PDA

View Full Version : How many CPU cores can Lightwave use?



Paul_Boland
05-17-2017, 10:19 AM
Hi Folks.

I'm rendering an animation at the moment for an ice room in my game, Dungeoneer. There are lots of layers of ice, all transparent, reflective, and rough, and the render time is coming in at 19 minutes 43 seconds a frame!!! Yikes!! It's been going for two days and is saying it will take another two days just to produce 1 minute of animation!!

My laptop has eight cores so I have eight render lines going down the screen so I can't really complain. My desktop PC has only four cores so I don't do heavy rendering on that, but my desktop is very old and showing its age and I can see the time coming when I'll have to replace it. While I'm not yet ready to run out and buy a new PC, I'm considering specs for it and with Lightwave and rendering in mind, I'm wondering how many cores Lightwave can use? With both Intel and AMD bringing our processors with 12 and 16 cores, I'm definitely considering getting a core-heavy processor, but I don't want to spend big money on one only to find out that Lightwave can't use the extra cores.

So does anyone know how many cores Lightwave can use?

RebelHill
05-17-2017, 10:46 AM
up to whats available in the multithreading dropdown in render globals.

jasonwestmas
05-17-2017, 11:22 AM
How many pixels is each frame? Usually Two days for a minute is not much time for full on raytracing with refraction blurring. It has to calculate a lot of different materialistic features/buffer layers, lots of aliasing to take care of as well.

Danner
05-17-2017, 11:28 AM
I've been using 16 cores (32 threads) for 6 years now. Just now are single CPU machines catching up to this old Dual Xeon.

kolby
05-17-2017, 11:36 AM
Current LW supports 72 cores/threads.

Paul_Boland
05-17-2017, 01:23 PM
This is great, thanks very much for the info. The animation currently being rendered is 1280 x 720. Looks like it's going to take around five days to complete this one minute of animation but it should look great!

sk810
05-18-2017, 03:09 PM
Are you doing DOF and/or motion blur?

Paul_Boland
05-18-2017, 06:43 PM
No, I never really use those. I have global illumination on to give me that dynamic lighting effect. And I have tons of blocks of ice, all jagged, transparent, reflective, and rough surfaced. There is ice layers being seen through ice layers so that's why I'm averaging twenty minutes a frame! It should be finished rendering tomorrow. Five days for one minute of animation... It better be the best one minute ever! LOL!!

jwiede
05-18-2017, 09:49 PM
Current LW supports 72 cores/threads.

Actually, LW2015.3 Mac64 appears to top out at 64 threads (it'll spread those across however many logical cores are available in the process' affinity setting).

136826

kolby
05-19-2017, 12:11 AM
Actually, LW2015.3 Mac64 appears to top out at 64 threads (it'll spread those across however many logical cores are available in the process' affinity setting).

136826

72 threads was answer from LW support staff I read elsewhere. Hard to say if they mean current (LW2015) or current (LW Next).

Lewis
05-19-2017, 04:11 AM
It's 64 threads tops (regardless of what LW staff reply you've read), after 64 threads on windows there is start of "processor groups" what Microsoft added around Windows 7 but rarely any DEVs adapted to that so currently LW 2015.3 supports 64 threads maximum (my workstation has 80 threads and due LW not using processor groups i can use only 40 but 64 would be tops in LW 2015.3).

ianr
05-19-2017, 08:55 AM
It's 64 threads tops (regardless of what LW staff reply you've read), after 64 threads on windows there is start of "processor groups" what Microsoft added around Windows 7 but rarely any DEVs adapted to that so currently LW 2015.3 supports 64 threads maximum (my workstation has 80 threads and due LW not using processor groups i can use only 40 but 64 would be tops in LW 2015.3).

What with new sets of Whitehaven ( Zen ) chips, Lewis ,
about to be launched by AMD some 32 Core etc,soon & threaded.

Would you consider putting a Fog Buz report about it?

Lewis
05-19-2017, 09:08 AM
Doesn't matter which CPU is (AMD, Intel..) as long as it has more than 64 threads windows will "divide" it into 2 separate groups and any software (i tired MAX 2015 + Vray and same problem) which don't respect that is not gonna be using more than 64 threads or just 1 CPU as in my case.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd405503(v=vs.85).aspx

ianr
05-19-2017, 09:25 AM
Yep Lewis, I understand but is it worth you asking for a Positive Update then
to get around this. My point being that a Intel AMD price drop linked to larger cores
in Whitehaven chips & AMD are going to go after the renderer market in some form
or another. I feel would make this a future proofing Ask?

Lewis
05-19-2017, 09:39 AM
Ahh that, yes, i've asked for that last year once i assembled my machine :).
Sadly there wont' be fix/update for LW2015.3 but from their reply i understand that new render engine in LWNext shouldn't have that issue and should be able to use more than 64 threads.

sk810
05-19-2017, 12:39 PM
Since you've got the spare machine, you may want to look into setting up a little render farm for next time (unless the thing is way too old). It also free's you up to continue to work in LW if the software alows you to restrict how may threads. Amletto (http://virtualcoder.co.uk/amleto/) was really easy to setup and free. I'm starting to test DreamLight Constelation 2.0 (http://dreamlight.com/dreamlight-constellation-2-0-released/) since I have both Mac & PC.

Lewis
05-19-2017, 12:55 PM
I usually start 2 LW instances and give each one different CPU so i do use full speed when i have more than 1 frame to render (which is 99.99% times anyway ;)).

ianr
05-20-2017, 08:37 AM
Ahh that, yes, i've asked for that last year once i assembled my machine :).
Sadly there wont' be fix/update for LW2015.3 but from their reply i understand that new render engine in LWNext shouldn't have that issue and should be able to use more than 64 threads.

Best LW News for a............................

Paul_Boland
05-20-2017, 07:28 PM
Well, after five days of leaving my laptop plugged in 24/5, it finished rendering my 1500 frames, 1 minute of animation. Was it worth it?

YES!! Damn, it looks great!! To see layers of transparent ice behind other layers of transparent ice, and reflections, and roughness, it's awesome!! But a static image just doesn't do it justice, it's when you see the animation play and all the play with reflections and transparencies and lighting, it's a beauty!! So yes I am extremely pleased with the end result, but I won't be rushing to repeat such a scene again, five days of rendering was a bit insane! Definitely my longest ever render to date (for a single 1 minute scene).

bobakabob
05-21-2017, 01:46 AM
I usually start 2 LW instances and give each one different CPU so i do use full speed when i have more than 1 frame to render (which is 99.99% times anyway ;)).

Interesting approach. I'm using 2 X xeon each with 8 cores and leave everything on auto, so 32 threads. Guess you'd only use 2 instances if you hit LW's limit.

Lewis
05-21-2017, 02:16 AM
Interesting approach. I'm using 2 X xeon each with 8 cores and leave everything on auto, so 32 threads. Guess you'd only use 2 instances if you hit LW's limit.

32 is fine 'coz it can use up o 64 Threads but in my case i have 80 threads so 40 threads (1 processor group) will sit idle and do nothing. That's why i start 2 LWs and then run render 0-100 and in same time for other instance 200-101 (step -1) so one is rendering in reverse and they meet roughly in the middle. Or make LWSNII use them as 2 machines and then it controls frames and it renders animation like two machines.

Scazzino
05-22-2017, 11:31 AM
Yes you can set up multiple instances of LWSN and set them to use as many cores as you wish in the config file. That way you can leverage as many cpus/cores you have on each machine by dividing them as necessary. Just keep in mind that each LWSN instance will need it's own RAM allocation. So two LWSN instances needs twice as much RAM as one.

Lewis
05-22-2017, 03:37 PM
Yes you can set up multiple instances of LWSN and set them to use as many cores as you wish in the config file. That way you can leverage as many cpus/cores you have on each machine by dividing them as necessary. Just keep in mind that each LWSN instance will need it's own RAM allocation. So two LWSN instances needs twice as much RAM as one.

Sure, that's why i have 128 GB :).

Scazzino
05-22-2017, 07:40 PM
That should be sufficient. ;-)

dulo
05-23-2017, 06:07 AM
For me the maximum was 63 Threads. The Moment I had 64 Cores Lightwave started to crash when rendering.
AMD Opteron 4x16Cores, tested with Windows Server native, virtual machine and Wine. All behaved the same: OK up to 63 threads. 64 threads equals crash on rendering.

BeeVee
05-24-2017, 12:26 AM
For me the maximum was 63 Threads. The Moment I had 64 Cores Lightwave started to crash when rendering.
AMD Opteron 4x16Cores, tested with Windows Server native, virtual machine and Wine. All behaved the same: OK up to 63 threads. 64 threads equals crash on rendering.

Did you report this dulo?

B

Whelkn
05-24-2017, 08:47 PM
136869


That took 24 hrs a frame at 4k. feel blessed. :) would love to see your animation.

Danner
05-25-2017, 02:14 AM
My partner gets really mad if any of the renders here are longer than 10 minutes per frame (720p). He goes on about how profit goes out the window if they go over that.

Paul_Boland
05-25-2017, 08:59 PM
136869


That took 24 hrs a frame at 4k. feel blessed. :) would love to see your animation.

That's awesome but at a day a frame... Faint!! LOL!! I'll be releasing another promo clip soon, bear with me...

- - - Updated - - -


My partner gets really mad if any of the renders here are longer than 10 minutes per frame (720p). He goes on about how profit goes out the window if they go over that.

Years back when I was using Caligari TrueSpace, anything over 10 seconds a frame made me very unhappy and sometimes I would abandon the render completely. Never thought I'd see the day I'd give 20 minutes a frame!

Danner
05-26-2017, 05:09 AM
My very first animation took 12 hours per frame, but that was with a 7.5mhz CPU (note that it is mhz not ghz).

But that was really early on. Then I got a decent computer and more experience and my times got reasonable, this was 25 years ago, and renders took about the same time to finish as they do now. Even with moore's law my times have not gone down. Strage isn't it? We are just producing at much higher resolutions (DV resolution = 345,600 pixels, while 4k= 9,437,184 pixels) and with higher quality than we used to, by using more complex and more realistic rendering methods. For example, The first render I did with radiosity was about 2 years before I used radiosity for an animated project. Machines were just too slow when it was introduced.

Paul_Boland
06-08-2017, 08:12 PM
Ok, this has caught my attention... News leaking on the net is saying that AMD's Ryzen Thread Ripper 16 core 32 thread CPU is $849!! This is not yet confirmed, but if it's true, this could be a game changer for me. I'm a life-long Intel CPU user but their beefy CPU, the Core i9 18 core 36 thread CPU is a whopping $1800!! If these prices hold true, I would seriously consider making the switch to AMD for my CPU in my next PC.

Thoughts...?

jasonwestmas
06-09-2017, 08:14 AM
My very first animation took 12 hours per frame, but that was with a 7.5mhz CPU (note that it is mhz not ghz).

But that was really early on. Then I got a decent computer and more experience and my times got reasonable, this was 25 years ago, and renders took about the same time to finish as they do now. Even with moore's law my times have not gone down. Strage isn't it? We are just producing at much higher resolutions (DV resolution = 345,600 pixels, while 4k= 9,437,184 pixels) and with higher quality than we used to, by using more complex and more realistic rendering methods. For example, The first render I did with radiosity was about 2 years before I used radiosity for an animated project. Machines were just too slow when it was introduced.

Well eventually we will tell ourselves that 4K rez is good enough. Then we will eventually render faster than ever before ;)

ianr
06-09-2017, 09:36 AM
Ok, this has caught my attention... News leaking on the net is saying that AMD's Ryzen Thread Ripper 16 core 32 thread CPU is $849!! This is not yet confirmed, but if it's true, this could be a game changer for me. I'm a life-long Intel CPU user but their beefy CPU, the Core i9 18 core 36 thread CPU is a whopping $1800!! If these prices hold true, I would seriously consider making the switch to AMD for my CPU in my next PC.

Thoughts...?

See CUSTOM P.C. USER- July ed.
They are boxing up Ryzens
hey, You can 'peak' at it in WH'S

It's got a red cover, top shelf !!!

Paul_Boland
06-09-2017, 01:54 PM
Thanks!! Stopping by now...

jwiede
06-11-2017, 05:44 PM
Ok, this has caught my attention... News leaking on the net is saying that AMD's Ryzen Thread Ripper 16 core 32 thread CPU is $849!! This is not yet confirmed, but if it's true, this could be a game changer for me. I'm a life-long Intel CPU user but their beefy CPU, the Core i9 18 core 36 thread CPU is a whopping $1800!! If these prices hold true, I would seriously consider making the switch to AMD for my CPU in my next PC.

Thoughts...?

Recommend you wait and see how they directly compare in benchmarks, etc. to see how the different caching, etc. impacts results.

Ernest
06-22-2017, 06:47 PM
Doesn't matter which CPU is (AMD, Intel..) as long as it has more than 64 threads windows will "divide" it into 2 separate groups and any software (i tired MAX 2015 + Vray and same problem) which don't respect that is not gonna be using more than 64 threads or just 1 CPU as in my case.

Speaking of 64 threads, the first motherboard for the Epyc 32-core/64-thread CPU has been announced and photographed.
http://techreport.com/news/32139/stuff-a-terabyte-of-ram-in-gigabyte-mz31-ar0-epyc-motherboard