PDA

View Full Version : need a ballpark figure please


STRAT
06-30-2005, 11:10 AM
hi chaps

my current pc spec is -

2.8 dual xeon with 1 gig ram, win XP pro and c4d r9.x

if i bought in a new 3.6 dual xeon with 64 bit windows, 64 bit c4d and 2 gig ram, would my render times really be that much significantly faster?

for example, how much difference would a 1 hour render on my old pc be compaired to the new pc ? only we're considering buying one in if it'll make a world of difference.

without me having to research bench mark charts and so forth, can someone maybe give me any idea of what differences we're talking here please, just so i can get an idea?

cheers guys

seco7
06-30-2005, 01:41 PM
This is a tough one. I have used Alienware's Performance Analyzer in the past. It isn't expressly for 3D, but you can configure a machine with video, memory, etc they way you want it then compare it's performance to the machine your currently using though a downloaded applet.

www.alienware.com (http://www.alienware.com)

I would be interested to see what you find. Also, I can personally attest to the accuracy of the applet. I configured a machine and it estimated the performance. I did purchase the machine and ran the test again. The estimated and actual values were within 1% - 2% of each other.

dann_stubbs
06-30-2005, 02:36 PM
hi chaps

my current pc spec is -

2.8 dual xeon with 1 gig ram, win XP pro and c4d r9.x

if i bought in a new 3.6 dual xeon with 64 bit windows, 64 bit c4d and 2 gig ram, would my render times really be that much significantly faster?

for example, how much difference would a 1 hour render on my old pc be compaired to the new pc ? only we're considering buying one in if it'll make a world of difference.

without me having to research bench mark charts and so forth, can someone maybe give me any idea of what differences we're talking here please, just so i can get an idea?

cheers guys

don't forget that the 64bit version of C4D that would give you the biggest speed gains is very limited in it's plugin support - so much so that it is kinda unusable at the moment other then a speed test. (quicktime support would really be needed and is not available either)

i would guess it could be (guess) 25% faster running the 32bit version on that new cpu - so your one hour render would be +/- 40 minutes. also the extra gig of ram could make a noticible difference even on your older computer if your scenes are very memory intensive

dann

STRAT
06-30-2005, 02:44 PM
so the new 64 bit c4d is pretty useless?

all i ever use is the AR for rendering. dont model in it and dont use plugs. i pressume the core 64 bit c4d and AR should atleast be fully usable?

Srek
06-30-2005, 02:53 PM
so the new 64 bit c4d is pretty useless?

all i ever use is the AR for rendering. dont model in it and dont use plugs. i pressume the core 64 bit c4d and AR should atleast be fully usable?

CINEMA 4D R9 and all modules work 100% in 64 Bit. The only problem are fileformats that need external libraries that are not yet available for 64 bit (all Quicktime based files i.e.) and plugins that are not yet compiled and available for 64 bit.

As for your original question, a 2.8 Dual Xeon has a CINEBENCH of nearly 600, a 3.6 about 775. If you use CINEMA 4D 64 Bit you will gain about 20% making this about 930. So in the end you can expect a speedfactor of 1.5 or more.

Cheers
Björn

moka.studio
06-30-2005, 02:57 PM
so the new 64 bit c4d is pretty useless?

all i ever use is the AR for rendering. dont model in it and dont use plugs. i pressume the core 64 bit c4d and AR should atleast be fully usable?

I don't think it is useless - far from it. However 64 bits is in its earliest stages on Windows. It is not so much a problem with c4d, rather it is a problem that a lot of apps don#t support it yet. I guess if you have some dedicated render nodes that run only C4d, or the netrender ( though I don't know if netrender runs on 4bits, but I would imagine that it does..) - then 64bit would definitely be worthwhile, according to Maxon ( they are writing about a 30-40% speed gain for renderings -
However there are other advantages to dual core processors. - first off they are able to run 64bits Windows, so you can always get the computer, run Xp 32bits, then upgrade to 64 later.
And they are quite a bit faster.
I just bought a dualcore Athlon 64 4200.
Have also a Athlon 64 3800.
Same systems otherwise.
Still need to benchmark them, but from some radiosity tests, the 4200 is about 85% faster ! ( for a much lower price than getting a dual processor system).

jp

moka.studio
06-30-2005, 02:59 PM
I have a question for anyone who knows....
How is ram allocated for a dual core system?
I have 2 gigs - should I get another 2 gigs ? is it the same as with Dual-processor systems, or can the Ram be shared by the 2 processors?
jp

STRAT
06-30-2005, 03:07 PM
thats pretty cool. sounds like a typical (up to) 50% speed saving maybe. quicktime plugs aint a problem. i render out as standard jpg or tiff, and use standard jpg's for my texture maps in materials.

also, if i save a 64 bit c4d r9 file will i be able to open that same file in the normal c4d r9 on my old machine?

AdamT
06-30-2005, 03:10 PM
I just bought a dualcore Athlon 64 4200.
Have also a Athlon 64 3800.
Same systems otherwise.
Still need to benchmark them, but from some radiosity tests, the 4200 is about 85% faster ! ( for a much lower price than getting a dual processor system).jp
Please post your Cinebench results when you get a chance.

Srek
06-30-2005, 03:20 PM
also, if i save a 64 bit c4d r9 file will i be able to open that same file in the normal c4d r9 on my old machine?
Absolutely, the scenefiles are fully compatible.
Cheers
Björn

STRAT
06-30-2005, 03:27 PM
cheers fellers, you all been a massive help as usual :)

NWoolridge
06-30-2005, 03:38 PM
thats pretty cool. sounds like a typical (up to) 50% speed saving maybe. quicktime plugs aint a problem. i render out as standard jpg or tiff, and use standard jpg's for my texture maps in materials.

also, if i save a 64 bit c4d r9 file will i be able to open that same file in the normal c4d r9 on my old machine?

You should be able to open the files; AFAIK the file format has not changed. But what may not have come through clearly enough is that plugins that you may rely on (StormTracer, SolidSpline Pro, various shaders, etc.) will have to be recompiled for 64-bit; the 32-bit versions simply won't work in the 64-bit C4D. Some may become available, and some may never be recompiled, but for now, I think it is mainly vanilla C4D (and its included modules) that work in 64-bit.

Nick

STRAT
06-30-2005, 03:43 PM
You should be able to open the files; AFAIK the file format has not changed. But what may not have come through clearly enough is that plugins that you may rely on (StormTracer, SolidSpline Pro, various shaders, etc.) will have to be recompiled for 64-bit; the 32-bit versions simply won't work in the 64-bit C4D. Some may become available, and some may never be recompiled, but for now, I think it is mainly vanilla C4D (and its included modules) that work in 64-bit.

Nick

thats sounds dandy in my case. i use c4d purely as a render tool. and i only use c4d's stock shaders. the only external plug i often use is the AO plug for faking gi and sometimes the dist falloff. but i can certainly live without these.

AdamT
06-30-2005, 04:01 PM
Does Cinema rely on QT for .tif files?

STRAT
06-30-2005, 04:04 PM
you can save and use 2 versions of tiff files from c4d. so i guess ur ok if QT doesnt work

CGTalk Moderation
06-30-2005, 04:04 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.