PDA

View Full Version : 6 Core CPU for Softimage?


dino01
09-18-2011, 11:54 AM
Is AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2GHZ good for 3D Art?

This is my current PC Spec

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.4GHZ
ATI 6770 Sapphire
4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3
HDD: 500GB
Crosir 600W Power Supply Unit

JPixel
09-18-2011, 01:05 PM
sounds enough to me..6 cores (12 threads?) will be fully used by your 3D app so that's a good thing..

gfx looks good, I have 6770 and only need it for viewport updates..Unless you use iray the GPU is not utilised

Just kick that RAM upto 8 GB, 4 GB is too low...I'm upgrading to 16 GB soon and would say that is moderate

Also I strongly recommend getting a SSD..I would maybe wait another 6 months or so because they can be very buggy with Windows 7 (boot problems, update problems) but the response times are insane..I'm sure within the next year HDDs will phase out, once the 500 GB and 1 TB ssd come down in price

Inisheer
09-18-2011, 01:16 PM
I run the 2.8ghz version of that cpu and it runs very well.

RebelPixel
09-18-2011, 04:28 PM
I have a 6 (12) cores too, intel xtreme 990, and it runs perfect, especially in render, wish Lagoa would use all the cores during sim time.

ThE_JacO
09-19-2011, 03:02 AM
sounds enough to me..6 cores (12 threads?) will be fully used by your 3D app so that's a good thing..
Bit of a too broad statement.
Most of the time they will not be all used, only one or two in fact will.
Only when hitting the well parallelised parts of a CPU intensive graph or for the middle 80% of a rendering it will be the case. The rest of the time (animating, modelling, solving scene graphs etc.) it will mostly be two virtual threads on one core.

Also I strongly recommend getting a SSD..I would maybe wait another 6 months or so because they can be very buggy with Windows 7 (boot problems, update problems) but the response times are insane..I'm sure within the next year HDDs will phase out, once the 500 GB and 1 TB ssd come down in price
An SSD will make a difference of a single digit number of seconds when booting up, or sometimes starting an app, or when you hit paging and swapping hard (at which point you've already kidneyshot performance anyway).
Not a great way to invest money really compared to more and/or better ram and a non ATI videocard.

More on this in the hardware forums though, which might be a better place fr this part of the discussion :)

@OP: What you do with the box makes a huge difference to what you should be spending money on hardware wise.
Animation/Rigging, modelling, rendering, sculpting (and in what app) all stress different parts of the hardware to different extents.

JPixel
09-19-2011, 10:01 AM
Bit of a too broad statement.
Most of the time they will not be all used, only one or two in fact will.
Only when hitting the well parallelised parts of a CPU intensive graph or for the middle 80% of a rendering it will be the case. The rest of the time (animating, modelling, solving scene graphs etc.) it will mostly be two virtual threads on one core.


An SSD will make a difference of a single digit number of seconds when booting up, or sometimes starting an app, or when you hit paging and swapping hard (at which point you've already kidneyshot performance anyway).
Not a great way to invest money really compared to more and/or better ram and a non ATI videocard.

More on this in the hardware forums though, which might be a better place fr this part of the discussion :)

@OP: What you do with the box makes a huge difference to what you should be spending money on hardware wise.
Animation/Rigging, modelling, rendering, sculpting (and in what app) all stress different parts of the hardware to different extents.

unless you are using garbage all threads will be utilised by the renderer.

ssd's make a huge difference to response times, i will admit tho they are still buggy as hell with certain OS's and technologies

ThE_JacO
09-19-2011, 10:29 AM
The renderer isn'tt soft :-)
You said by the app, and that's what i pointed out is inaccurate.

Even then, several parts of the rendering process can't be multithreaded efficiently, only about 80% or so of the average frame can be efficiently threaded. The acceleration structure in particular and some displacement operations, particularly so in mental ray (the default) still bottleneck elsewhere and won't be helped by multiple cores.

JPixel
09-19-2011, 10:38 AM
The renderer isn'tt soft :-)
You said by the app, and that's what i pointed out is inaccurate.

Even then, several parts of the rendering process can't be multithreaded efficiently, only about 80% or so of the average frame can be efficiently threaded. The acceleration structure in particular and some displacement operations, particularly so in mental ray (the default) still bottleneck elsewhere and won't be helped by multiple cores.

the only time you will really need all the threads is during rendering or simulation as processes within the software like modelling ,mapping etc don't require such intense calculations..one thread is probably enough for executing code for 'meshsmooth' for example...but I am no expert..I guess this is why despite the amd bulldozer having 16 threads it still doesnt bench as high as a 8 thread 2600k sandy bridge with some tests...

ThE_JacO
09-19-2011, 11:13 AM
Other way around.
Many tasks would greatly benefit from parallelisation (if it wasn't prohibitively hard to, sometimes downright impossible), but given the current evolution being wide and flat and not narrow and deep anymore (clock speed), animation, rigging, modelling and other tasks that could greatly benefit from added cycles are left performance starving, and getting a rig to run at 24fps or modelling to feel smooth at high counts is comparatively (to requirements) as hard as it was 10 years ago.

Again, most of your in-client work, other than SOME parts of simulations and most of rendering is better off with fast clocks and ample bandwidth, and takes no advantage whatsoever of virtual threads or multiple cores.

Anyway, the market is what it is. As long as you get a decently clocked CPU ad stay away from ATI when possible, you're pretty much good these days.

Response times btw are absolutely unchanged from SSDs, particularly so given today's ample amounts of ram and efficient long-living caching in the OS being decent even in windows.

JPixel
09-19-2011, 01:47 PM
Anyway, the market is what it is. As long as you get a decently clocked CPU ad stay away from ATI when possible, you're pretty much good these days.


just out of curiosity what is so terrible about ATI? I have the amd 6770 which i believe is one of their products and runs fine

ThE_JacO
09-19-2011, 11:41 PM
just out of curiosity what is so terrible about ATI? I have the amd 6770 which i believe is one of their products and runs fine
The hardware is actually really good, but the drivers situation, even if it got better, is still a russian roulette. On top of that if you ever consider using linux at any point it will be precluded to you, and last but not least, quite a few apps have started making use of CUDA (nVIDIA only), while openCL in our industry still isn't adopted much, precluding you features or even the use entirely of some applications.

adrencg
09-20-2011, 04:10 PM
Before you buy an AMD, just remember that most Intel quadcores are faster than that 6core AMD.

This is not my opinion. It's fact. AMDs are slower than Intel clock for clock.

You may be saving money by getting AMD, but Time=Money, so in the long run you're not really saving.

CGTalk Moderation
09-20-2011, 04:10 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.