PDA

View Full Version : Memory or Processors



calif newbie
04-23-2007, 11:43 AM
I will be buying a new system (from Boxx, HP or Falcon). I probably can afford one quadcore processor and 8 gb of memory OR a dual quadcore processor and 4 gb of memory. In addition to Lightwave, I am using After Effects, Premiere, and other Adobe products. I am looking for advice on "more processors and less memory" or "fewer processors and more memory". Thank you

mattclary
04-23-2007, 11:45 AM
What type of stress do you think you will put on the system? Will you be bodelling huge objects? If so, go with the ram. If you will be doing lots of rendering go with CPU.

mattclary
04-23-2007, 11:55 AM
p.s. It's always easy to add memory later if you choose to spend on more CPU now.

Speedmonk42
04-23-2007, 03:33 PM
Yeah, dual quad and 4GB.

Unless you rendering monster scenes, in which case you probably wouldn't be asking. So go with the extra horsepower.

calif newbie
04-24-2007, 12:01 AM
Thank you for the advice. It certainly makes sense that it is easy to add memory at a later time.

AbnRanger
04-24-2007, 01:13 AM
The RAM capacity for a dual quad-core workstation should be higher than a single quad...16GB over 8GB. So you are future proofing yourself more by going with the dual quad setup. That's twice the rendering muscle, and the extra 4GB wouldn't add as nearly as much of a noticable difference.

What you may want to do, is later on, throw a Raptor HD or two (just for your CG related programs, video and 3D files) in that system (10,000 RPM's instead of the standard 7200)...and put your page file on one. This way, upon occasion, should your system be Jones'ing for some memory space, it can read/write to your pagefile much faster than normal.
I know Combustion is a memory HOG! It'll use all you have, and when it does it shoves all the things you had residing in memory into the pagefile...and probably uses some of that space as well. The faster your system can read and write to the pagefile, the smoother it will run under a heavy load.

Extent
04-24-2007, 02:13 AM
I would definitely go with the dual quad in this case. That extra processor is going to make everything faster from the get-go, the 8 gig of ram would only kick in on scenes that exceed 4 gig, and as mentioned already, adding ram is really easy.

Getting a fast drive for your pagefile is really a poor substitute though. Even two Raptors in a raid 0 will only net you ~110-120 MB/s of bandwith, while even my previous generation socket 939 system w/ DDR has about 2.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

AbnRanger
04-25-2007, 02:20 AM
I would definitely go with the dual quad in this case. That extra processor is going to make everything faster from the get-go, the 8 gig of ram would only kick in on scenes that exceed 4 gig, and as mentioned already, adding ram is really easy.

Getting a fast drive for your pagefile is really a poor substitute though. Even two Raptors in a raid 0 will only net you ~110-120 MB/s of bandwith, while even my previous generation socket 939 system w/ DDR has about 2.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
I'm not saying that any HD setup is a substitute for RAM. Yet, even when you have plenty of RAM, Windows finds a way to constantly use your pagefile, and until he's ready to load up a bunch more RAM modules, it will help to have fast access to your pagefile and program files by using a Raptor ( or RAID 0 or better still 2 Raptors in RAID 0).

Just the other day I was rendering a cloud atmospheric (with a Jet fly through) scene...wasn't particularly poly heavy, but when rendering with GI, I could see in Windows task manager that it was using about 4GB of page file space, even though I have 4GB of RAM.

Plus, regardless of how much RAM you have, the bottleneck is ALWAYS your HD. Having a faster HD means all your programs load faster, and send data to and from memory faster. I'm all for getting as much RAM as you can, but HD performance has a large role to play in this kind of work as well.