View Full Version : more bang for the buck

12 December 2003, 10:27 PM
I'm thinking of putting together a small render farm but I don't know what would be better. Is it better to get a p4 3 gig with ht technology for $1500 or 2 amd 2.4 gig computers for the same price? Whats faster, whats more reliable? any help would be appreciated.

12 December 2003, 11:07 PM
First of all there are no AMD 2.4gig machines, i think your getting it confused with an AMD 2400 which runs at 2ghz...the 2400 is a PR rating. I wont go into that , a forum search will give all the info you need.

I would personally go for the 2 AMD's as i they will be faster, not as a single machine but together they will have more processing power than the P4.

In terms of stability it all depends on how well the machines are built and the quality of the components used. For instance, a well built AMD machine and a well built P4 machine will be just as stable as each other.

Hope this helps.

12 December 2003, 01:20 AM
thanks for the info DaForce.

I did some bargain hunting and I found 2 pc's that look good and one that looks a little exensive comparitivly. Both are shuttle systems, I don't know if those are good or bad but there nice and small.

1: Athlon XP 2400, 1 gig pc2100 ram, 80 GB seagate HD - $460

2: Celeron 2.4, 1 gig pc2100 ram, 80 GB seagate HD - $480

3: P4 2.6 HT, 1 gig pc2100 ram, 80 GB seagate HD - $630

Assuming that shuttle components are good, which of these would be best for rendering from max 5? Also is the speed boost from HT worth the $150 price jump? I'll search the forums as well.

12 December 2003, 01:30 AM
ok, ditch the celeron, they are complete rubbish for 3d rendering.

If you were only going to get one box, i would get the P4, as it will be fast in max especially with the HT. Alhough it is a rather large price jump, render time would be at most 10-15% quicker i think.

12 December 2003, 01:53 AM
Compared to the Athlon, the P4 with HT should be 30-40% faster, this would more than justify the price increase imho.

12 December 2003, 02:13 AM
i swear AMDs naming convention probably tricked people into half of the sales.

i'm buying a 1800 oh it must mean 1.8 ghz... why would they do that... don't answer that, i know why.

12 December 2003, 03:02 AM
Or were people tricked into thinking more megahertz equals faster?

12 December 2003, 04:11 AM
If you're just using the comps as render nodes, you don't need 80 GB HDs. Get like 10 GB HDs (off eBay or something), just for the OS, the software, and maybe a couple extra things. It'll shave off at least a $100 from your expense. On another forum I spec'd building a MicroATX comp with 2.8 GHz P4 HT, 1 GB RAM, CD-rom, 10 Gb HD for $477That excludes OS (and shipping+tax, which is cheap), which could be bought in one copy and cloned (assuming all the machines are the same) or you can just use Linux for free. : $37 : $195 : $153 : $29 $20 : $36

Total: $470

Of course, you'll have to get a few other things, like thermal grease and so on, but shave off the 80 GB HD and you'll get a much better deal. And these you have to build, which'll take an additional what, 20 hours total. But the price difference ($150 per machine) and even .2 GHz increase is worth it.

Ya Neil, maybe AMD named their products like that because megahertz doesn't mean anything between chipsets anymore. An AMD 1800 is about equivalent to a P4 1.8.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 11:00 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.