PDA

View Full Version : rendertimes for cpu types...



cresshead
02-18-2006, 05:32 AM
I'm looking at buying a new dell pc....

Intel cpu's dual core againt hyper threading for render times?

i'm looking at a new pc and would like to know how in rendering times a hyper threaded p4 compares to a dual core intel chip....

any links to render time results would be really helpful!

Captain Obvious
02-18-2006, 05:44 AM
http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

cresshead
02-18-2006, 09:19 AM
unfortunatly blanos doesn't list HT, extreem or D processors...just vannilla P4's:hey: ..and no core duo intels either...shame for such a great resource..hope they'll update soon.

coremi
02-18-2006, 09:50 AM
i found Dualcore 930 (Intel 3.0 GHZ dualcore) to be 30% faster than simple 3.0 Ghz prescott, but i haven't tested a lot, i used 8 threads on some of the basic scene (radiosity, ray-trace, etc...). Maybe where are a lot of polys and HV and VL it may get faster, maybe 2x faste, i don't know.

cresshead
02-18-2006, 10:18 AM
so...would i be about right that...

a intel dualcore2.8 would be similar to a intel3.6HTp4?....
as a dual core 2.8 is about the same price as the 3.6HT option....:thumbsup: :thumbsdow

interesting!....need to make a desicion on what to get!....

Captain Obvious
02-18-2006, 02:34 PM
Building a workstation based on the Pentium 4 now would not be very sensible at all. The Athlon64 trounces the Pentium 4, especially the dual-core versions. The next generation of high-end Intel processors seem promising, but they're not out yet. So either wait until they're out, or build an AMD system.

cresshead
02-18-2006, 04:20 PM
dell don't sell AMD based pc's and i've not yet found another MAJOR pc maker that can beat a dell system

i'm not wanting to BUILD...just buy and use a system..i'm in the u.k. btw
i don't need the hassle of poorly matched components from a small pc shop where they fold up in 3 months time.

looking to spend £1000 and a system with the following....

3 gighz or better CPU either HT or dual core
19" flat panel screen
1 gig ram
250 gig hd [minimum]
windows xp pro [with install discs]
pci express video card with 256 ram
firewire connections
no other installed software if possible

this will be for a workstation 3dsmax8, lightwave, premiere 6.5, combustion, studioMX

NO internet connectin wanted

AbnRanger
02-18-2006, 04:28 PM
Quote from Captain Obvious:
"The Athlon64 trounces the Pentium 4, especially the dual-core versions."

I second that notion. Have an AMD64 X2 4400 myself. Back when the Dual-Cores first came out, I did alot of homework on the matter, and AMD was an easy choice.
Got your benchmarks right here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=8
The budget AMD dual-core model (4200) beats Intel's top Dual-core for half the price...especially where it matters most. RENDERING.
Can it get any more simple than that?
Here's a Gateway system with an AMD64 X2 4200 for $799. I'm sure you can have it shipped to you in the UK.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=335938&pfp=BROWSE
Throw in 3GB more memory for around $80/ea, and the video card of your choice (it comes with integrated video on the motherboard-which is good for normal PC use, and when you eventually add it to your render farm---you can take out the card you install and use it in the next system you buy--the ATI 1900XT 512MB is the fastest thing card going at the moment, and isn't priced near as high as the top cards used to:
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3169&s=20

...and you have a sweet little system that doesn't break the bank.

cresshead
02-18-2006, 04:44 PM
if only i were living in the USA!!!!

unfortunatly i live in good old back in the stone ages U.K!:D

anyone HERE who can point to a Quality PC maker that have AMD?

Captain Obvious
02-18-2006, 05:01 PM
Don't HP sell AMD boxes? Anyway, you don't need to buy a computer from Dell or HP. I'm sure there is some UK-based hardware company that sells AMD-based systems.

mattclary
02-18-2006, 05:10 PM
Cress, I agree with the rest, AMD64 X2 is the best way to go. Surely SOMEONE in the UK can be relied upon?

I just speced a complete system for a customer, a low end Sempron complete with 17" LCD. With may labor (only $60), I priced it at $868. I went to Dell to see what you could get a comparable machine for. After upgrading the 15" LCD to 17" and switching to XP Pro from XP Home, Dell's price was $867!!!!

AbnRanger
02-18-2006, 05:10 PM
if only i were living in the USA!!!!

unfortunatly i live in good old back in the stone ages U.K!:D

anyone HERE who can point to a Quality PC maker that have AMD?You have PC Pimp Daddy Intel to thank for that...they are being sued by AMD for using violating U.S. Anti-Trust Laws (that were created to stop such monopolization) in using coercive business practices to "Lock-Out" their competition...a "Deal with us EXCLUSIVELY-OR ELSE!...scheme. Both Japan's and the EU's Trade Commissions have come down on Intel for the very same thing. Just one more reason I won't touch another Intel product, and won't consider Dell when it comes time to buy a PC.
I just started building my own years go, and usually save at least $500, if not more, in the process. In the time it would take them to ship the PC to you, you'd already have your system "Rocking 'N' Rolling" with all the parts you want, at the price you want.
Have one of your tech-saavy chaps help you put it together.
You can have it done within 1-3hrs (with help from someone who has done it before)...plus you'd know how to do your own for the rest of your life, and NEVER, EVER need to order from a large Retailer again.

When you go to building a Render Farm....you will save loads of $$$ or squid by doing it yourself. With just a couple of machines, we're talking thousands here.

Twisted_Pixel
02-18-2006, 05:32 PM
Havnt used them myself, but there is http://www.alienware.co.uk/Product_Pages/desktop_all_default.aspx to look at, might be a little pricy though.

I took the step of building my own a few years back, it's still running well now. Which is more than i can say for the one i bought prebuilt previously.

cresshead
02-18-2006, 05:41 PM
just had a lookmover at HP uk website and they have a athlon64 3700+ system but no real details if this is a dual core or not or if it has HT technology...i have to say right now i'm NOT very informed on amd chips so a bit of assistance could really help!

:thumbsup:

looking at these....

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wpa/comparetool/compareProds.do

Twisted_Pixel
02-18-2006, 05:45 PM
i think there may be an error in your link Cresshead.

cresshead
02-18-2006, 05:57 PM
ahh...try this!

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/ho/WF02a/35123-35527-39847.html

AbnRanger
02-18-2006, 06:59 PM
just had a lookmover at HP uk website and they have a athlon64 3700+ system but no real details if this is a dual core or not or if it has HT technology...i have to say right now i'm NOT very informed on amd chips so a bit of assistance could really help!

:thumbsup:

looking at these....

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wpa/comparetool/compareProds.doNo...the AMD 3700 is not Dual-core. Regardless of whether it's AMD or Intel...DUAL-CORE is mandatory, or you will kick-yourself (if that's possible...maybe you can enlist the help of a friend:D..or an enemy for that matter), later. They render nearly twice as fast for not much more money.
Pentium D's are Intel's Dual-Cores, and AMD's Dual-Core's will have the "X2" within the name's model (i.e. AMD64 X2 4400).
Come on, Cress'.... build it yourself. You can do this, man! :boogiedow

krimpr
02-18-2006, 07:36 PM
I'm not a UK'er but a quick check from Boxx's website shows these guys as UK distributors. I had a buddy put me together an AMD setup a few months ago and I agree with everyone else here; AMD's rock. Good luck cresshead.

http://www.bluegfx.com/boxxtech/boxxtech.htm

Wolvy_UK
02-18-2006, 08:37 PM
The forum banner keeps telling me to make my first post so I will.:)

I live in the UK, and I made my own PC by buying components from Kustom PC's. This shop will also make a PC for you. Just send them an email and tell them the specs you want and they' ll send you a quote.

They are a small PC shop, but they' ve been around since 1998, and they are' nt the cheapest around, but they are well known for excellent service and for looking after customers. I pestered them with 5 emails just asking which case would suit me, and they always replied quickly.

http://www.kustompcs.co.uk

You can save a lot of money making a PC yourself though. I looked on the web and found articles on how to make one, so I was prepared for any problems, then it was pretty easy building it. And I also got to pick the exact components I wanted. People like Dell look cheap at first, but they usually have slow graphics cards, or power supplies by unknown brands.

AbnRanger
02-18-2006, 09:30 PM
It's really easy since you only have a handful of major components to install, all the connectors are DUMMY-PROOF. For example, the 24pin MB connector will not fit any other connection...period. The same goes for the 4pin.
So on, and so on. It's very, very intuitive. If you have ever put together a model car or airplane...you can easily handle assembling your own PC. Every Motherboard manual has a single diagram that labels where everything gets connected! It even shows how the memory modules are installed. It's not Rocket Science, it's more like playground stuff, IMHO. :D

Here's a few videos that review the components and some show how to install. Very informative.

1) PC Case
http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/coolermaster/stacker830_case/video_review_02.html

2) Power Supply
http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/thermaltake/twv_500w_psu/video_review_03.html

3) CPU w/cooler
http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/endpcnoise/zalman_cnps9500_cooler/video_review.html

4) Motherboard
http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/abit/abit_ag8/video_review.html

5) Video card
http://www.3dgameman.com/vr/ati/aiw_x1900_pcie/video_review.html


The Memory, Hard Drives, and CD ROM/DVD drives are simple enough to figure out.
Once again, by bribing one of your tech-saavy with "Barbeque and Beer" you can get it put together in no time, and have it installed and running DAYS before a prebuilt would be shipped to you. From there on out, you'd know how to do your own component or system upgrades, and never have to worry if companies like Dell carry the CPU you want.
Cheers

Wolvy_UK
02-18-2006, 09:59 PM
The only small problem I had building mine, was that the lever that you have to pull down to seat the CPU into place was a bit stiff, and I needed to use more force than I was expecting, and was scared of bending the CPU pins.

But after that, it was plain sailing.

wacom
02-19-2006, 12:36 AM
If you're on a budget look into the dell outlet models. I bought a Dell 9200 820 (2.8GHZ) dual core for 500 bucks a month ago. It is on average 3X faster than my old 8100 (1.8GHz). If I would have had the money I would have bought a AMD 64+ X2 like everyone else...but I also had to buy the adobe design suite, XSI, LW9, Painter 9 and so on...you get the point.

HP does have several models that have Dual Core AMD processors.

sonofagun
02-19-2006, 02:39 AM
If you're looking for an AMD-based PC I don't think you can go far wrong
with Evesham Micros.
I'm currently on my 4th machine from them, an AMD 2.4, and will soon be
going for number 5.
You can get a 2 or 3 year onsite warranty and the aftersales service is
excellent.
Check out their website and you'll find they have a huge range of machines
which can be configured to your personal requirements.

cresshead
02-19-2006, 05:58 AM
hi i was sent here to have a look around on how amd/intel perform with 3dsmax and lightwave for rendering

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876685,00.asp

cresshead
02-19-2006, 06:12 AM
also here the 3dsmax 7 render times just to add some more data to look at

cresshead
02-19-2006, 06:24 AM
just to add to the confusion dell now sell intel viv D920 cpus which arn't listed on that test at all!!!!

the was once a simple selction method...how FAST and p4 or xeon?

now we get all mushy with dual core, core duo, extreem and amd give 4800+ number for procs running at 2.4 gig.........:thumbsdow

it does my 'ed in!

..think i'll boot my atari ste with 1 mb ram and play 'tower of babel' on my tv!

vashts
02-19-2006, 06:57 AM
ok, as newtek is suggesting me to engage in a conversasion, I've found this one and I'll help you to find an amd x2 pc.. it's really the best choice, especially for lw64 version.
I'm italian, but surfing the uk acer website I've found this one, the E300 Dual Core:
http://www.acer.co.uk/acereuro/page4.do?dau22.oid=11739&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=17&CountryISOCtxParam=UK&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1365000530
ok, it's a media center, but I've read specs and I find it's a good choice; well, you have to increase RAM, but it isn't a big cost. the pc as is costs 850,21 GBP.

vashts

multipasser
02-19-2006, 07:22 AM
ok, as newtek is suggesting me to engage in a conversasion, I've found this one and I'll help you to find an amd x2 pc.. it's really the best choice, especially for lw64 version.
I'm italian, but surfing the uk acer website I've found this one, the E300 Dual Core:
http://www.acer.co.uk/acereuro/page4.do?dau22.oid=11739&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=17&CountryISOCtxParam=UK&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1365000530
ok, it's a media center, but I've read specs and I find it's a good choice; well, you have to increase RAM, but it isn't a big cost. the pc as is costs 850,21 GBP.

vashts

Why are ppl talking about dell/hp/acer as full pc's.
Why dont you build your own pc! Its much cheaper and probably better/faster!

Is lightwave AMD or Intel optimized?
Radiosity in LW was 2x faster on intel than AMD with 7.5! Is that still the case?

AbnRanger
02-19-2006, 03:40 PM
Why are ppl talking about dell/hp/acer as full pc's.
Why dont you build your own pc! Its much cheaper and probably better/faster!

Is lightwave AMD or Intel optimized?
Radiosity in LW was 2x faster on intel than AMD with 7.5! Is that still the case?Not any longer. Before Dual-cores came out, Intel held a slight edge over AMD cpu's in the 3D rendering area, due to their HyperThreading Feature (which emulated a dual processor). AMD could have implemented a similar technology, but decided it was a "Half-Measure" and that they would, instead, put all their development "eggs," so to speak, "into the basket" of making a full-fledged state-of-the-art dual core solution. That's why Intel lags behind AMD with the advent of Dual-Cores. AMD took their development time and money and invested it into a product done right (I think Newtek is taking a similar approach on many core LW features as well)...unlike Intel who rushed in at the last minute, so as not to be completely upstaged by AMD... with a total hack-job (that's why their dual-cores are slightly cheaper) of slapping one chip on top of another...heat issues and all.

beverins
02-19-2006, 04:15 PM
It hasn't arrived yet, but I ordered a refit "barebones" system to replace one of my machines. I didn't buy a new PCI-E board, instead went with an older AGP/PCI board because I wanted to use the hardware I currently had (I'm happy with my Quadro FX 1000 and as well, I only had $1000 hard-limit to spend)

I bought my system by looking for systems on Pricewatch.com. I had a choice between smksuperstore.com, monarchcomputers.com and cyberpowerpc.com. All three places offered similar deals, but all told smksuperstore.com win out in the end for this system:
Asus A8V K8T800 (yes, I know this chipset is the one chipset that is incompatible with video editing cards such as the Matrox RTX series... alas)
AMD Athlon 64x2 4400+
2GB ram
new case and upgraded cooling system (thermaltake swingcase - I figured why not get something new)
580watt power supply
All for a grand total of $992 with shipping. Not too bad I think!
( I have harddrives, floppy drives, DVD-R, agp videocard, ethernet, etc. )
A similar setup from HP or Gateway was much higher, with redundant (for me, anyway) hardware inclusive in the price.

For similar prices from the other two companies I could have reduced my choice to 1gb ram and gotten a 7600 GS Nvidia pci-e (non-sli) or a 6600 GT Nvidia with SLI expansion; the end total was however over $1000 with shipping and I figured I can live with substandard video card performance for the time being, but cannot live without the 2GB ram which I consider a bare minimum.... and that it was either the AMD 4400+ or the 4800+ with their 1MB cache. There are also a number of AGP videocards still on the market that are simply wonderful that will be becoming dirt cheap as PCI-E becomes the standard.

I did find that monarchcomputers.com are a bit dishonest charging different prices for the same configurations depending on whether you are buying a configuration labeled "desktop" or "workstation" with the latter being more expensive by about $50 when I was comparing prices. They also have a 1GB stick costing $82 but 2GB (2x1GB) of the same RAM costs more than double UNLESS you buy the 2x1Gb sticks seperately (they have a "1st memory" and "2nd memory" selector - putting 2GB (2x1gb) in the 1st memory is more expensive than putting 1GB in 1st and 1GB in 2nd)

Mha8649
02-19-2006, 04:22 PM
if only i were living in the USA!!!!

unfortunatly i live in good old back in the stone ages U.K!:D

anyone HERE who can point to a Quality PC maker that have AMD?

I dont know what stores you have in the UK but if you have a best buy.. anywhere near you around here they only sell comps with amd chips...and there reasonably priced. Hope this helps

bobakabob
02-19-2006, 04:57 PM
Cresshead,

Keep us posted how you get on. Like you, I'm about to invest in a new machine for Lightwave and find it frustrating living here in the stoneage! I wish PC prices here in Blighty were equivalent to the US.

I would consider building, but can't afford too much time tinkering about when things go wrong - in my case, one more step to developing terminal technofear. I've only ever bought Dell workstations and found them to be solid reliable workhorses with good accessible tech support so I'll probably opt for them again. However, I'd still very much like to try out AMD this time. Boxx machines look awesome and have distributors here, but they're likely to be expensive.

One question - any thoughts on going for Xeon chips?

Cheers,

Bob

RedBull
02-19-2006, 05:24 PM
Why are ppl talking about dell/hp/acer as full pc's.
Why dont you build your own pc! Its much cheaper and probably better/faster!

Is lightwave AMD or Intel optimized?
Radiosity in LW was 2x faster on intel than AMD with 7.5! Is that still the case?

I agree buying brand name computers are usually slower....
And because they use cheap and intergrated crap, it's usually just as unreliable.

Is LW AMD or Intel optimized?

Well i beleive LW definately is more biased towards Intel processers...
And indeed, when the P4's were released stuff like HV and certain areas of LW,
showed abnormal increase in P4 Performance, compared to AMD's....

I remember being annoyed with that at the time.... It now seems as NT is using (or was) an unpatched version of the Intel compiler. Which would give those figures.....

So personally while i have and love my 2x AMD X2 systems...
I feel that the SSE stuff makes the P4 faster for most rendering in LW..
How big is the difference, i don't know..... And i also have not benchmarked P4's myself against the AMD in LW8+

But for LW7.x the P4's were better optimized for LW.... (even if unfairly so)

Lightwolf
02-19-2006, 05:42 PM
And indeed, when the P4's were released stuff like HV and certain areas of LW, showed abnormal increase in P4 Performance, compared to AMD's....

I made a bit of a different experience back then... HVs were (and are) much faster on AMDs... radiosity/raytracing is a bit faster on P4s...

However, I have an AMD 3800 X2 (2GHz) at home that is a bit faster than the dual Xeon 3.06GHz I use in the office.

Cheers,
Mike

vashts
02-19-2006, 06:13 PM
Why are ppl talking about dell/hp/acer as full pc's.
Why dont you build your own pc! Its much cheaper and probably better/faster!
yes, I always assemble my pc. but cresshead has said he don't want to do it, so.. I've searched for a ready pc.


Is lightwave AMD or Intel optimized?
Radiosity in LW was 2x faster on intel than AMD with 7.5! Is that still the case?
yes.. when there weren't dualcore cpus. but now.. AND I'm not goingo to render all the day, I do other things, and AMD cpus have the lead over intel in the majority of cases.

vashts

cresshead
02-19-2006, 06:39 PM
well the acer pc at £850 is without a monitor or vat...look's nice n fast though!
would come in at £1000 inc vat plus a 19" monitor
would be around £250...so total of £1250...

which is around £200 to £300 more than a dell dual core 3 gig with a 2.8 or 3gighz intel chip and ati 256 card.....


HP and ibm only have non dual core or VERY expensive workstations...

Sony has stuff for familys and 'style' geeks...not for me!

alienware is 'pretty' but waaaaaaaaaaaay overpriced and also have no monitors...

boxx........look expensive and similar to alienware overall.

RedBull
02-19-2006, 07:14 PM
I made a bit of a different experience back then... HVs were (and are) much faster on AMDs... radiosity/raytracing is a bit faster on P4s...

However, I have an AMD 3800 X2 (2GHz) at home that is a bit faster than the dual Xeon 3.06GHz I use in the office.

Cheers,
Mike

Yeah it may of been Radiosity and Raytracing i remember and not HV....

Just from a google search i found that... Which would still show the Intel as better for LW....

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hardware/components/0,39023397,39157363-13,00.htm
(watch for word wrap) shows LW8 faster on Intels than AMD....
(not dual cores) One still wonders if it's compiler or chip related.

I have X2..... I do get slightly annoyed often with my X2...
My 2nd processer is sometimes lucky to move over 60%......

I wish i could turn Multithreading into vertical strips rather than horizontal ones sometimes, as many of my scenes one processer gets slugged with all the work........ I didn't pay money for no slacker 2nd cpu... :)

cresshead
02-19-2006, 08:08 PM
there seems to be no clear cut guide to which cpu's are better for 3d rendering...both amd and intel show signs of speed..depends who's tests you believe!

i'm heading back to getting a £1000 dell by the looks of it..a dual core 2.8 or 3.0 and then also getting a el cheapo dell 3 gig HT p 4 as well for a render slave....total cost around £1300-£1400

AbnRanger
02-19-2006, 08:54 PM
Yeah it may of been Radiosity and Raytracing i remember and not HV....

Just from a google search i found that... Which would still show the Intel as better for LW....

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hardware/components/0,39023397,39157363-13,00.htm
(watch for word wrap) shows LW8 faster on Intels than AMD....
(not dual cores) One still wonders if it's compiler or chip related.

I have X2..... I do get slightly annoyed often with my X2...
My 2nd processer is sometimes lucky to move over 60%......

I wish i could turn Multithreading into vertical strips rather than horizontal ones sometimes, as many of my scenes one processer gets slugged with all the work........ I didn't pay money for no slacker 2nd cpu... :)Whenever I render with my X2 4400, Both throttles are mashed to the floor, and as long as I'm navigating or manipulating something, both CPU's spike in Windows Task Manager.

Cresshead, those figures you showed are a bit skewed. They are not showing plain benchmarks, but estimating the output relative to cost. We all know that newer, faster hardware is ALWAYS going to cost more than last year's model. It's up to the consumer to determine IF they are WILLING to spend more, in order to get more.
That's why I love putting my own systems together. I shop and compare every major component, and that way I KNOW that I got the best possible equipment that I could afford. Once you put one together (heck, on G4/TechTV they'd have contests were non-tech saavy "Honeys" teamed up with a relative tech saavy guy and the guys COULD NOT TOUCH the hardeware, or the PC :D ....and the GIRLS put the system together in MINUTES, being coached by the guys), you'll find it fun and rewarding (knowing you don't have to rely on Dell).

lots
02-19-2006, 10:01 PM
just to add to the confusion dell now sell intel viv D920 cpus which arn't listed on that test at all!!!!

the was once a simple selction method...how FAST and p4 or xeon?

now we get all mushy with dual core, core duo, extreem and amd give 4800+ number for procs running at 2.4 gig.........:thumbsdow

it does my 'ed in!

..think i'll boot my atari ste with 1 mb ram and play 'tower of babel' on my tv!
viiv is a platform name, much like Centrino. The CPU at the heart of viiv, can be many things ranging from Pentium D, to the core Duo/Solo CPUs.

Viiv is also centered around the home theater system. So much of the focus of this platform will be the use of recording and watching TV, Movies, etc.

In addition, MHz has NEVER been a good way to measure speed increase in processors. However, its what the marketers attached them selves to. In actuality, MHz only helps differenciate the speed of a processor within the same family. Thus, MHz helps determine how fast a P4 will perform vs another P4. Its never been a good cross architecture performance benchmark. Its the fault of marketing, that many people think that it has always been simple to decide which CPU was faster via the MHz numbers.

The reason AMD uses numbers insted of actual GHz speed, is because thier 2.0GHz chips outperform Intel's 3.0GHz (and higher) chips, on average. Intel has now moved to a similar system, because they havnt increased thier MHz in quite some time, though they've added new features (Dual core).

Also, dual core CPUs will give you performance roughly similar to a dual CPU system of similar specs. This means that single threaded tasks wont see much benifit, but things like rendering will be greatly improved. Just look at the rendering benchmarks of dual core/processor systems and you'll see just how much more you can get.

Edit:
Lastly: Boxx and HP are international. Both sell AMD based workstations that should fit your needs. Boxx is a tad bit expencive, however they have excellent service from what I hear, so should you get any problems, they'll fix it.

I never liked Dell.

RedBull
02-20-2006, 01:05 AM
Whenever I render with my X2 4400, Both throttles are mashed to the floor, and as long as I'm navigating or manipulating something, both CPU's spike in Windows Task Manager

Yeah i think you'll find it depends on the scene..... I've been using Taiki a lot lately, And so only half the screen has volumetrics clouds, below the horizon is blank. So the first processer gets stung doing top half and 2nd processer is finished with the bottom half, it just sits there why processer 1 is doing all the work.

I noticed this when my Radiosity tests were 3 times faster on my X2 than my older single AMD machine, yet the Taiki tests were only 20% faster...

This is why i wished for vertical strips, as this would work more evenly in these cases.... I guess i could bank my camera 90 degrees and render the res settings inverted.

Better if these new fandangled dual and quad cores were smarter to know where the extra grunt is needed, rather than just splitting it in half, in such a dumb fashion, I don't know if other bucket type renderers work better...

AbnRanger
02-20-2006, 01:35 AM
Yeah i think you'll find it depends on the scene..... I've been using Taiki a lot lately, And so only half the screen has volumetrics clouds, below the horizon is blank. So the first processer gets stung doing top half and 2nd processer is finished with the bottom half, it just sits there why processer 1 is doing all the work.

I noticed this when my Radiosity tests were 3 times faster on my X2 than my older single AMD machine, yet the Taiki tests were only 20% faster...

This is why i wished for vertical strips, as this would work more evenly in these cases.... I guess i could bank my camera 90 degrees and render the res settings inverted.

Better if these new fandangled dual and quad cores were smarter to know where the extra grunt is needed, rather than just splitting it in half, in such a dumb fashion, I don't know if other bucket type renderers work better... I generally use FinalRender (Stage 1) in Max it and distributes them well in linked side by side buckets. I wonder if it's not an issue solely with software...either WINDOWS or LW is not directing traffic efficiently. The CPU's are, as you say, the Grunts that just do what they are told.
Have you tried the Dynamite plugin for your clouds instead?
Here's a post from Spin Quad:
Re: Ogo Taki or Ozone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a quad cpu HP xw9300 workstation.
Taiki dosen't seem to like multithreading, as it only use 45-50% of the cpus to render, either with 4 or 8 threads set in the Render Options.
Even though, using two threads only (50%) is something, because Viper is single threaded no matter what...
Clouds in LW may be good, but we need FASTER solutions...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY FASTER than those we have now...

Cheers,
__________________
___________________
Gregg "T.Rex" Glezakos
Head of 3DSub-Pixel Studios

I'm working on some clouds in Max with Afterburn 3, but thought about using Taiki or Dynamite and comparing the output. Maybe Jeremy Hardin can chime in on this. He was able to come up with some pretty impressive clouds in Dynamite....but I don't know how fast it renders compared to Taiki.

mattclary
02-20-2006, 08:42 AM
I'm surprised no one has commented on those graphs showing the Pentium D comparing favorably against the X2s. Doesn't that seem off to anyone else?

Albertdup
02-20-2006, 01:08 PM
For all of you who are wondering about the upcomming Core duo Intel processors. Here is a benchmark comparison. And for those who like to know about the currently available processors here you go. I think going for a Dell is a really sad. I live in South Africa, and you guys complain about the UK being in the stone age. Here it is out of the ordinary to buy a branded system. You may find a Dell HP or IBM only in a big multinational company, because they are used to using them. The rest of us buy our PC's from local guys or build it our selves.

AbnRanger
02-21-2006, 12:16 AM
The rest of us buy our PC's from local guys or build it our selves.
Yeah, what he said. C'mon Cresshead....don't be sceeeered :eek: Them connectors ain't gonna bite 'ya

Matt, in one of my recent post I did say something about the skewed results of those benchmarks...if you can call it that. Looks like some Intel fanboy made those and was trying to spin the situation in their favor...even though AMD's performance is kicking the crap out of Intel right now. Virtually all the ligitimate hardware reviews make that ubundantly clear. Hence Intel's lower prices on their budget models. Those 2 chips stacked on top of each other, sucking up a ton of wattage, and running hot as a firecracker, is...well... crap, and the boys in blue know it.

cresshead
02-21-2006, 01:01 PM
well an acer is looking on the cards....X2amd athlon64 one of my local pc shops seem to do acer though their website doesn't specify x2 amd athlons...i'll go n see 'em on friday....


as for making my own.....well i've installed graphics cards and memory before but just want a box to turn up and get on with making 3d stuff...call me lazy or stupid by all means!:foreheads

i'll let you know how i get on!

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:06 PM
Building a workstation based on the Pentium 4 now would not be very sensible at all. The Athlon64 trounces the Pentium 4, especially the dual-core versions. The next generation of high-end Intel processors seem promising, but they're not out yet. So either wait until they're out, or build an AMD system.


umm i disagree. i find very few computers out there that stak up to my dual 3.6ghz xeon with 6 gigs of ram.

LW always loved p4s too. strictly for LW i see nothing wrong with a xeon.

and if you want to go into pricing, AMD currently has a much bigger premium so performance for the $$$ is no longer an excuse.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:09 PM
Quote from Captain Obvious:
"The Athlon64 trounces the Pentium 4, especially the dual-core versions."

I second that notion. Have an AMD64 X2 4400 myself. Back when the Dual-Cores first came out, I did alot of homework on the matter, and AMD was an easy choice.
Got your benchmarks right here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=8
The budget AMD dual-core model (4200) beats Intel's top Dual-core for half the price...especially where it matters most. RENDERING.
Can it get any more simple than that?
Here's a Gateway system with an AMD64 X2 4200 for $799. I'm sure you can have it shipped to you in the UK.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=335938&pfp=BROWSE
Throw in 3GB more memory for around $80/ea, and the video card of your choice (it comes with integrated video on the motherboard-which is good for normal PC use, and when you eventually add it to your render farm---you can take out the card you install and use it in the next system you buy--the ATI 1900XT 512MB is the fastest thing card going at the moment, and isn't priced near as high as the top cards used to:
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3169&s=20

...and you have a sweet little system that doesn't break the bank.

HELLLLOOOOOO. this is a LW forum, atleast refer to benchmarks with LW in them? k?

dont mislead people, if you actually go to the LW benchmark site you will find that AMD isnt as competitive on LW. now its a great cpu and has many highlights but its not the be all end all for LW.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:12 PM
You have PC Pimp Daddy Intel to thank for that...they are being sued by AMD for using violating U.S. Anti-Trust Laws (that were created to stop such monopolization) in using coercive business practices to "Lock-Out" their competition...a "Deal with us EXCLUSIVELY-OR ELSE!...scheme. Both Japan's and the EU's Trade Commissions have come down on Intel for the very same thing. Just one more reason I won't touch another Intel product, and won't consider Dell when it comes time to buy a PC.
I just started building my own years go, and usually save at least $500, if not more, in the process. In the time it would take them to ship the PC to you, you'd already have your system "Rocking 'N' Rolling" with all the parts you want, at the price you want.
Have one of your tech-saavy chaps help you put it together.
You can have it done within 1-3hrs (with help from someone who has done it before)...plus you'd know how to do your own for the rest of your life, and NEVER, EVER need to order from a large Retailer again.

When you go to building a Render Farm....you will save loads of $$$ or squid by doing it yourself. With just a couple of machines, we're talking thousands here.

hmm. interesting point. although some people just buy what works best to get the job done. and in LW p4 is still very competitive. oh and btw, just before people throw the intel fanboy card. i have an AMD x2 at home and my xeon workstation absolutely mops the floor with the AMD. and its a dell. lol.

Captain Obvious
02-21-2006, 03:13 PM
umm i disagree. i find very few computers out there that stak up to my dual 3.6ghz xeon with 6 gigs of ram.

LW always loved p4s too. strictly for LW i see nothing wrong with a xeon.

and if you want to go into pricing, AMD currently has a much bigger premium so performance for the $$$ is no longer an excuse.
I can think of numerous computers that will smoke your machine. Pretty much any dual dual-core Opteron system will render faster, and the quad Power Mac probably will as well... As for "bang for the buck," I'm not entirely sure how the Opterons compare to the Xeons, but if you compare the Pentium D to the Athlon64 X2, I think the AMD chip is a clear winner, in both performance and performance per dollar.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:15 PM
hi i was sent here to have a look around on how amd/intel perform with 3dsmax and lightwave for rendering

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876685,00.asp


thanks. finally an educated post. rather then the typical bandwagon.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:15 PM
I can think of numerous computers that will smoke your machine. Pretty much any dual dual-core Opteron system will render faster, and the quad Power Mac probably will as well... As for "bang for the buck," I'm not entirely sure how the Opterons compare to the Xeons, but if you compare the Pentium D to the Athlon64 X2, I think the AMD chip is a clear winner, in both performance and performance per dollar.


IN LW? lets see some benchmarks.

oh yeah, you obviously missed this one that was linked in this thread.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27507&d=1140353924

can you say owned?

dont get me started on $$ too. 1k for a cpu? yeah right. dual dual core??? sure, thats 2k in just cpus alone. Clearly AMD has some nifty technologies, and clearly i OWN one so i know exactly how fast it is. however, you wont find many LW benchmarks that "smoke" the xeon.

i REPEAT, LW BENCHMARKS. maybe NT will compile their code to work better on the AMD but to claim that AMD is THE solution for LW is a bit premature. They are very much competitive and unlike your home built box, our company cares about vendor support and maintenance. When something goes wrong, DELL comes here and fixes it. something to keep in mind.

Btw, im looking forward to our BOXX renderfarm too! all intel based but who knows, price vs performance is all i care about and for the same amount of $$$ i was able to get 2 extra rendernodes which where equivalent in speed to the AMD configuration.

Captain Obvious
02-21-2006, 03:30 PM
IN LW? lets see some benchmarks.
Check out Blanos benchmarks. A few examples:



(times are approximations, since there are different (and sometimes conflicting) results in the database)

scene 2x3.6GHz Xeons 4x2.2GHz Optys 4x2.5GHz G5
Raytrace 40 seconds 24 seconds 26 seconds
Radiosity box 1000 seconds 1000 seconds 650 seconds
Reflective things 20 seconds 15 seconds 14 seconds
Tracer radiosity 130 (?)seconds 80 seconds 140 seconds

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:33 PM
great, now check out the prices. and consider that i can have more nodes with xeons. then either the optys or the macs.

Captain Obvious
02-21-2006, 03:37 PM
The 2GHz dual-core Opteron costs $495 at Newegg, which is a lot less than the $710 that the 3.6GHz single-core Xeon costs. Two Opteron 270s would generally outperform two 3.6GHz Xeons at rendering.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 03:43 PM
ok ill tell my company to start buying components from newegg.

Captain Obvious
02-21-2006, 04:06 PM
With Boxx render nodes, a dual Opteron 270 node costs $800 less than a dual 3.6GHz Xeon node. The price difference is similar with their workstations. The Xeons are excellent performers, but not even that 3.6GHz clock frequency is going to save it from the fact that the Opteron system has twice the amount of cores.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 04:26 PM
the performance difference between a 3.6 and a 3.2 ghz isnt worth the money. try pricing out the 3.2ghz xeons. also, hyperthreading.

Stooch
02-21-2006, 04:41 PM
look, both of us can sit on blanos website and pick out the best results from either of the CPUs, xeons, opterons, macs. etc.

however overall, if you just look around, you will see more xeons towards the top of the benchmarks. just leave all the search fields blank and look at different benchmark types.

Does the opteron always win hands down? NO. The xeons hold their own in MANY benchmars and whats interesting is that they arent all running 3.6ghz. even at 2.8ghz they hold their own very well. ive said it before and ill say it again, the opteron isnt the be all end all. I think that just blindly buying AMD just because - its AMD - isnt the answer.

krimpr
02-22-2006, 07:48 AM
I'd be suspicious of *some* of the statistics at Blanos. For example I posted a time of 765 seconds for the radiosity box scene with my Opteron quad (2 X 275 Dualcores) and made an error with my system specs. It was incorrectly entered as a Xeon, and I filed a "bogus report" to try to get it changed but never got any action on it. Also, someone has a time of 4 seconds posted for an Athlon with the same scene which is completely ridiculous. The Opteron series are reportedly going to be very attractive pricewise shortly, and can honestly say that they seriously kick. I chose them not only for their reportedly (and confirmed) awesome performance, but also because of the tactics of the Intel corp. (compiler tricks, strong-arming OEM's into exclusive use, etc.) I feel that I got excellent value from AMD and am pleased to support them. By the way Stooch: awesome work on your site; I particularily like your "Powerball" animation. Much respect, sir.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29629

Captain Obvious
02-22-2006, 08:19 AM
look, both of us can sit on blanos website and pick out the best results from either of the CPUs, xeons, opterons, macs. etc.
That's not what I did. I picked scenes that took more than just a few seconds to render.



I think that just blindly buying AMD just because - its AMD - isnt the answer.
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just saying that even though the Xeon is fast, it's not so fast that it can beat twice the number of Opteron cores. Four cores at 2GHz is more total hertz than two cores at 3.6GHz, and the Opterons are generally faster than the Xeons per cycle. If you want Xeons, go ahead and buy Xeons. I'm sure you've made the right choice for your particular situation. But I wouldn't personally recomend them to anyone based on their rendering performance per dollar spent.



I'd be suspicious of *some* of the statistics at Blanos.
Oh, definitely. I always ignore the results that seem completely off-base.

lots
02-22-2006, 09:34 AM
AMD recently cut prices of the Opterons. Especially the dual cores. Most of thier dual core Opterons have dropped a good $300 (its not just Newegg's pricing (they weren't first anyway :P), as many other retailers have followed suit, additionally, big companies like Boxx will be buying in bulk at discounts, allowing them to sell the CPU for less [or sell it for the same and make bigger profits :P]). Thats a pretty sizable drop. They are better overall processors as well. I'm sure many of you do other things beside lightwave, so this is a plus. Additionally dual core Xeons are a bit starved to be really effective, so having two in one system usually leads to lots of bottle necks. Its just simply part of Intel's design. Not much to say about it. If you just simply think about the design differences between the two chips, it should be fairly obvious. Hopefully Intel will rectify this problem in the coming second half of 06 or early 07.

Each CPU is going to perform well at some things. AMD and Intel take different approaches to CPU design, and thus thier CPUs tend to have different strengths. Which is why in some scenes AMD will win out, in others Intel will.

The problem with Blanos is that many systems on that chart have likely not been tested in equal situations, thus the results should be thrown out. Any one with a science background would realize that in testing you need a good test plan that allows equal conditions and tests specific variables (different CPU types, motherboards, RAM, etc). Simply running out testing your render time with whatever you are running in the background will not create an accurate comparison between the hardware. Sure this may not give real world results, but it will give equal (or at least as close as possible) conditions to all machines tested. And at that point you will get a more clear answer as to what is good and what is bad.

On the price front, I have not really seen much price difference between the two companies. I do notice though that for a while there AMD was more expencive with its dual core CPUs but as soon as they introduced the X2 3800+ it really was not much of a concern. And now that prices have dropped further (and I expect another big price drop is coming as soon as AMD's new Fab. hits production levels) It does not make much sense to argue the price. AMD may have had more expencive CPUs for a bit, but the other hardware in the system tended to be slightly cheaper.

Also arguing the point of $1000+ CPUs is a bit silly. Intel sells $1000 CPUs too you know. And in fact, AMD's top dual core part, FX-60 comes in at just about $1025, while Intel's top end dual core part comes in at $1168. And honestly Intel starts out with lower prices, but as you go up the scale, they get up higher than the AMD models.

In the end, you'll end up paying about the same.

I'm not saying AMD > Intel, or vice versa. All I want is for people to make an informed decision.

What we really need is a site dedicated to testing hardware for 3D aritists :)

Pavlov
02-22-2006, 10:35 AM
briefly:
AMD 4200 dc runs about twice as fast as a P4 3.0 Ghz, given the same amount of ram etcetc.
I have both, AMD DCs are awesome.

Paolo

mattclary
02-22-2006, 11:25 AM
Excellent post, Lots. :thumbsup:

Stooch
02-22-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm not saying AMD > Intel, or vice versa. All I want is for people to make an informed decision.

you know thats exactly the point i was repeatedly making, and if anyone didnt get that across then well... i feel sorry for them.

02-22-2006, 01:47 PM
hello, i try to found this plug for mac…
do you know where i can found it ?
thank

Stooch
02-22-2006, 02:52 PM
yes you can find it over there.

lots
02-22-2006, 08:18 PM
you know thats exactly the point i was repeatedly making, and if anyone didnt get that across then well... i feel sorry for them.
*shrug* I'm for Intel and AMD both making good CPUs :) It would keep the drive behind improving CPU power going. It drives prices down, and performance up. Can't argue with that ;)

cresshead
02-24-2006, 12:55 PM
hi just to throw a curve ball....

i went an bought an ACER amd based turion64 laptop today:D

1.6gighz,
1gig ram
100gig hd
widescreen 15.4"
128 ati X600

also bought a 19" widescreen lcd monitor....[acer]


for now i'm replacing my ageing sony laptop [cel600] with a new laptop...

also looked into a workstation and got a quote on a amd 4400 x2 athlon64 though i'll wait to buy a pc a few months more.

looking forward to getting the laptop next week and retiring my sony!

this will also be my fasted pc....for now


thanks for all the help in the posts above..and yes i will be getting a workstaion that will most probably be a AMD based pc....


cheers!