CGTalk > Technical > Technical and Hardware
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-13-2012, 01:56 PM   #1
mustique
Expert
copywriter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,014
New Coproccesors = Desktop Renderfarms?

Nvidia, AMD and Intel recently anounced their new coproccesors bringing more than 1 Teraflop of DP compute power on our desks.

We know that there are new renderengines out there for the GPU but Intel has anounced the Xeon Phi which has about 50-60 cpu cores on one PCI card. And they claim minimal effort for code optimisation due to the X86 architecture advantage.

Does that mean that we could get almost realtime raytracing for MR, Vray, Maxwell(!), Arnold etc soon?
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:09 PM   #2
mister3d
Expert
 
mister3d's Avatar
portfolio
asdasd adsasd
Kiev, Ukraine
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,030
Can you provide the source? Anyway, they will be very high priced.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:19 PM   #3
mustique
Expert
copywriter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,014
There are lots of sources from semiaccurate.com to theregister.co.uk, actually most tech sites cover them.

As for prices it's around
$2000-2700 for the XeonPhi cards (add a normal Xeon cpu price to that)
$3200-4000 for nvidia tesla K20&K20X

At semiaccurate.com, the talk is that XeonPhi takes a single line of code for multithreaded software to take advantage of massive speedups. With no modification at all, your application would already run 2-3 times faster. If that's true this is huge news and can mean a desktop renderfarm for current offline raytracers.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:23 PM   #4
AJ1
User
 
AJ1's Avatar
CGTalk Forum Leader
portfolio
A J
Indiana, USA
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,810
These look pretty cool. They concept was announced a while ago, but It looks like the brand just rolled out today.

I don't see these having a huge impact on the CG world. There're meant for the HPC sector, where high single node performance is a must. I would image they fill the same niche market role as the tesla cards.

Looks like the cheapest one is about 3k.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412048,00.asp

-AJ
__________________
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:26 PM   #5
pokoy
dental floss tycoon
 
pokoy's Avatar
portfolio
Marcin Gruszczyk
Germany
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,293
The 50-60 cores per card are a bit misleading. They're running at ~1 GHz so it's not the same kind of GHz-per-core ratio that we know from desktop CPUs.
Additionally, according to the numbers here, speedup factor is somewhere at 2-3x compared to a Dual E5 setup running at 2.6 GHz. Plus, and that's something I haven't been aware of until today, they come with on-board memory, around 6-8 GB, it appears they won't be able to use your system's RAM. Price tag around 2500 USD.
I have only been loosely reading the article so correct me if I'm wrong...
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:29 PM   #6
ambient-whisper
Gone travelling :D
 
ambient-whisper's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Martin Krol
Pixomondo
Canada
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,630

By the time one of those is within a decent price range ( maybe used even? ), a desktop cpu will be faster.

I usually spend money in a way where I think of the long term investment. For example, I could buy a quadro card today for $2000 ( just a hypothetical number ), Or I could buy a few geforce cards today for a few machines.. or maybe spend that same $2000 over time to buy and upgrade new cards for the next 5 years. Within that 5 year period, that $2000 quadro will be useless, while the new $300 geforce will run circles around that old quadro. Same with CPUs, and other expensive parts.

The one question you have to find out is, how fast will those 50 cores be?! If they are running on a single pciE card, then I cant imagine it would be very fast per core, otherwise the temperatures would run extremely hot.

I am not saying I dont like the idea, and who wouldnt want faster rendering... but realistically speaking, this tech isnt made for the average joe.

Because the ram is fixed as well, it means that your bucket size will be limited as well on huge scenes. If you have 50 cores, and 6gb ram, then that means that each core will get approximately 120 mb per bucket/core Currently on my machine I get approximately 5333mb ram per bucket/core.

Last edited by ambient-whisper : 11-13-2012 at 02:34 PM.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:33 PM   #7
mustique
Expert
copywriter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ1
...I don't see these having a huge impact on the CG world. There're meant for the HPC sector, where high single node performance is a must. I would image they fill the same niche market role as the tesla cards...J


Isn't a renderfarm a HPC too? I assume with GPU renderers making good use of Tesla, the same could apply to Intel's solution. Well, I hope so at least.

Would be cool to know what software developers think about this, from a CG POV.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein

Last edited by mustique : 11-13-2012 at 02:38 PM.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:50 PM   #8
mustique
Expert
copywriter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,014
@ambient-whisper

I have a similar habbit when buying hardware, but what got me excited about that tech, is that we could potentially get speedups for rendering with ordinary offline renderers that would otherwise take, maybe 10 years to come to our desks.

Cause AFAIK, current top Xeon cpus deliver just 125 DP GFlop of compute power, versus 1.1 Tflop (10 times more)
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:59 PM   #9
ambient-whisper
Gone travelling :D
 
ambient-whisper's Avatar
CGSociety Member
portfolio
Martin Krol
Pixomondo
Canada
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,630

Quote:
Originally Posted by mustique
@ambient-whisper

I have a similar habbit when buying hardware, but what got me excited about that tech, is that we could potentially get speedups for rendering with ordinary offline renderers that would otherwise take, maybe 10 years to come to our desks.

Cause AFAIK, current top Xeon cpus deliver just 125 DP GFlop of compute power, versus 1.1 Tflop (10 times more)


Thats when you learn to..

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/product...eramapping.html

Though obviously for things like fluids solving and such, theres less you can do to optimize. It will take long either way.

For most things however, optimizing/ and breaking up of shots into smaller elements can really take you a long way.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:13 PM   #10
AJ1
User
 
AJ1's Avatar
CGTalk Forum Leader
portfolio
A J
Indiana, USA
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustique
Isn't a renderfarm a HPC too?


Yes they are. But render farms aren't typically funded by taxpayers, research grants, or a large corporation desperately trying to secure a beefy defense contract.

Looks like they've been using these things to upgrade existing supercomputers that are running on Xeon E-5 boards. From what I've been reading, they are designed to crunch the type of computations needed for financial, defense, and astrophysics work. No mention of trying to make my renders go faster .

-AJ
__________________
 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:16 PM   #11
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
I personally believe that Intel is aiming Xeon Phi not just at "High Performance Computing", but also at accelerating DCC applications like 3D Rendering Software and Editing/Post Production tools.

So the notion that your favorite CG renderer will soon run 5 - 10 times faster on a Xeon Phi coprocessor card is not terribly far fetched.

Neither is being able to Colorgrade 8K resolution footage in realtime, or being able to compress 1080 HD video 5 - 10 times faster than was possible on a Core i7 or similar CPU.

As for "automatic multithreading" or "intelligent multithreading", Microsoft's .NET software architecture has had that option for some time.

You can run a PARALLEL FOR loop in .NET languages like C++/C# for graphics/pixel operations, scanning a say 800 x 600 pixel large image left-to-right, top-to-bottom in the process.

PARALLEL FOR will automatically farm different parts of the image/pixel operation out to available CPU threads, thereby causing an automatic speedup of the operation using multiple CPU cores.

Xeon Phi probably has something similar to this. When it detects a function that can be parallelized across many cores, it will do that automatically.

This is not as efficient as writing properly optimized multithreaded code by hand.

But yes, in some cases automatic multithreading can give you a 2 - 4 times speedup.

If you want to use the full parallel-processing potential of the co-processor card though, you need to break functions up into proper threads by hand, which means that the imaging operation uses multiple scanlines or render tiles to get the job done.


Of course Intel could have done something really clever with Xeon Phi, such as detecting intelligently virtually any scenario where X86 code can be parallelized, and having the Xeon Phi board parallel-execute it nearly as fast as though a programmer had written multithreaded code to begin with.

If this is the case, Xeon Phi boards may be able to speed up even legacy X86 applications without a programmer having to wade through 1000s of lines of performance-sensitive code,
and optiziming it manually for multithreaded execution.

A function like this would definitely separate Xeon Phi from Nvidia and AMD's GPU-based solutions.

Just imagine: You write regular, single-threaded X86 code, and Xeon Phi automatically parallelizes it during execution!

If it does this, and does it efficiently, that would be a HUGE benefit to have over the Nvidia/AMD solutions, where you have to rewrite ALL of your code in CUDA/OpenCL just to get it running on the GPU at all...
 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:25 PM   #12
Lomax
Lord of the posts
 
Lomax's Avatar
portfolio
Jared Lindquist
Technical Animator
Limited Slip Studio
Orlando, United%2BStates
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 707
There's always going to be something to keep render times slow. Hardware and software is like an arms race, with both constantly trying to catch up with and out-do the other.
__________________

 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:37 PM   #13
pokoy
dental floss tycoon
 
pokoy's Avatar
portfolio
Marcin Gruszczyk
Germany
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
If it does this, and does it efficiently, that would be a HUGE benefit to have over the Nvidia/AMD solutions, where you have to rewrite ALL of your code in CUDA/OpenCL just to get it running on the GPU at all...


QFA. Still, if you have to invest in another ecosystem not fully using your system resources (RAM) it's not going to change my world. Why would I want to spend money on a card using only its on-board memory when my system already has 24 or 32 GBs and it's not going to kick in on almost all of the stuff I'm rendering?

It's this either-or that makes hesitant about investing in it. Be it CUDA or Phi, they'll only help you with the easier stuff.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:37 PM   #14
sentry66
Expert
 
sentry66's Avatar
portfolio
node crazy
USA
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,034
new article just came out yesterday
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...e-hpc,3342.html

It talks about the supercomputers that are making use of the phi's.

According to intel's research, the phi can accelerate raytracing by up to 1.88x on a 2.7gz 16-core dual xeon E5-2680 when compared to just the dual E5-2680 alone. This makes me think real world performance would be more like 1.5-1.6x for most renderers on a dual xeon system.

In January the price of their initial released phi will be around $2700 and then they'll release a faster, higher end version later in the year.

Since its performance is somewhat fixed and its performance was estimated on an almost top of the line dual xeon system, I'd guess that if you had a regular 6-core i7 workstation, you could possibly get around 2x the rendering performance and for a 4-core i7 you'd get almost 3x the rendering performance. That's an interesting prospect considering a i7 workstation usually costs around $2-4k depending on what you get. At $2700, a phi might be worth considering for an i7 workstation, and absolutely worth buying for a $7000-14000 dual xeon workstation

IMO these aren't worth the money for small renderfarms unless you're buying $7000+render nodes and are building a high density super computer or a pro renderfarm to compete with Pixar and Lucusfilm. IMO most of us probably get much more renderfarm CPU performance for the money buying cheap $1500-2000 i7 boxes and possibly overclocking. Even considering the price of render software licenses, I'm not sure the price/performance of the phi make it completely attractive for small renderfarms.

I'm also not sure how its onboard 6 gigs of memory plays into rendering. Maybe for heavy scenes it just won't work. Or maybe each processor uses a few megs for caching data for render tiles and it'll render heavy scenes just fine? I don't know.

Last edited by sentry66 : 11-13-2012 at 04:03 PM.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 03:51 PM   #15
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
The very first release of something new - like Xeon Phi - is always going to be "pricy" for what it actually does.

Give it 3 - 5 years, so Intel can make their solution smaller and more efficient, and we may very well see Xeon Phi co-processor boards with say 500 Cores & 32GB RAM @ 3,000 Dollars or so.

At some point in the game, Xeon Phi will probably become efficient enough in terms of Price:Performance ratio for multiple software 3D renderers to be ported to it.

The fact that the architecture is based on plain old X86 is a HUGE plus for Xeon Phi.

One of the overlooked advantages of this is that existing, mature, advanced X86 Compilers can be modified quite easily for use with the Xeon Phi board.

Also hand-optimized X86 Assembly code, which is in almost all render engines, in the really speed-sensitive parts, should be easier to port to Xeon Phi than to, say, Nvidia CUDA or AMD OpenCL.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.