Duo quad cores vs net render for Cinema 4D?

[Srek]

Yes, CINEMA will make good use of more cores, but the efficency goes down with the number of cores. For every doubeling of cores renderspeed can be multiplied by roughly 1.8.
Net Renderer and CINEMA itself handle this identicaly.
Cheers
Björn

[VICCHEN]

Thanks your quick reply, it's helpful for me.:)

[Shademaster]

Hi all:

I would like to buy new machine for the Cinema 4D render work, but i am confuse that a duo quad cores ( 8 cores ) machine faster then 2 duo cores ( 4 cores x 2 ) machines with net render for cinema 4d? anyone have experence?

Thank you.

Well, a 3ghz dual dualcore (4 cores total) scores around 1500 on Cinebench, a dual quadcore (8 cores total) scores around 2100 Cinebench points.

2 Quad machines will yield 3000 Cinebench points total compared to the 2100 of the 8 core machine.

Does that help?

[VICCHEN]

Hi Shademaster:

You mean the 2 Quad machines with net render will faster then 8 core machine(Cinebench points)?

Thank you.:)

[Shademaster]

Hi Shademaster:

You mean the 2 Quad machines with net render will faster then 8 core machine(Cinebench points)?

Thank you.:)

Well I don't know if Netrender will be any faster (I have no experience in that) But if you had the choice, 2 quad processor machines are faster than 1 8 core machine. You can also do smarter load balancing when in busy projects.

[unseenthings]

Well I don't know if Netrender will be any faster (I have no experience in that) But if you had the choice, 2 quad processor machines are faster than 1 8 core machine. You can also do smarter load balancing when in busy projects.
Sortof... it depends a lot on what you're doing. If you're doing huge billboard stills, then a single 8 processor machine is going to work better, because you're rendering a still image. If you do a lot of animations, then yes, 2 machines will be more bang for the buck. There are some workarounds (as well as FR, etc) that allow multiple machines to work on one image, but then you've got to paste them back together manually in photoshop, etc.... I think if you're doing a lot of stills, go for the quad... a lot of animations, go for the 2 dual core systems. I'd probably still go for the faster one even if it was somewhere inbetween, because you're going to get faster feedback (etc) while you're working on stuff.

[jkirk01]

Just an aside here, won't the 8 core machine eliminate the net render animation limitations in some of the modules such as TP? This might add to your criteria...

[LucentDreams]

jkirk, not really, those animation limitations are because only a single core can handle the calculation of cinema's simulation features (cloth, hair, SIK, TP, Dynamics)

[manlio]

Well, a 3ghz dual dualcore (4 cores total) scores around 1500 on Cinebench, a dual quadcore (8 cores total) scores around 2100 Cinebench points.

I've also seen this cinebench around on the web, and I was really surprised by this "low" (2100 is amazing...) result. Do you know why we can't obtain higher scores as expected (I was thinking at least 2700 - 2800)? We are really far from the 1.8 gain every double cores.
Apart from this Cinema is always the only application that take full use of the additional cores :thumbsup: .
Thanks

[VICCHEN]

Most time i render the still images and plan to buy vray for cinema 4D, any suggest?:)

[LemonNado]

Operating system limitations also have an impact. XP Home supports 2 cores, XP Pro supports 4 cores, MS Server products more but are usually not supported by the software vendors like Maxon or SoftImage. I do not know what the limitations in Vista are. I have failed to find any information regarding this yet. And I looked up Google and Yahooo without success.
So, With XP your 8 core idea is already hitting a MS roadblock.
Cheers
Rainer

[Srek]

Operating system limitations also have an impact. XP Home supports 2 cores, XP Pro supports 4 cores,
Actualy XP Home supports one socket with as many cores as the CPU offers, while Pro supports two sockets.
Cheers
Björn

[LemonNado]

Didn't know that MS makes a difference. That's actually good news. So XP will play well with the upcoming polycore cpu's. Any Idea how Vista will deal with that?
Rainer

[Shademaster]

Another problem is going to be what you are going to do with the 2 DualCore processors you are going to have as left overs after you upgrade your machine to a Dual Quadcore? You can't order a mac without any processors so you will waste the price of the cores that were installed on getting an 8 core installed. I also wonder if all the hassle (losing your warranty for example, losing your processors that were allready in there) is going to add up for Just 600 cpb extra? If my calculations are right you are better of buying an extra set of minimacs to serve as rendercows?

I work on a Dual Dualcore 2.66 MacPro and I must say I rather have more RAM than processor power. I render commercials with 9x SMB at 720p in a whopping hour and a half at most (15 seconds long), doing that in 1 hour and 10 minutes is not going to change an awe full lot in my opinion :).

Good luck with making a decision!

Yours,

Daan

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.