiere on a macbook - I can just imagine the speed boost my 7970 will give me :-P

We-Co
04-30-2012, 02:32 PM
Yes. I know all about the GPU. I use the Adobe Suite and my GTX 285 has outperformed my used to be Quadro 4000, now I'm looking to upgrade my CPU's for better processing, because yes -- I have gotten the blue screen of death! More than once I might add.

Dexter2999
04-30-2012, 02:40 PM
Yes. I know all about the GPU. I use the Adobe Suite and my GTX 285 has outperformed my used to be Quadro 4000, now I'm looking to upgrade my CPU's for better processing, because yes -- I have gotten the blue screen of death! More than once I might add.

BSOD is why I don't overclock and avoid AMD processors.

We-Co
04-30-2012, 02:43 PM
BSOD is why I don't overclock and avoid AMD processors.

But doesn't it make rendering faster? I think I just need an upgrade, but if OC'ing is bad thing then I'm willing to give it up as long as I know my Comp is going to be a lot faster with the new CPU's.

I'm running a Core i7 920 first gen btw.

Dexter2999
04-30-2012, 02:53 PM
Sure it makes rendering faster. But chips are rated for speed and the heat generated. You OC and you are creating more heat. I have limited experience with OC'ing but what I have seen is that it shortens the life of the CPU.

Once you damage the CPU from overheating it...I always say "You can't un-cook a chicken." Once you've damaged it with heat it will always be prone to failure.

JonW
04-30-2012, 03:19 PM
Are you sure you can get a MB that you can overclock for 2 E5 CPUs?

I would be inclined to go for 1 x 3930 or 3960 CPU which can be easily overclocked.

It's pretty depressing on Dual CPU set ups seeing only 1 core, 2 if you are lucky being used for most tasks.

So with a 16 core box with HT on you will have 32 threads & only 1 or 2 will be used. CPU usage 3% or 6%.

If you get a dual CPU box get a pair of 2687w CPUs so your single core speed doesn't slow you down.

At least on a 3930 CPU usage will be 8% - 16% for single core work.


Edit:

Just realised the 2 CPUs you listed are 6 core. So the 2630 2.3GHz x 6 cores x 2 CPUs = 27.6 GHz.

You will only have a Cinebench BM of roughly 15.8 with a pair of these. An OC 3930 or 3960 will not be far behind for a lot less money.

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=126427


Dexter pointed out the real issue. Forget the cost of the CPU. Divide the cost of the whole computer set up by the total GHz (be consistent & leave HT off for all calculations) to get a price of $ per GHz for each box. On dual CPU set ups it's more economical to use top end CPUs for workstations. & cheaper CPUs for render nodes. My guess is a 3930 will give you about the best GHz per $ & have really good single core performance.

Better still calculate $ per Cinebench MB on each box!

We-Co
04-30-2012, 09:12 PM
Are you sure you can get a MB that you can overclock for 2 E5 CPUs?

I would be inclined to go for 1 x 3930 or 3960 CPU which can be easily overclocked.

It's pretty depressing on Dual CPU set ups seeing only 1 core, 2 if you are lucky being used for most tasks.

So with a 16 core box with HT on you will have 32 threads & only 1 or 2 will be used. CPU usage 3% or 6%.

If you get a dual CPU box get a pair of 2687w CPUs so your single core speed doesn't slow you down.

At least on a 3930 CPU usage will be 8% - 16% for single core work.


Edit:

Just realised the 2 CPUs you listed are 6 core. So the 2630 2.3GHz x 6 cores x 2 CPUs = 27.6 GHz.

You will only have a Cinebench BM of roughly 15.8 with a pair of these. An OC 3930 or 3960 will not be far behind for a lot less money.

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=126427


Dexter pointed out the real issue. Forget the cost of the CPU. Divide the cost of the whole computer set up by the total GHz (be consistent & leave HT off for all calculations) to get a price of $ per GHz for each box. On dual CPU set ups it's more economical to use top end CPUs for workstations. & cheaper CPUs for render nodes. My guess is a 3930 will give you about the best GHz per $ & have really good single core performance.

Better still calculate $ per Cinebench MB on each box!

I never was a math wiz, and my IT skills are much to be desired but are you telling me that it's Ghz over Cores?

Honestly most of my work is in Adobe (Premiere & After Effects). As I said before I'm no genius but it's to my understanding that the more cores you have the better the processing of application in the b.g. And if I'm going from Premiere to After Effects (which will run in the b.g. at moments) wouldn't Dual CPU's (2630) be better then one OC'd 3930?

Faster rendering is a plus, but I don't have money to build the ultimate machine, but I do have around $3k I can spend.

P.S. when I said I was bad at math I meant it. I have no idea how to calculate my workstation in Ghz.

EDIT:

I think I did the math right and ended up with the 2.3Ghz being around $20 more... but it's not $20 more it's $400 so I don't understand what the point of that was lol. Unless I'm doing something wrong.

We-Co
04-30-2012, 09:26 PM
Also one more question. I've been looking at Sandy Bridge's, but should I? The Westmere seem to be either cheaper or better Ghz for the same price, obviously somethings are different like wattage and cache but are those necessary for editing and rending?

JonW
04-30-2012, 11:54 PM
Add up the cost of the parts, case, power supply, MB, CPU/s, ram, SSD & or HDs, Graphics card, cooler, fans, & operating system. Lets say it comes to $2500

For example you are using a 3930 CPU, this is 3.2GHz x 6 cores = 19.2 GHz of processing.

Then 2500 19.2 = 130.21

So each GHz in this box will cost $130.21

If you put in a 3960 add another $470

Then 2970 19.8 = 150.00

So this box will be a bit less economical.

biliousfrog
05-01-2012, 09:23 AM
You can only use multiple cores if the software is written to use them and not many tasks are optimised for multi-threading currently.

JonW is one the right track, add up all the components and see how much a dual-socket workstation will cost compared to 2 or 3 single socket computers. Bear in mind that server processors generally require server components - Motherboard and ECC RAM, those alone will hike the base price up considerably. You'll need a larger case with better cooling, you'll need a larger PSU and you'll also not be able to overclock unless it's one of the very high-end Xeons that support it.

In short, dual-socket workstations aren't worth the price currently

Rayek
05-01-2012, 01:27 PM
In short, dual-socket workstations aren't worth the price currently

Agreed. If render speed is an issue, you'd be better off getting a second box for rendering only for around $500-600. Network your current box, and you would have your own render network, and the dual socket would not even be able to compete at all at (much) higher costs.

JonW
05-01-2012, 03:40 PM
There are other reasons you may want/need a dual CPU box, not much space, less networking, particular tasks can only be done on one computer like Baking Radiosity, don't want to/can't update software as often. In this situation get a pair of 2687w CPUs.

Another reason is server reliability, but this is still only as good as is weakest point. One would want to use enterprise SSDs & hard drives. & if reliability is at the top of your list forget OC. OC on a render node is ok but not on your server or main computer especially if you don't have others to fall back to if something goes wrong.

Billiousfrog noted that the cost of CPU components are dearer & are special for dual socket. Even the power supply has different connections & are more expensive so you can't just stick in a standard power supply. Also you will need a server case like a Chenbro SR11269 $225 for the larger MB, twice the price of a standard case! But you only need one OS & one lot of ram but it does need to be ECC which is more costly, etc.

Rayek has mentioned the best approach to add GHz, assuming your work can be done over a network buy a few cheap nodes. You don't need extra graphics cards for these or any other fancy stuff, just enough ram for the task.

If you haven't already done so, you will be amazed how worthwhile adding those first few nodes to your farm is. At the very least use your old box while it's still working.

I would still calculate the cost of a range of boxes so you can make the most informed decision to suit your needs. When you have bought your new box you will know you have spent your money wisely to purchase the best box/s for you current & forthcoming circumstances.

biliousfrog
05-01-2012, 04:00 PM
Something which I have done over the past few years is to buy cheaper computers more often...rather than one expensive one every couple of years. Rather than go for the very best that you can afford, get a slightly lower model and replace it on a more regular basis...that way you aren't stuck with a computer which is cutting edge for 6 months then behind the times for 2.5 years, you have a reasonably decent computer and a new render node/backup workstation every 18 months

We-Co
05-01-2012, 04:24 PM
I see what you guys are saying but this is the thing -- I've seen better/faster workflows and processing power with dual socket PC's. I'm editing DNxHD 220MBs video, modeling & rending high polys models, and composting them all together. I'm not that worried about rending as much as I'm worried about processing my workload. GPU's do nothing for me and I refuse to purchase Tesla just to be let down like I was with the Quadro.

I got the BSOD because I OC'd my CPU, so why would I buy a one socket machine and OC that when I can get dual sockets and not OC (yes I changed my mind about over clocking). I' don't have money for 8 cores, but I could go the low end with 6 cores x 2 and a SR-2 board. And I heard those are great for Adobe + Lightwave.

The only why I'd go 8 cores is if I knew I could buy another 8 core CPU in the next 6 months but that's a lot of cheese if you know what I mean. I have my comp budget out at $3K as I said and I don't want to go over that price.

Rayek
05-01-2012, 04:39 PM
However! If you use Adobe for compositing and rendering, a second video card could substantially speed up your editing. I have read that opencl GPU acceleration (mercury engine) in Adobe blows CPU processing completely out of the water, with real-time editing and much improved video render times. So why not add in either an AMD 7970 or gtx 580 for that?

I used to have a gtx280 (two years ago) and Premiere's rendering times dropped by 50% or more. You could *never* hope to get that sort of acceleration with any kind of CPU setup currently - and that for $400.

I, for one, am ecstatic about the upcoming CS6 release - if Adobe is your weapon of choice, you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice not buying a good video card. And I am not talking about silly Teslas or Quadros (overpriced and overrated, useless for LW).

We-Co
05-01-2012, 05:29 PM
I guess I have a lot of thing to ponder... I'll do the bang for buck and see what comes of that. I really want a dual socket machine tho.

And I do have a card that is GPU accelerated for Adobe, which is GTX 285, and it still kicks ***!

JonW
05-01-2012, 05:42 PM
CPUs within the same family are the same speed. My i7-920/940 clocked at the same speed as my W5580 renders at exactly half the speed as there are 2 W5580 CPUs in the box.

There may be some differences but it's going to be very minimal. In some situations taking LW as an example as a frame finishes rendering it can take a while for that last thread to finish & if you have 32 treads these days & only 1 is being used it's not a good situation. So you can easily get a minute or longer of very low CPU usage at the end of a frame. In this situation it's best to run 2 nodes or 2 instances of LW per box to keep CPU usage at 100%.

You can also run 2 or more nodes on a single CPU with enough ram. On my W5580 box I usually run 4 nodes when rendering frames for maximum CPU usage. A pair of X5690 or 2687w CPU would be the same situation. If you are rendering a single large image then it's a different story.

The problem these days is we are getting so many threads per CPU, it will help in some situations but one will probably find that for 90% of one's work CPU processing with a single CPU is more worthwhile. & for 10% of one's work a dual CPU box is great.

Doing work in Modeler & Layout other than rendering can be bloody irritating as it's all single thread. I would not want to have anything slower than 3.2 GHz (3.46 turbo) with an SSD to help it feel quicker. I think if one has anything less than 3.1 GHz (3.8 turbo) these days you are shooting yourself in the foot for that 90% of your work.

I would rather have more performance for the week or 2 I'm building the job & sacrifice a bit of performance for my typical render of a day or 2.

If you go for a dual CPU workstation, to get the most out of it you are going to have to budget $6-7k with fast CPUs. Get the fast CPUs (2687w) now & add extra hard drives & graphics cards later when more funds are available. There is no point crippling it at the start with low end CPUs.

We-Co
05-01-2012, 07:43 PM
These are the results I came up with.


6 core system
CPU: Core i7-3930K 3.2 Ghz - $569.99
MOBO: Asus Rampage IV - $429.99
CASE: Corsair Obsidian 800D - $259.99
COOL: Corsair H100 - $114.99
RAM: G. Skill 32 GB Ripjawz - $239.99
PSU:
TOTAL: $1,614.95 ------ Bang for Buck: $84.10 ---- cores 19.2

12 core system
CPUS: Xeon E5645 2.4 Ghz - $557.99 x 2
MOBO: EVGA SR-2 - $529.99
CASE: Corsair Obsidian 800D - $259.99
RAM: Wintec 32GB ECC - $299.99
PSU:
TOTAL: $2,205.95 ------ Bang for Buck: $76.60 ---- cores 28.8

12 core system
CPUS: Xeon E5649 2.53 Ghz - $779.99 x 2
MOBO: EVGA SR-2 - $529.99
CASE: Corsair Obsidian 800D - $259.99
RAM: Wintec 32GB ECC - $299.99
PSU:
TOTAL: $2,649.95 ------ Bang for Buck: $87.28 ---- cores 30.36


The eight cores system is WAYY to expensive ( I didn't even bothering putting it up) as for "bang for buck" Unless I get a pair, which like I said before :'( I can't swing. The real reason I'm looking to get a new rig is for all these shorts I'm producing. I'm recently going to almost lossless DNxHD like I said before and the computer is taking the color grading not so well + rendering.

Also I didn't include overclocking on the 6 core system. I believe if I do, I might be getting bang for buck on that. Only problem is I don't know how much I can OC it.

We-Co
05-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Honestly. I guess if I really knew I could OC the 3930K to 4.5 Ghz I would just buy that. Also I don't think it would be any more beneficial to get the extreme edition consider "Bang for Buck" plus the reviews I've read.

One more thing. I was thinking about getting a new Power supply. I have a Corsair 650W, will that do the job for any of this builds?

JonW
05-02-2012, 01:18 AM
I just did a quick Cinebench BM comparison on these two families of CPUs. It appears that
for a x56xx GHz you get about 0.42 benchmark &
for a 39xx GHz you get about 0.52 benchmark.

So that means if a x56xx takes 60 minutes, a 39xx CPU takes 48 minutes. In other words a 39xx render is completed in 80% of the time of a x56xx with the same CPU GHz.

So if you factor in the extra performance of the current CPU your $84.10 would really be about $67.28.

So of these 3 boxes the 3930 is the most economical.


P.S. You will have to buy a server power supply for the dual CPU motherboard. The Supermicro that I have is the 865 watt supply which is fine for my dual W5580 (2 x 130 watts CPUs) about 530 watts in total while rendering. & I have the same one on my dual E5450 box which totals about 500 watts when rendering.

P.P.S. It would be nice is Lightwave had a marketing benchmark!!!

We-Co
05-02-2012, 02:04 PM
I just did a quick Cinebench BM comparison on these two families of CPUs. It appears that
for a x56xx GHz you get about 0.42 benchmark &
for a 39xx GHz you get about 0.52 benchmark.

So that means if a x56xx takes 60 minutes, a 39xx CPU takes 48 minutes. In other words a 39xx render is completed in 80% of the time of a x56xx with the same CPU GHz.

So if you factor in the extra performance of the current CPU your $84.10 would really be about $67.28.

So of these 3 boxes the 3930 is the most economical.


P.S. You will have to buy a server power supply for the dual CPU motherboard. The Supermicro that I have is the 865 watt supply which is fine for my dual W5580 (2 x 130 watts CPUs) about 530 watts in total while rendering. & I have the same one on my dual E5450 box which totals about 500 watts when rendering.

P.P.S. It would be nice is Lightwave had a marketing benchmark!!!

I believe I will be going for the 3930 build. Apparently it's super easy to OC so I think that's the beast for me... But still I'm crazy over those multiple threads argggg!

Hieron
05-02-2012, 03:24 PM
Sure it makes rendering faster. But chips are rated for speed and the heat generated. You OC and you are creating more heat. I have limited experience with OC'ing but what I have seen is that it shortens the life of the CPU..

Chips are not binned to be able to deliver an exact speed but die at anything above, and cooling solutions can bring you a very long way as the one supplied with the boxed cpu is very mediocre. Overvolt a cpu too far and it will die for sure, but be sort of sensible about it and you can reach up to 50% overclocks depending on the chip.

I've overclocked about 20 to 25 cpu's and have never ever die one on me. And yes, these have run long and in renderfarms during hot summerdays.

It does require a bit of reading and hobbying ofcourse...

You can seriously wonder if it is worth the effort. If your time is valuable, it may be alot more sensible to just buy more nodes.. (but perhaps alot less fun :))


I believe I will be going for the 3930 build. Apparently it's super easy to OC so I think that's the beast for me... But still I'm crazy over those multiple threads argggg!

Sounds like a good choice.

biliousfrog
05-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Honestly. I guess if I really knew I could OC the 3930K to 4.5 Ghz I would just buy that.

I was running my i7 920 at 4.2ghz with a corsair H50 cooler, I eventually went back to stock speed because of random restarts when doing really simple things like viewing a web page or watching a video. I ran it almost 24/7 at 100% for 4 weeks as a render node before I used it as a workstation and it stayed well within a safe temperature.

Rayek
05-02-2012, 05:13 PM
Mine has been running at 3.6ghz since the day I build this rig - and it has been rock solid for almost three years now.

What is surprising is that there is no CPU I feel like I must upgrade to that makes the upgrade worth it. Unless anyone can tell me otherwise? Any CPU currently that makes it worth upgrading to from an overclocked 920?

biliousfrog
05-02-2012, 05:20 PM
Well the 3930 is a logical step (apparently) and will be my next choice.

Hieron
05-02-2012, 05:38 PM
Mine has been running at 3.6ghz since the day I build this rig - and it has been rock solid for almost three years now.

What is surprising is that there is no CPU I feel like I must upgrade to that makes the upgrade worth it. Unless anyone can tell me otherwise? Any CPU currently that makes it worth upgrading to from an overclocked 920?

hmm I usually aim for a factor 2+ improvement before swapping.
If you wish to replace that 920 with a similar budget type of OC'ed cpu, it's still not there imho. Next tock will be.

Ofcourse you can always move up the budget and get a 3930, if you earn a living from 3D it may well be worth it

We-Co
05-02-2012, 06:04 PM
hmm I usually aim for a factor 2+ improvement before swapping.
If you wish to replace that 920 with a similar budget type of OC'ed cpu, it's still not there imho. Next tock will be.

Ofcourse you can always move up the budget and get a 3930, if you earn a living from 3D it may well be worth it

Yeah. I was thinking about waiting for the Ivy Bridge 6 core. But who knows then that will come out. Maybe 6 months to a year and I don't know if I can wait that long. But obviously that would be an awesome CPU to OC.

Rayek
05-02-2012, 06:08 PM
That's my take on it as well -

3930k: $600
motherboard: $300-400
new memory: ~$400
total: $1300~$1400 for upgrade

I lose 16gb ram with the upgrade.

i7-990X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GHz: $1000

Speed difference:
Cinebench:
3930k: ~13 with overclocking, 11 without OC.
990x: ~12 with overclocking, 10 without.

And then there's the external costs involved: having to upgrade both memory and main board would mean much more impact on the environment (yes, I take that into consideration nowadays). Also: upgrading to the 990x is a relatively painless affair: old cpu out, new cpu in. And I would lose 16gb.

I tend to favour the 990X at the moment. Less environmental impact, less costs, more memory, less painful to upgrade, and twice the current performance I have. Drawbacks: still relying on 'old' tech.

I wish manufacturers would start thinking about the environment - no real reason technically to change cpu socket.

We-Co
05-02-2012, 06:22 PM
That's my take on it as well -

3930k: $600
motherboard: $300-400
new memory: ~$400
total: $1300~$1400 for upgrade

I lose 16gb ram with the upgrade.

i7-990X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GHz: $1000

Speed difference:
Cinebench:
3930k: ~13 with overclocking, 11 without OC.
990x: ~12 with overclocking, 10 without.

And then there's the external costs involved: having to upgrade both memory and main board would mean much more impact on the environment (yes, I take that into consideration nowadays). Also: upgrading to the 990x is a relatively painless affair: old cpu out, new cpu in. And I would lose 16gb.

I tend to favour the 990X at the moment. Less environmental impact, less costs, more memory, less painful to upgrade, and twice the current performance I have. Drawbacks: still relying on 'old' tech.

I wish manufacturers would start thinking about the environment - no real reason technically to change cpu socket.

The real question is how bad do you need it?

The reason I need to upgrade is because I working with higher res video (220mbs) and textures (2048 +). Also I do massive color grading and composting which need to be rendered.

Now I'm thinking about setting my old build (which is almost the same build as yours -- i7 920 OC'd at 3.8Ghz on air) as a render node. BUT! The biggest reason I NEED to upgrade is i get "blue screens of death" when trying to render these huge files/projects, and that's a serious problem. Otherwise I would never upgrade, what for?

So in conclusion if you need a rig now, then you need it now. And you should go for something of a better build and do yourself a favor. Because in the long run you'll probably be good with a nicer rig for a few years even if other people say you should upgrade every 6 months. I say just get yourself a 3930k (full rig) or an HP workstation or wait for an Ivy Bridge with 6 cores (that is if you can wait that long).

biliousfrog
05-02-2012, 06:35 PM
The real question is how bad do you need it?

The reason I need to upgrade is because I working with higher res video (220mbs) and textures (2048 +). Also I do massive color grading and composting which need to be rendered.

Now I'm thinking about setting my old build (which is almost the same build as yours -- i7 920 OC'd at 3.8Ghz on air) as a render node. BUT! The biggest reason I NEED to upgrade is i get "blue screens of death" when trying to render these huge files/projects, and that's a serious problem. Otherwise I would never upgrade, what for?

So in conclusion if you need a rig now, then you need it now. And you should go for something of a better build and do yourself a favor. Because in the long run you'll probably be good with a nicer rig for a few years even if other people say you should upgrade every 6 months. I say just get yourself a 3930k (full rig) or an HP workstation or wait for an Ivy Bridge with 6 cores (that is if you can wait that long).

A BSOD suggests a problem with your current system, probably due to the OC...might be memory, could even be the PSU, perhaps even a driver. Have you attempted to find out what the BSOD is linked to? You might be able to fix it simply by installing a new driver or adjusting memory timings.

Rayek
05-02-2012, 06:36 PM
The one thing I need now is more cpu (render) speed: I am working on a project that takes up 30gb of ram, and rendering is slow. My current build is rock-solid, and an easy cpu switch is tempting.

JonW
05-02-2012, 06:56 PM
I wish manufacturers would start thinking about the environment - no real reason technically to change cpu socket.

It's all about license fees & profit on every part of the product. Bugger the environment. I read something a few years back that the main cost of motherboards was license fees.


At least with a custom PC we can reuse the case, fans & others parts, generic cables & reuse our monitors with the next computer or 2 & pass items down the chain. We are doing much more for environmental than all the brand name boxes.

In the mean time I have replaced a good chunk of out lighting with LED & stuck in a lot of insulation.

We-Co
05-02-2012, 06:57 PM
The one thing I need now is more cpu (render) speed: I am working on a project that takes up 30gb of ram, and rendering is slow. My current build is rock-solid, and an easy cpu switch is tempting.

I would still wait if it's not a demanding client. But I know how you feel.


A BSOD suggests a problem with your current system, probably due to the OC...might be memory, could even be the PSU, perhaps even a driver. Have you attempted to find out what the BSOD is linked to? You might be able to fix it simply by installing a new driver or adjusting memory timings.

Yeah I was thinking about that, and I probably will try to figure out the problem eventually, but I kind of just want a new rig anyway. My system is 3-4 years old. I think it's about that time for an upgrade.

JonW
05-02-2012, 07:02 PM
The one thing I need now is more cpu (render) speed: I am working on a project that takes up 30gb of ram, and rendering is slow. My current build is rock-solid, and an easy cpu switch is tempting.

Swapping the CPU is tempting but at the same time you loose a computer which is a good asset for the farm. Also a good back up computer if the new box fails.

We-Co
05-02-2012, 07:05 PM
Swapping the CPU is tempting but at the same time you loose a computer which is a good asset for the farm. Also a good back up computer if the new box fails.

Agreed.

Rayek
05-02-2012, 08:14 PM
Swapping the CPU is tempting but at the same time you loose a computer which is a good asset for the farm. Also a good back up computer if the new box fails.

On the other hand, it does mean having to invest in a new box: main board, memory, casing, cooling, windows license, power supply, hard drive, a new CPU, and all that in exchange for twice the render speed. Much more expensive.

And again: not environmentally sound.

For my work it would suffice to have twice as fast rendering. In my particular case a CPU upgrade more than suffices. The 990X is still one of the fastest (and overclockable) CPUs on the market.

We-Co
05-02-2012, 08:48 PM
On the other hand, it does mean having to invest in a new box: main board, memory, casing, cooling, windows license, power supply, hard drive, a new CPU, and all that in exchange for twice the render speed. Much more expensive.

And again: not environmentally sound.

For my work it would suffice to have twice as fast rendering. In my particular case a CPU upgrade more than suffices. The 990X is still one of the fastest (and overclockable) CPUs on the market.

Well in your case maybe a swap isn't so bad. But I've heard (and don't know if this is true or not) but it's always better to just build a new rig (mobo, ram) when getting a new processor.

Also you have to remember limitations of the old technology.

I would suggest checking out this review.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32648-intel-core-i7-3930k-sandy-bridge-e-cpu/?page=2

The 990x isn't that far off from the 3930k but honestly the Ivy Bridges aren't that far off from the Sandy Bridges. So if you want a REAL increase I'd wait 'til November when they release the six-core.

Rayek
05-02-2012, 09:22 PM
All true - if the 990X were a tad cheaper (~700), the choice would be easy. Now it is not. Perhaps wait till the end of the year, then?

In your case the 3930k seems the best deal, though. Even if you do like the two-socket machine :-)

dickbill
05-04-2012, 09:44 AM
Hi, I am piggybacking on this thread. I was thinking for a while to upgrade my hardware since rendering times are slow with area light and many lights in general.
Right now i have a M3A ASUS Motherboard with the AMD2+ socket, with an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ running at 2 Ghz running under W7 64.

I would prefer the new AMD processor over Intel's I7 (faster maybe, or so I read, but too expensive), a new motherboard and the best possible memory.
So: CPU + Motherboard + memory for something between $200-300.

Problem: with so many AMD processors, i need some feedback on what's best for renderings/graphic processing. Also, I've seen the latest AMD CPU needs 125W! that seems crazy, can a simple wind fan deal with that much heat?

We-Co
05-04-2012, 01:13 PM
Hi, I am piggybacking on this thread. I was thinking for a while to upgrade my hardware since rendering times are slow with area light and many lights in general.
Right now i have a M3A ASUS Motherboard with the AMD2+ socket, with an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ running at 2 Ghz running under W7 64.

I would prefer the new AMD processor over Intel's I7 (faster maybe, or so I read, but too expensive), a new motherboard and the best possible memory.
So: CPU + Motherboard + memory for something between $200-300.

Problem: with so many AMD processors, i need some feedback on what's best for renderings/graphic processing. Also, I've seen the latest AMD CPU needs 125W! that seems crazy, can a simple wind fan deal with that much heat?

You're better off just buying a brand new Desktop PC/Laptop with Intel inside. You can get them as cheap as $300, either online or Micro Center. AMD's aren't heavy hitters for anything in the video production world.

And trust me it makes a difference, I use to be an AMD guy.

dickbill
05-15-2012, 12:37 PM
I finally just got more memory.
However, i am curious to get some educated opinion on the latest FX AMD proccesors.
From the AMD web site, http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-key-architectural-features.aspx
The Fx architecture has a new set of intruction, called AVX and FMA4:
■AVX ◦Advanced Vector Extensions increase parallelism tailored for scientific and 3D applications that use heavy floating point calculations

■FMA4 and XOP ◦Floating Point Vector Multiply -Accumulate improves throughput and performance on many vector functions (integer and floating point)

That sounds good...

Lightwolf
05-15-2012, 03:51 PM
That sounds good...
If it's used. Nowadays you can expect the next generation of software to maybe use the common Intel/AMD AVX subset at most. In hotspots. If it makes sense.

There isn't much commercial software out there using it.

Cheers,
Mike

dickbill
05-15-2012, 04:18 PM
well, lightwave would be one, like other 3d softwares.

Lightwolf
05-15-2012, 04:23 PM
well, lightwave would be one, like other 3d softwares.
Eventually, yes. And hopefully sooner than later.

Cheers,
Mike

dickbill
05-15-2012, 04:34 PM
Actually, if AMD and Intel have their own set of advanced floatingpoint instructions, it would make sense to have two versions of the software optimized for each processor but that's also a recipe for disaster.
I remenber my Amiga version of Imagine crashing with the Apollo 68030 + fpu accelerator, but was very stable on a 68060 accelerator. God only knows how many math-patch I used or tred with these cards. But so it shouldn't be the job of the software to deal with special instructions set, it should be the job of the CPU to detect the need and relevancy to use the instruction set.

Lightwolf
05-15-2012, 04:42 PM
Actually, if AMD and Intel have their own set of advanced floatingpoint instructions, it would make sense to have two versions of the software optimized for each processor but that's also a recipe for disaster.
They're 95% identical or so. AMD added one or two extra instructions.Nothing that would really make an earth shattering difference in performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions

Cheers,
Mike

dickbill
05-17-2012, 11:43 AM
Anyway, the FX 8 core is about $160, on par with the intel i3. The Intel i5 is above $200 and I see the I7, on Fry's electronic, at $1029.99!