workstation for 20,000.00$

[meleseDESIGN]

You can do all this with an 1500$ PC with an i7 processor installed, GTX260 gfx card, 12GB RAM and a few TB HDDs. You can do all of it on one PC.

For a high end workstation you would probably pay 3500-10.000$, depending if it's a self built or right from the shelf pre-built workstation.

;)




i want to buy a workstation for vfx (adobe softwares and nuke) and 3D(maya) also using for movie editing , i could pay 20,000.00$ and with windows os ..
do u have any suggestions ?
also someone told me its better to buy 2 workstation at same time one for vfx and 3d and the other one for editing . what do u think
thnx

[biliousfrog]

If money is no option I'd contact BOXX, the machines shouldn't cost you anywhere near that much but you'll get the extra piece of mind that they'll have the best support you could imagine - even out of warranty. They're very helpful and knowledgable before, during and after you've bought from them. We used to have a resident BOXX guy on the boards but I believe that Adam has left them now.

Multiple computers are generally better if you are doing any rendering as long as you have enough render licences. It would also lessen the chance of software/driver issues and help to keep things cleaner but could become a pain when constantly switching machines.

[Szos]

Yeah, send me $18,000 and I'll hook you up with the fastest PC out there.*




*the computer itself will probably only cost $3000, but my consulting fee will be $15000.

[imashination]

A general observation, why are the silly "what computer shall I buy for $50,000?" questions *always* from iran and pakistan? Is there something in the water?

[sentry66]

what's crazy is most people's overclocked i7 systems will still probably be faster than a $20k workstation at 90% of tasks. I'm assuming $20k will get you some sorta of massive opteron system with a bunch of ram and a couple overpriced video cards

http://www.thinkmate.com/System/HPX_QS8-8500

http://www.boxxtech.com/products/APEXX/apexx8_overview.asp

even at best, you're still stuck with 2.6-2.9ghz and apps that mostly use 1 thread for whatever you happen to be doing. Then there's the issue of if the software is compatible with the OS you'll need to run to make use of that many cores and if so, then if the rendering engine will automatically see all of them.

[meleseDESIGN]

Maybe he was talking about Software + Hardware.
So for $20K he could buy Maya, Adobe Master Suite, Nuke and two nice PC's.

;)

[Szos]

A general observation, why are the silly "what computer shall I buy for $50,000?" questions *always* from iran and pakistan? Is there something in the water?

I think it would be more like there is something in the oil.
When you got 'oil money' I think price is no object.

[gaianix]

thnx tosentry66 (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=329046) for good thinkmate.com link ppl that answer me and to imashination (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=5177) just lol .. there is no oil money or anything else... 20k is just hard working and saving money ...

if u read my words i told i want workstation for vfx and editing movie(35mm for cinema ...and when we scan frames for editing and vfx or etc... there is much expensive file for each shots.. so i dont think high pc like i7 could handle this kind of works.

[gawl126]

thnx tosentry66 (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=329046) for good thinkmate.com link ppl that answer me and to imashination (http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=5177) just lol .. there is no oil money or anything else... 20k is just hard working and saving money ...

if u read my words i told i want workstation for vfx and editing movie(35mm for cinema ...and when we scan frames for editing and vfx or etc... there is much expensive file for each shots.. so i dont think high pc like i7 could handle this kind of works.

So you need something better than an i7? You probably should wait till 2011 which is when Intel plans to release their new socket.

[sentry66]

it's going to totally depend on if the scanning or editing software even makes use of multiple processors to warrant spending $20k on a system. Because if it mostly uses just one or a few cores, then an i7 will be better...especially if it's overclocked.

The i7 can edit film frames no sweat. You'd probably want to do your editing with proxies anyway

IMO I'd look into a fast i7 with a massive RAID 0 SSD setup and a strong graphics card with lots of memory

[meleseDESIGN]

Look at the Websites for your Applications.
There is allways a recommendation for minimal and recommended Hardware setups for your application.

What is the resolution of your film footage: 2K, 4K or higher?
For editing 2K or 4K footage an i7 would be still fine.
To playback 4K footage in realtime you can use specific applications like Iridias FrameCycler (http://www.iridas.com/framecycler), Assimilate Scratch (http://www.assimilateinc.com) ect.

;)

[Szos]

I would be curious to hear what kind of software do you plan on even running?

There is little doubt in my mind that a good ~$3000 system wouldn't do everything you wanted (not including the price of 2 or 3 large monitors and not including the price of software).

[imashination]

if u read my words i told i want workstation for vfx and editing movie(35mm for cinema ...and when we scan frames for editing and vfx or etc... there is much expensive file for each shots.. so i dont think high pc like i7 could handle this kind of works.

But thats the point, an i7 *IS* the fastest machine you can buy for those tasks.

i7 @4ghz
24 gigs ram
gf 285
pcie raid controllers to handle raid 0 can be had for under £200
6 drive 7200rpm raid 0 will give 11 gigs of storage

All this will run you under $2500; chuck in a pair of 30" screens for another $2000 and apart from the software, you have the entire rig for a quarter of your budget. Top it off with a couple more drives for storage and backup and lets say another $1000 for someone to build and support it and even from a branded retailer you shouldnt spend more than $6k for a fully running functional machine.

[olson]

The advice from this thread is scattered all over the place, and a lot of it is poor advice. If you have $20,000 to spend the best approach in my opinion would be to buy a workstation like a dual Xeon 5500/5600 series system plus whatever software you need. Take whatever is left and put it towards render nodes to help with rendering. Putting all of the budget into a single system will result in a powerful system, but it won't be as powerful as several render nodes and a workstation in the same budget. Buying a Core i7 desktop machine is a bad idea if you ask me, especially if the budget allows for workstations (like in your case). Last but not least, waiting for the next generation hardware is a terrible idea because there's always going to be something newer and faster in the next year. Any major builder should be able to fulfill your needs, HP, Dell, BOXX, etc. Best of luck with your new business!

[imashination]

Just because youve saved up 20k doesnt mean you should spend it, or that spending 20k will give you a machine any more suitable than one costing a quarter of that.

Take a look at the options, lets quickly price up a workstation from dell, apple or boxx. 8 core 3ghz xeon, 24 gigs ram, 4x 2tb drives, raid card, quadros (they wont let you pick anything else) and throw in the same pair of 30 inch screens. Here Im getting quotes ranging from $13,000 to $16,000 and what does that get you?

25% *slower* single threaded performance
30% faster render speeds for apps that can saturate all 16 threads

Other than that, what has the extra $10,000 given him? Im all for a nice xeon when its suitable but this guy is primarily scanning in footage and editing, both tasks which will be massively limited by harddrive throughput and single threaded speed. If he goes to dell and says "hi, Ive got 20k" theyll be laughing their arses off as they pawn him off with a $5k quadro 5800 because he heard the magic "workstation" buzzword

[sentry66]

The advice from this thread is scattered all over the place, and a lot of it is poor advice. If you have $20,000 to spend the best approach in my opinion would be to buy a workstation like a dual Xeon 5500/5600 series system plus whatever software you need. Take whatever is left and put it towards render nodes to help with rendering. Putting all of the budget into a single system will result in a powerful system, but it won't be as powerful as several render nodes and a workstation in the same budget. Buying a Core i7 desktop machine is a bad idea if you ask me, especially if the budget allows for workstations (like in your case). Last but not least, waiting for the next generation hardware is a terrible idea because there's always going to be something newer and faster in the next year. Any major builder should be able to fulfill your needs, HP, Dell, BOXX, etc. Best of luck with your new business!

can you actually explain why an i7 would be a bad idea over a xeon or are you just saying that because xeons are marketed as "workstation" processors?

This line of thinking is exactly why intel makes big bucks with the xeons. Even AMD recently admitted they "tax" the opterons heavily because they know the market is willing to pay the higher price even though they're pretty much the same chip as their consumer line.

It's one thing you need more than 24 gigs of memory or if the software will actually use all those extra processors you paid for,, but if neither of those are the case, what exactly is the xeon's advantage?


I hate the "workstation" naming convention

Over the years I've used the expensive $16000 multi-xeon systems, traditional $2500 machines, stripped down overclocked $1000 machines, and they've all been solid and reliable. I would classify any of them as "workstations" because I made my living with them and they didn't give me any trouble.

In my experience, I've found that the extreme high end machines tend to break more often when used for pro-graphics. The $16000 xeon machine had terrible air flow for the amount of stress I put on that machine. My expensive $4700 Wildcat card in it died from the heat after a couple years at which point I replaced with a "temporary" $200 geforce which turned out to be faster anyway

I'd compare it to buying a bugatti veyron for track racing, when buying a real race car would be not only faster on the track, but cheaper. The veyron wouldn't be more reliable on the track, but it'd be a higher repair bill.

[olson]

can you actually explain why an i7 would be a bad idea over a xeon or are you just saying that because xeons are marketed as "workstation" processors?


I'm not going to go down the road of this argument again because its obvious why a workstation is preferable in a production environment if you do the research. If the original poster said "I have $1,000, what should I get for running Photoshop" I would've suggested something else, but that's not the case here. Cheers!

[sentry66]

I'm not going to go down the road of this argument again because its obvious why a workstation is preferable in a production environment if you do the research. If the original poster said "I have $1,000, what should I get for running Photoshop" I would've suggested something else, but that's not the case here. Cheers!


So what would you say makes a "workstation" a workstation then?

The name?
The price?
The speed?
The capability?
The reliability?
The name brand?


There's someone on these forums who's company just bought a bunch of $3500 "workstations" that have:

1 xeon
Quadro FX 380
80 gig raptor hard drive
3 gigs ram
XP pro 32 bit
and that's it

....and that's a "workstation class" machine?

[sentry66]

weird, it reversed the post order

[meleseDESIGN]

For $4K you can have mine, comes without HDDs because through the federal data protection law.
But it has a Blackmagic Intensity Pro SD/HD capture card as bonus installed.

Dual Xeon workstation will improve performance for multithread otimized applications up to 100%, NOT only 30% what imashination has mentioned.

Anyways, an i7 will give you only a performance boost above Dual Xeons in single threaded when you overclock them, but overclocking isn't something what i would suggest in an production environment.

For Maya, Nuke and Adobe products an i7 would be OK.
A Dual Xeon High-End Workstation willeven be better for any of those apps.

You might want to buy a Dual Xeon 5600 serie Workstation with a high amount HDD storage installed, a Quadro FX 4800/5800 card and at least 2GB ECC RAM for each Core (=24GB and up) , the more RAM, CPU cores and disk space the better.


;)

[sentry66]

how is that going to help the guy capture film footage and edit it though? Isn't that what he said he primarily wants? I'd think HDD speed and single processor power would be the primary things you'd want for that, not a quadro and slower clocked dual xeon

[meleseDESIGN]

Not for capturing film footage, but for editing it will help, since Nuke is able to make use of more cores.
Let's face it. A High-end Dual Xeon workstation with an Quadro FX 4800/5800 beats an i7 PC for sure. There is no argumentation to disprove the facts. Xeons aren't underclocked, they are able to handle more then 24GB Ram and offers some more little features as an i7!
Only if we are talking about prices. But the OP want do go for performance and he has the money to do so.

Anyway, for HDD speed I would suggest an SAS or SCSI Fibre Channel controller with a lot 15K/rpm disks pluged.

;)

[olson]

There's someone on these forums who's company just bought a bunch of $3500 "workstations" that have:

1 xeon
Quadro FX 380
80 gig raptor hard drive
3 gigs ram
XP pro 32 bit
and that's it

....and that's a "workstation class" machine?

I didn't say buy old crap from 2002. How's this helping anyone? You're just being difficult. :rolleyes:

[imashination]

I'm not going to go down the road of this argument again because its obvious why a workstation is preferable in a production environment

No, its really not, thats why we asked. First off, whats a "workstation"? The OP seems to think i7's dont count, but boxx sell them as workstations. melesse seems to think overclocked machines dont count, but boxx sell them too. Maybe its only once you hit a magical price point... ahh but I can build a $5000 dell for less than half the price so does that still count?

Dual Xeon workstation will improve performance for multithread otimized applications up to 100%, NOT only 30% what imashination has mentioned.

I have an entire database of benchmarks that says otherwise. Consider im comparing a 4ghz i7 against an average xeon which will be around the 2.66ghz-3ghz mark

but overclocking isn't something what i would suggest in an production environment.

Someone should tell Boxx and Dell, they both sell pre-clocked 4ghz systems

I didn't say buy old crap from 2002. How's this helping anyone? You're just being difficult. :rolleyes:

Thats from Feb 2010 and is the "workstation" machine I encountered last week which was purchased specifically for 3D work. I wish I were joking but that is genuinely what they were sold as a high end 3d workstation. Single xeon, quadro 380, 3 gigs ram, winxp 32, single raptor drive and a single 19" screen. The hand-me-down machine I gave my little sister over a year ago was more powerful than that.

[Szos]

The term workstation is a joke.

What constitutes a workstation?
Does it have to be fast? Expensive? What exactly?

It seems to me that the term "workstation" is on par with the term "pornography"... with a similar answer: "I might not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it"

When it comes right down to it, ANY computer you do work on, should be considered a "workstation". Most people would think that a workstation has to be fast, reliable with higher-end features, but how is that different than some of the supposed non-workstation i7-based machines that were posted above? There isn't one.

It's just a great marketing term to get people to pay more for something.

[meleseDESIGN]

The term "Workstation" means established in/for an comercial production environment.
It's not about the price or how fast the hardware is to give it the term "Workstation".

It means what it says: Work Station

I don't know how many companys use i7 PC's in their production environment.
So the question I see here: Is an i7 PC established in an production environment to sale it as "Workstation"? I don't think it has!

It's pretty similar with software.
The best software is allways what has been established in a real production environment, like Nuke, Maya, Mudbox, Photoshop, Bodypaint ect.

;)

[imashination]

I don't know how many companys use i7 PC's in their production environment.

Anyone else want to admit they havent got a clue what theyre talking about? ;-)

[meleseDESIGN]

Because people don't know any company who are using i7 PC's in their environment doesn't mean they haven't got a clue! It might good be you're the only one.

;)

Anyone else want to admit they havent got a clue what theyre talking about? ;-)

[meleseDESIGN]

Yeah, I know a lot Artist too, but they are more freelancers fewer a established company.

;)


I know lots of people running i7's phenom's, athlon X2's, in a pro work environment.

[sentry66]

I know lots of people running i7's phenom's, athlon X2's, in a pro work environment.

I still know freelancers who pay for xeons, but most companies and people who want the most for their money stick with the mainstream processor platforms since they've been reliable and fast for the last 10 years.

[meleseDESIGN]

I'm not sure about this (and you can't be neither), since we don't know all companies.
But I THINK most established companies wont work with i7 PC's, but rather with Xeons.
Proof I'm wrong and I will get myself an i7 next time.

;)


but most companies [deleted] who want the most for their money stick with the mainstream processor platforms since they've been reliable and fast for the last 10 years.

[sentry66]

I'm not sure about this (and you can't be neither), since we don't know all companies.
But I THINK most established companies wont work with i7 PC's, but rather with Xeons.
Proof I'm wrong and I will get myself an i7 next time.

;)


Yeah it's impossible to prove one way or another without taking a massive poll. For what it's worth though, from someone who's used expensive dual xeon and dual opteron systems as well as mainstream processor and overclocked systems, there's really not as much of a difference as you might think - other than if you require drastically more memory than what the mainstream platforms offer - 24 gigs of ram right now.

I mean, sure a dual xeon offers more total performance than an overclocked 6 core i7 980, but while the dual xeon is around 10% faster at rendering, it's also about 20% slower at all other things that aren't multiprocessor aware, yet costs 300% more and draws more wattage to run that you'll be paying for with your electric bill.

Just to run the cpus alone at full load takes around 600 watts to run dual xeons at 3.33. An overclocked 4ghz i7 980 uses about 400 watts for the cpu. That's about a $200 a year difference depending on where you live. On a side note, it's actually been proven that 3.9ghz is more energy efficient in regards to clock cycle work vs watt than the stock 3.33ghz with the i7 980 chip: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-980x-efficiency,2590-10.html

Stability is important, and both setups can be stable or unstable depending on hardware and settings. I mean, some people's dual xeon systems actually shut off in the middle of rendering -;) ;) hehe just kidding man, hopefully your system shapes up soon. :)


These days, I prefer to use with mainstream processor systems and upgrade it more often than spend big money on expensive systems that I'd probably end up using longer to get my money's worth out of it. But at the end of the day it all comes down to buying what you're comfortable with and if you think you're getting your money's worth with your investment.

[vlad]

... I mean, sure a dual xeon offers more total performance than an overclocked 6 core i7 980, but while the dual xeon is around 10% faster at rendering, it's also about 20% slower at all other things that aren't multiprocessor aware, yet costs 300% more and draws more wattage to run that you'll be paying for with your electric bill...

Clock for clock, core for core, dual Xeons will render pretty much twice as fast as a single i7. Not 10% faster. And you also have to take account of multi-tasking. Yes, many software are still single threaded but Windows is not. Also, for comparable specs, it certainly wont be 3 times more expensive (at least for self-built rigs). For someone doing a lot of rendering, a dual socket system is an interesting alternative. And about power consumption, I'm pretty sure it would consume less than a pair of single cpu rendernodes (again for comparable specs and clock speed).

[imashination]

Clock for clock, core for core, dual Xeons will render pretty much twice as fast as a single i7. Not 10% faster.

Correct, but the reality is a reasonably priced i7 will run at 4ghz, whilst a reasonably priced xeon will be ~2.66. Yes they go faster but then that escapes the realms of reasonably priced, you start paying just under $1000 per 100MHz

Yeah, I know a lot Artist too, but they are more freelancers fewer a established company.

What does that have to do anything? Registering a company is £100, I dont see how that suddenly changes your computational requirements. I know studios that use single core duo/i7 machines and freelancers that have racks of xeons in their garages.

[meleseDESIGN]

If you run a business do you really think it makes any sense to buy an i7 PC over an Dual Xeon Workstation just to safe $1K or $2K? When the business runs fine and you can pay your electricity bills I would say it's an established company and an established company does not need to calculate when it comes to buying the best tools.

Dual Xeons are definitily better as one single CPU.
Just look at your cbscores list! Or don't you even trust your own stuff?

Really, energy costs and lifetime for an Workstation is just a stupid argumentation.
You guys spend every year $1K for your nice single CPU PC's, while a Dual CPU Workstation will last at least twice as long in a studio.

Just walk outside into a few studios near you and ask them what hardware they are using!
I'll bet most have an Mac, HP or Dell under the table.

;)

[sentry66]

when software gets better at multithreading, I might reconsider my current stance. We're getting there though.

Right now in a business, yes I would absolutely set everyone up with 4ghz i7 980 or 930 systems depending on their job position because that saved money adds up fast with say 30 employees. That's something like $30-90k. I mean, I could hire another 1-3 people or build a 30-90 node renderfarm. I would never blindly contact a vendor and ask what their top xeon systems are and then say I'll take 30 of them.

Each 980 system would cost $2300-3000 and each 930 system would cost $1500-2400 depending on if we built the systems ourselves or paid to have a vendor build them.

It's a much better deal than paying $5000-6000 for a dual xeon system. I could buy so many more render nodes and additional software licenses with the money saved and be able to do more lavish GI renders and have other software capabilities at my disposal.

I wouldn't replace the machines every year. If it made sense, we'd maybe upgrade the processor, memory, and video card when the time was right and try to get 3 years out of them before getting new machines.

lifetime expectancy of a computer is a dumb thing to be concerned about. That's why I say overclock them and get your money's worth out of them, then discard them or find other uses for them when done with them.

I've been using my new i7 system at work for a few months now and I've done quite a bit of professional work on it. Some of it's going to be on TV in a few months. Is that not good enough proof that they work?

Ironically, I just a couple hours ago I put a large heatsink in another i7 machine, clocked it up to 3.83ghz (for now) and have been running prime95 on it for the last hour getting the thermal paste to set.


Anyway it doesn't matter. Making high quality work and meeting deadlines is what matters. Everyone should use what they're comfortable with

[SanjayChand]

For 20k, id buy a very fast core i7 overclocked as a main workstation (or buy a dual xeon if your main app can utilize the extra threads) with atleast 12gb of RAM and then spend the rest (probably 15k left over) on 3-5 render nodes (maybe with core i7's) to render sequences.


$5000 max on mainworkstation.

$3000 max on each render node.

Ofcourse youll also need network hardware, render que software perhaps, etc.

[DanielWray]

For 20k, id buy a very fast core i7 overclocked as a main workstation (or buy a dual xeon if your main app can utilize the extra threads) with atleast 12gb of RAM and then spend the rest (probably 15k left over) on 3-5 render nodes (maybe with core i7's) to render sequences.


$5000 max on mainworkstation.

$3000 max on each render node.

Ofcourse youll also need network hardware, render que software perhaps, etc.

I agree with this, except just go with the I7 machine (You could get the latest 980, it's a 6 core right?) and then invest the rest in machines which will do all ofthe heavy rendering work, leaving your main work machine free so you can carry on working while you are rendering out video or even scanning film (I'm sure a render node could crunch through this stuff while your working and rendering).

You do NOT want all of your investment in one machine, even with an expensive high-end Xeon system you'll still need to stop working on the machine while video renders out or film is being scanned (or converted?). With multiple machines you'll have the most efficient workflow and more than likely the quickest turn around time for your work and you may even have money left over (You should do) after the purchase which could be invested in software or just kept for upgrades later on.

[vlad]

... It's a much better deal than paying $5000-6000 for a dual xeon system. I could buy so many more render nodes and additional software licenses with the money saved and be able to do more lavish GI renders and have other software capabilities at my disposal...

A bit off the mark again. A Newegg wish list adds up to 2800$ for a dual 2.53 ghz on an Asus Z8NA mobo with 12gb of DDR3 ECC ram, 700W OCZ psu and a 285gtx gpu in an Antec 900 case. Of course, a Macpro, Boxx or Dell will likely be much more but fact remains that you can build a very decent dual cpu box for about 3000$.

[sentry66]

yeah, but 2.53 ghz is sloooooow, even if there are two of them

quick and dirty math:
2.53 x 8 cores = 20.24 ghz of total xeon power
vs
4ghz x 6 cores = 24 ghz of total i7 power, meanwhile all single threaded functions will be roughly 58 % faster, which you absolutely will notice.

from the benchmarks I've seen, there's no real difference in speed between the same clocked xeon vs the i7 when it comes to graphics. The xeon models that have slightly more L3 cache do a little better than the i7 version at database server apps though, but I'm not in the server business


and hey now...the GTX285 is certainly not a certified "workstation" graphics card ;)

That's one area I think the quadro drivers actually have a real advantage (in maya at least) because a FX1800 beats the snot out of a GTS250 (in maya 30 vs 7 fps with high poly models that I've personally witnessed) even though the GTS250 is technically faster with twice the CUDA cores, clocked higher, faster memory, etc. Hopefully more software really starts using the CUDA power soon to negate some of that difference


really, it makes no difference to me what you guys use. As long as you're happy with your purchase and feel it's worth the money, then that's all that matters.

[olson]

yeah, but 2.53 ghz is sloooooow, even if there are two of them

quick and dirty math:
2.53 x 8 cores = 20.24 ghz of total xeon power
vs
4ghz x 6 cores = 24 ghz of total i7 power, meanwhile all single threaded functions will be roughly 58 % faster, which you absolutely will notice.


That's not the whole picture. Intel offers Xeon 5600 processors with six cores each up to 3.33 GHz, and AMD offers 12 core Opteron processors up to 2.3 GHz (for dual and quad socket boards). Everyone keeps saying the Core i7 is the holy grail and workstations are now obsolete. It isn't that simple. True the Core i7 offers a good bang for the buck compared to lower end workstations if you have the knowledge and experience to overclock it. Though its substantially slower for anything multithreaded compared to other systems within the budget of the original poster.

The extra power for multithreaded tasks would make each iteration of look development for either compositing with Nuke or 3D rendering faster which means the same work can be iterated more in the same amount of time. This is a big deal, being able to take the same work further visually in the same amount of time. :arteest:

It seems to me that having the edge on single threaded tasks is a moot point unless the system is going to be used primarily for matte painting, character animation, or sculpting. Cheers!

[sentry66]

that's true, intel now offers 3.33 ghz 6 core xeons for $1800 each and quad opterons have been around for awhile now, but AMD's chips are dinosaur slow compared to the i7/xeons. The only way they can close the gap is with with almost twice as many processors. The systems can make sense if the software being used is threaded really well.


maybe I'm wrong but isn't modeling, animating, and texture painting are at least half of what most people do in the 3d animation field? Don't get me wrong, I'd for sure prefer to use a dual 3.33 ghz xeon over a 4 ghz i7, but for me it's not a clear cut improvement when they cost 2-3x as much and you're stuck with their slower clock speeds.

Even if you spend almost twice as long doing test renders with an i7 system, if you bought render nodes with the money saved from not getting a dual xeon, you can still probably get your final renders done faster by a factor of 3 or 4 which would probably make up for that extra test render time.

Hell, mental ray at least spends a nice chunk of time on one processor tessellating and calculating final gather etc before unleashing all the processors on drawing the frame

[olson]

that's true, intel now offers 3.33 ghz 6 core xeons for $1800 each and quad opterons have been around for awhile now, but AMD's chips are dinosaur slow compared to the i7/xeons. The only way they can close the gap is with with almost twice as many processors. The systems can make sense if the software being used is threaded really well.


Dinosaur is an exaggeration. They have a slower clock speed but also have lower TDP and cost less overall. I agree though that they are best for applications that are highly parallel (rendering, high end compositing, simulating, etc.) due to the lower clock speed.


maybe I'm wrong but isn't modeling, animating, and texture painting are at least half of what most people do in the 3d animation field? Don't get me wrong, I'd for sure prefer to use a dual 3.33 ghz xeon over a 4 ghz i7, but for me it's not a clear cut improvement when they cost 2-3x as much and you're stuck with their slower clock speeds.


That depends, I spend 90% of my time simulating and lighting because my focus is effects and often light my own elements. So the more cores the better in my situation. Each position will be different. From what the original poster said, most of the tasks are highly parallel (e.g. Nuke and Maya). If half the time the Adobe products will be used then go for a Core i7 and a Opteron or Xeon system, but going for the Core i7 alone is a bad idea in my opinion.


Even if you spend almost twice as long doing test renders with an i7 system, if you bought render nodes with the money saved from not getting a dual xeon, you can still probably get your final renders done faster by a factor of 3 or 4 which would probably make up for that extra test render time.


That also depends. I personally would rather have more power on the workstation so the clients/directors get feedback quicker. If you look at the time spent in lighting for example, it might take four or five days to do the look development for shaders and lighting and only one overnight render for the final render.


Hell, mental ray at least spends a nice chunk of time on one processor tessellating and calculating final gather etc before unleashing all the processors on drawing the frame

For most scenes its probably less than you think, and its usually the disk and network slowing things down anyway not the processor (loading assets like photon caches, geometry, textures, etc.). The only single threaded thing that will slow down a render before it starts is really heavy displacements.

Don't get me wrong on all this, I understand the value of a high clock speed system that is easy on the wallet. Though its not ideal for everyone, especially those who are willing and able to invest in more cores and memory. If given one or the other, I'd take a dual or quad socket workstation over a fast gaming machine any day comparing apples to apples. Better yet, get both if that's an option. Cheers!

[imashination]

If you run a business do you really think it makes any sense to buy an i7 PC over an Dual Xeon Workstation just to safe $1K or $2K?

Did you miss the thread title? he wants to spend $20k on a single machine. If its a couple of grand then even I will tell him to pick the xeon.

Dual Xeons are definitily better as one single CPU.
Just look at your cbscores list! Or don't you even trust your own stuff?

I know that those benchmarks purely reflect the overall render speed of a well threaded app on a scene which is cherry picked to show the largest multi-core speed benefit. It shows absolutely nothing about how fast the machine is to work on in realtime, how fast physics calculations will complete, how fast character rigs will refresh or any of the other vast majority of single threaded uses

Just walk outside into a few studios near you and ask them what hardware they are using! I'll bet most have an Mac, HP or Dell under the table.

Correct. Single chip macs, hp and dell machines.

The whole reason for my insistence on this is because if nobody tells him otherwise, he's going to spend that 20k on a single machine and end up with a machine under the delusion that its somehow faster than one which would have cost a quarter of that. Yes it will render faster, but by that same token he could have build half a dozen render nodes and had 10x the render power.

Buy a fast 4ghz i7 workstation. Spend the rest on render nodes. Any other choice is pissing your money up the wall.

[meleseDESIGN]

I'm affraid, but it's exactly the other way.
To have two CPUs in one machine is more efficient then working on two separate machines.
You can manage cores in most multithread optimized apps.
Give Realflow only 7 cores to calculate simulations while you do modeling, texturing or animation on the left one core.

Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks, because like olson said: "the disk and network slowing things down anyway not the processor", unless you will have render speed. I add that the graphics card will slow down very much too when working with high poly scenes.

Better get two single CPUs into one case as having two cases staying next to each other, it's only waste of room space. Sure Dual Xeon Workstations are a bit more expansive. But how cares when he wants the best performance on one machine?

If you don't have the money or you will not need speed, then an single CPU PC will do just fine, but that's probably just a secondary option for a production environment who is dealing with deadlines.

;)



...even with an expensive high-end Xeon system you'll still need to stop working on the machine while video renders out or film is being scanned (or converted?). With multiple machines you'll have the most efficient workflow and more than likely the quickest turn around time for your work and you may even have money left over (You should do) after the purchase which could be invested in software or just kept for upgrades later on.

[meleseDESIGN]

Ähm, he is using Maya and Nuke without unlimited rendernode licenses.

;)


Yes it will render faster, but by that same token he could have build half a dozen render nodes and had 10x the render power.

Buy a fast 4ghz i7 workstation. Spend the rest on render nodes. Any other choice is pissing your money up the wall.

[DanielWray]

I'm affraid, but it's exactly the other way.
To have two CPUs in one machine is more efficient then working on two separate machines.
You can manage cores in most multithread optimized apps.
Give Realflow only 7 cores to calculate simulations while you do modeling, texturing or animation on the left one core.

Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks, because like olson said: "the disk and network slowing things down anyway not the processor", unless you will have render speed. I add that the graphics card will slow down very much too when working with high poly scenes.

Better get two single CPUs into one case as having two cases staying next to each other, it's only waste of room space. Sure Dual Xeon Workstations are a bit more expansive. But how cares when he wants the best performance on one machine?

If you don't have the money or you will not need speed, then an single CPU PC will do just fine, but that's probably just a secondary option for a production environment who is dealing with deadlines.

;)

You do realise how little space a tower takes up?

He could even buy a small rack chassis and configure some machines to put in there.

To me that's clearly the best way to go about it. After all why would you spend a large amount on a single machine that has to share all of it's resources between two very demanding tasks.

For a home machine, then yea sure go with a dual Xeon set-up. But for a machine that's being used in a studio which will more than likely run 24/7 for rendering and other tasks it makes sense to have a separate, more energy efficient machine(s). :shrug:

EDIT: And a machine which is dedicated to the task at hand. I could image it being very annoying having to set core priorities and manage the system every time you want to have a different application/ task running.

[imashination]

double post

[imashination]

Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks, because like olson said: "the disk and network slowing things down anyway not the processor", unless you will have render speed. I add that the graphics card will slow down very much too when working with high poly scenes.

Lol!, come on, youre just being hilarious now. I mean no offence but saying theres no point getting a cpu faster than 3ghz, im not even sure where to begin with a silly statement like that.

If he's got 20 grand burning a hole in his pocket, disk access speed isnt going to be a problem; my original suggestion was a 6 drive raid 0 and suitable controller, he could easily be sat on 300 meg a sec+ of sequential disk bandwidth for less than a thousand. At no point has he said he'll be working over the network, nor would I suggest he does.

I dont see how drive or network speed factor into the equation in any shape or form

The last sentence is even more pointless, as past around £300 the gfx card is long past being the bottleneck, the bottleneck falls squarely on the cpu... the *very* part you just claimed is useless after 3ghz.

Jesus, its Bill Gates' "640k" statement all over again.

[meleseDESIGN]

I did NOT say this!!!

:rolleyes:

Lol!, come on, youre just being hilarious now. I mean no offence but saying theres no point getting a cpu faster than 3ghz, im not even sure where to begin with a silly statement like that.

[imashination]

I did NOT say this!!!

"Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks"

*cough*

[meleseDESIGN]

If you can read. I said "for single threaded task" it's not implicit needed, unless you will have render speed.
No one wants to pick an overclocked 4GHz single CPU PC when he can choose an 16-thread Dual Xeon 3GHz Workstation.
I THINK you wouldn't neither, or would you?

Honestly, to say single CPU PC's are better in performance then an Dual CPU Workstation wont help anyone here, because it's not the trues.

Anyway. I think this discussion has reached its limit and I wont go any deeper into this fanboy chitchat here. Hope you don't mind.

;)



"Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks"

*cough*

[olson]

Honetsly, you don't need more then 3GHz for single threded tasks, because like olson said: "the disk and network slowing things down anyway not the processor"

Getting off topic here. A processor faster than 3 GHz is a wonderful thing that many could take advantage of. That quote was specifically referring to the single threaded parts of rendering and how a faster processor won't help the single threaded parts of the rendering that much since the disk and/or network bandwidth will be the limiting factors when loading assets (e.g. when starting a render in mental ray it uses a single CPU at the start while its loading stuff). The delay at the start isn't necessarily going to be any faster with a faster processor, that's all I'm saying.

Either way guys, this thread has lost all productivity and its not helping the original poster. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the conversation then let it rest. Cheers!

[meleseDESIGN]

Right, but the frequency isn't all what caunts.
Compare an Xeon 5080 (3,73GHz) with an Xeon X5570 (2,93GHz), the X5570 will be still faster in single threaded tasks - even with its lower frequency. An Xeon X5550 will be faster as an i7 920 in single- AND multithreaded tasks too, even both have the same frequency.

Just two links for comparing an i7 930 and an Xeon X5560 both with the same frequency.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41447
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37109

Have an eye on the QPI Speed and Memory Bandwidth!

It's not that easy to say an CPU with higher frequency will be faster automaticly, because it isn't allways the case.

;)


A processor faster than 3 GHz is a wonderful thing that many could take advantage of.

[Srek]

Comparing clockrates for CPUs of different manufacturing technologies and generations is generaly useless.
A 5080 is a 65nm CPU from four years ago, the X5570 a 45nm CPU and three years younger.

Only if you compare CPUs of the same technology and generation any comparison based on clockrate makes sense.

Cheers
Björn

[meleseDESIGN]

Right, but an Xeon X5560 will be still faster as an i7 930, even both have the same frequency and both are the same generation.

;)


Comparing clockrates for CPUs of different manufacturing technologies and generations is generaly useless.
A 5080 is a 65nm CPU from four years ago, the X5570 a 45nm CPU and three years younger.

Only if you compare CPUs of the same technology and generation any comparison based on clockrate makes sense.

Cheers
Björn

[sentry66]

Comparing clockrates for CPUs of different manufacturing technologies and generations is generaly useless.
A 5080 is a 65nm CPU from four years ago, the X5570 a 45nm CPU and three years younger.

Only if you compare CPUs of the same technology and generation any comparison based on clockrate makes sense.

Cheers
Björn
exactly




Anyway, I really do think there is a time and place when getting a dual xeon can make sense if the primary apps or tasks you do involve drastically multithreaded software. If all software right now was 100% multithreaded efficiently, I'd absolutely recommend dual xeons for most cases unless having more rendernodes was more important.

I guess one question would be, if you had the choice between a single 3.33ghz 5680 xeon and a single 3.33ghz i7 980, and you were buying it with your own money, what would you buy? Does the extra cost for the xeon justify the expense over the i7? The i7 is much more overclock friendly, but maybe it depends if you need more than 24 gigs of ram


In my situation, if I insist on a xeon or dual xeon system, that's money that's taken away from someone else who's then not going to get an upgrade this round of upgrade spending. That encourages everyone to be thrifty and think in terms of what's best for the team as a whole.

[imashination]

If you can read. I said "for single threaded task"
Single threaded or multiple threaded has absolutely nothing at all in any way to do with it.

No one wants to pick an overclocked 4GHz single CPU PC when he can choose an 16-thread Dual Xeon 3GHz Workstation. I THINK you wouldn't neither, or would you?

I just replaced a 3ghz 8 core dual xeon with a single 4ghz i7 this week. For virtually everything it leaves the slower xeon in the dust by a large margin, so actually yes, I would and I just have.

Its marginally slower at rendering, but thats what render nodes are for; and if he picks the cheaper i7 he will be able to afford a lot of them.

Honestly, to say single CPU PC's are better in performance then an Dual CPU Workstation wont help anyone here, because it's not the trues.

Then youre simply ignorant of the facts, which probably explains the 48 gigs of ram youve never come close to utilising.

An Xeon X5550 will be faster as an i7 920 in single- AND multithreaded tasks too, even both have the same frequency.

But you wont be able to show me this because its not based on reality. A single nehalem i7 and xeon at the same GHz will give identical benchmarks in virtually any content creation app.

[meleseDESIGN]

I just replaced a 3ghz 8 core dual xeon with a single 4ghz i7 this week. For virtually everything it leaves the slower xeon in the dust by a large margin, so actually yes, I would and I just have.

This is good for you, but not for the thread opener.
Also you're comparing different generations too.
Wouldn't take an 8 core Dual Xeon 65nm Socket 771 machine over an i7 PC neither.
But I would take an 16 thread Dual Xeon 45nm Socket 1366 Workstation over an i7 PC for sure, because it offers much more performance as any i7 PC.



Its marginally slower at rendering, but thats what render nodes are for; and if he picks the cheaper i7 he will be able to afford a lot of them.

I think you're missing slowly the point here.
The thread opener wasn't asking for a renderfarm!



Then youre simply ignorant of the facts, which probably explains the 48 gigs of ram youve never come close to utilising.

I had allready many times when I hit the 48GB while working with After Effects.
We had this discussion allready. Yeah, AE sucks because it's hungry for RAM.
But I say, it's allways better to have more gasoline in the tank as currently needed. ;-)



But you wont be able to show me this because its not based on reality. A single nehalem i7 and xeon at the same GHz will give identical benchmarks in virtually any content creation app.

Right, I have no option to show you that. But it's self-explanatory because Xeon nehalem processors have higher QPI speed and supports higher memory bandwidth as their counterpart i7's.

;)

[sentry66]

48 gb for AE.

I'm also an AE user and I know how much the machine hogs all available resources when rendering in multiprocessor mode. The machine is completely useless to work in when all your memory is used and so you're forced to take a break which is a real bummer when you should still be working.

I know your motherboard has 6 ram slots, so you probably bought 6 of those 8gb $600 ram chips.

Just say for a second you were content with 24 gigs of memory and could instead get away with using 6 $150 4 gig sticks. You'd save $2700 which could have bought yourself a couple i7 machines with the AE renderer to do network rendering.

Your primary workstation wouldn't be tied up with no available ram to do other things in (which as you've also probably found, if you did try to do other things, eventually it triggers the AE render to stall, so you really DO have to leave the machine alone).

Your main workstation could also render the AE file, but just in normal mode. In all, you'd probably render the file in around the same amount of time if not faster if the i7's were overclocked which would more than compensate for network lag, and yet you could still be working on other things while it did it.

[meleseDESIGN]

And that's exactly the case.
Maya and Nuke doing pretty well with more threads.
Don't know much about Adobe CS5, but I read there are some changes going on as well.

;)

Anyway, I really do think there is a time and place when getting a dual xeon can make sense if the primary apps or tasks you do involve drastically multithreaded software.

[sentry66]

I agree about Nuke

but eh, maya isn't exactly stellar at multithreading...2011 is way way better, but most tools and functions in it are still single threaded.

I have my task manager open all the time on my 2nd monitor and over the last 10 years have watched it everytime maya makes me wait. I see how often only 1 processor is being used and it's quite often...I'm not making this up


now adobe.....is the absolute example of sucky multithreading design. I use photoshop and AE and hardly anything really uses multiple processors. At best, certain things might use 2 threads. Ideally, AE would not eat up all your ram in "multiprocessing" mode. It'd just use the ram needed for 1 frame and have all cpus render that 1 frame, then quickly move on.

[meleseDESIGN]

Like I said, you can manage RAM and Core usage in pretty any multithread optimzied application.
Give AE only 7 Cores and let's say 24GB RAM and you can still do your textures, animation or modeling on the other left cores and unused RAM.

By the way, I paid only around $200 for each module from an wholesaler, they were pretty cheap because through the insolvency of Qimonda - the wholesaler told me.

;)



48 gb for AE.

I'm also an AE user and I know how much the machine hogs all available resources when rendering in multiprocessor mode. The machine is completely useless to work in when all your memory is used and so you're forced to take a break which is a real bummer when you should still be working.

[sentry66]

oh you mean like setting the affinity lower in the task manager? hmm does that actually prevent it from using all the ram then? I'll have to try that.

off hand, that seems tricky since it quickly launches all those AE renderer instances up real quick, but maybe if you change the affinity to the program before rendering it'll respect that? I guess I always assumed AE would just keep launching render instances until you ran out of ram since it always seems to want to launch 1 more thread than you actually have just to ensure the machine is floored.

so far, for cpu intensive AE projects. I've been using a few of the faster machines in the renderfarm to render the frames via smedge. That way I could keep working and still have most of my computer's power

wow, $200 for 8 gig ram sticks is a smoking deal. I would've done the same. I'd be curious to see what performance improvement you get by turning virtual memory completely off

[meleseDESIGN]

Yes, that's what hyperthreading and multiple cores are made for, to run different tasks at the same time.
In general it also means you can run and work with multiple applications at the same time.

;)

[sentry66]

Yes, that's what hyperthreading and multiple cores are made for, to run different tasks at the same time.
In general it also means you can run and work with multiple applications at the same time.

;)


Oh I know, I've been running multiple apps doing multiple things at different priorities since Windows NT 4.0...;)

the AE muliprocessing rendering is a little bit of a shoddy hack on adobe's part and has been temperamental on the 4 different machines I've used it on so far. I usually get faster render times using the farm anyway, but mainly was just curious if the AE render instances actually respected the affinity set to the master AfterFX.exe before you hit the render button.

[meleseDESIGN]

It works actually pretty well. Most of the time I have only 3 instances runing, 1 master and 2 for rendering. Working in other apps while AE is rendering is no probelm at all, only you need to adjust correct settings to have enough CPU power left to be able to work smooth in other apps simultaneously.

But let's not talk more about AE and its multithreading issues and better get back to topic.

;)



the AE muliprocessing rendering is a little bit of a shoddy hack on adobe's part and has been temperamental on the 4 different machines I've used it on so far. I usually get faster render times using the farm anyway, but mainly was just curious if the AE render instances actually respected the affinity set to the master AfterFX.exe before you hit the render button.

[DieMachinist]

Am I the only one who thinks that OP does not have 20k to spend and has taken all of you for a ride? :) Unless we are talking Zimbabwe $.

20k on a single machine is crazy unless you are minted.

[Srek]

But it's self-explanatory because Xeon nehalem processors have higher QPI speed and supports higher memory bandwidth as their counterpart i7's.

;)

I have never witnessed, nor meassured or felt any difference between comparable Xeon and Core i7 systems. Synthetic benchmarks might show a difference, but certainly nothing you encounter in the reality of 3D content creation.
Cheers
Björn

[sentry66]

I have never witnessed, nor meassured or felt any difference between comparable Xeon and Core i7 systems. Synthetic benchmarks might show a difference, but certainly nothing you encounter in the reality of 3D content creation.
Cheers
Björn

Yeah, it'll be awhile before the 6.4 GT/s QPI is even remotely utilized, even with multiple xeons and DDR7 if such a thing existed. The standard 4.8 is already more bandwidth than can be used right now and for a long, long time.

The Extreme Edition i7's have 6.4. It's not exclusive to the xeons.
Also if you overclock the BLCK anyway, the effective QPI increases
a 4ghz i7 920 runs the QPI at 7.2 GT/s via overclocking the BLCK

It's a great marketing strategy though. Some people seem to think it's going to give them a faster real-world speed

[meleseDESIGN]

It's NOT a marketing strategie (some people doesn't even know those little differences), but your welcome. ;-)
Even your i7 930 has lower specs he consumed 130Watts under load compared to his counterpart the Xeon X5560 who consumed maximal 95 Watts with better specifications (some ppl don't know those little differences neither, so your welcome again ;-). An overclocked i7 is even more worse in power consumption, what is generally bad to overclock an CPU.

Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about overclocking and it could good be he doesn't want to have an overclocked time bomb under his table.

;)


It's a great marketing strategy though. Some people seem to think it's going to give them a faster real-world speed

[sentry66]

It's NOT a marketing strategie (some people doesn't even know those little differences), but your welcome. ;-)
Even your i7 930 has lower specs he consumed 130Watts under load compared to his counterpart the Xeon X5560 who consumed maximal 95 Watts with better specifications (some ppl don't know those little differences neither, so your welcome again ;-). An overclocked i7 is even more worse in power consumption, what is generally bad to overclock an CPU.

Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about overclocking and it could good be he doesn't want to have an overclocked time bomb under his table.

;)


um, that's 95 watts at idle vs 130 watts at idle.

running full loads, the wattage consumption is the same which is a little under 300 watts for the cpu alone

Overclocking from 2.8 up to 4 ghz consumes around 400 watts
dual 2.8 ghz xeons will consume about 600 watts at load total.
dual 2.8 ghz xeons use 50% more power consumption for 40% more performance compared to a 4 ghz i7 930


If xeons only used 95 watts at load, they wouldn't need the extreme high wattage power supplies and could totally get away with using a 200 watt power supply and the whole world wouldn't be so concerned about computer power consumption.

[meleseDESIGN]

Not at all.
I had two X5570 runing with an 550Watts PSU even with TM enabled and I messured around 400Watts when all cores are runing at 100% (for the hole system, RAM, gfx card in 2D mode, Board, 4x HDDs, 5 Fans included). I messured near the same (350Watts) with an overclocked 4GHz i7 920 CPU and I didn't even had so much RAM, HDDs and Fans installed.

You could messure your system with an energy saving timer.
Dual Xeons will NEVER consume 600Watts at total load and an i7 wont neither.

;)


um, that's 95 watts at idle vs 130 watts at idle.

running full loads, the wattage consumption is the same which is just under 300 watts for the cpu alone

Overclocking from 2.8 up to 4 ghz consumes around 400 watts
dual 2.8 ghz xeons will consume about 600 watts at load total. 50% more power consumption for 40% more performance

[sentry66]

ok, I looked up some numbers it appears I was wrong on a few power consumption numbers which is interesting.

A stock 3.33 ghz 6-core i7 980 runs about 263 watts at load
A 4.13 ghz 6-core i7 980 uses about 322 watts at load

A stock 2.8 ghz i7 930 uses about 216 watts at load
A 4.3 ghz i7 930 uses about 396 watts at load.

Dual 3.2 ghz 5580 xeons seem to take up 386 watts
Dual 2.66 ghz 5650 xeons take up 336 watts

sources:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/6
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-980x-efficiency,2590-8.html


I always knew higher clockspeeds ramped up power consumption. And at the end of the day, working in a poorly threaded app like photoshop, After Effects, and about half of Maya, the higher clockspeeds will run the majority of functions in them faster. For batch rendering frames out or specific multiprocessor aware tasks, the dual xeons will be faster and amazingly, consume less power even with two of them.

[olson]

This isn't even the same topic anymore. Forums double as knowledge bases and this one is starting to dribble. :hmm:

[sentry66]

well I don't know, I just learned that xeons are almost twice as power efficient under load as i7's. Maybe I'll factor that into my decision making next time I'm buying computers.

It took this whole thread for that to be brought to light. Even 3 pages ago when I incorrectly assumed two xeons would suck up 600 watts under load, it took 2 more days for that to be addressed and corrected

I have no doubt the OP will end up getting a dual xeon or quad or 8 cpu opteron system

[gaianix]

thnx to all
theres a fact this machin has to work 24/7
and yep, me and my partners in studio r going 2 xeon .
hp z800
(2 Intel® Xeon® Quad-Core X5570 processor (2.93 GHz, 8 MB cache, 1333 MHz memory)
12Gb ECC ram
HHd going to set 4hhd on raid 0
Matrox Axio LE for Real time editing
about video card Q fx 5800

and "meleseDESIGN" r u buy from brand like HP dell or boxx?

[meleseDESIGN]

@sentry66
Someone was telling you more then twice that a Dual CPU system is more efficient as Single CPU.
I did choose the X5570 Xeons over the W55XX Serie for exact this reason, because they have
only an TDP of 95Watts, the W55XX Serie have an TDP of 130Watts, what is a hugh step
compared to the tiny weeny bit more computing power.

@gaianix
We have two of the Z800 too in the studio, those are great systems.
You might will have a look at IRIDAS site to learn more precise details about FrameCycler,
since I figured out the Matrox LE will playback only SD footage in realtime.
Playing realtime uncompressed 2K/4K footage is a great feature and far cheaper through
software, such as FrameCycler as an example.
My signature represents my personal home Workstation. It's a self built and I bought the
parts mostly separatly from various vendors - as a matter of course with a 3 years warranty.

;)

[gaianix]

thnx meleseDESIGN, i will check iridas.
u r home workstation seems great but whats ur motherboard??

i guess when final suite cs5 come out, in studio we have to shift on 64bit os:buttrock: and pay for 64bit softwares and plug-ins again:shrug:

[meleseDESIGN]

It's an Asus Z8NA-D6 ATX board with an Pike 1068E SAS controller extension for the 8 on-board SAS (beside 6 SATA) ports.

FrameCycler works also much better with more RAM on an 64-bit Workstation, the more RAM is installed, the longer the realtime playback full-length with less waiting periods.

;)

[lazzhar]

Well, it looks like the core i7 920 is rendering(Maya mental ray) with the same speed as the dual quad core Xeon I used to work with. However, when rendering, the i7 machine is less responsive than the orthers. So it's a bit of problem to continue working while rendering in the background.
That's what I have noticed if it makes any sense.

[sentry66]

yeah having two physical processors is always more responsive than 1. That's one thing I miss about not having a dual setup. But you can just go into the task manager in the processes tab and lower maya's priority and you'll be able to continue working

[lazzhar]

yeah having two physical processors is always more responsive than 1. That's one thing I miss about not having a dual setup. But you can just go into the task manager in the processes tab and lower maya's priority and you'll be able to continue working
Yeah that's true , but on an single i7 machine it's odd that it doesn't give you a "realtime "responsiveness whenever you want to do something else.

[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.