VRAY slow on AMD FX8350

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2013   #1
Exclamation VRAY slow on AMD FX8350

Hello guys, I'm fighting with this issue for long time without any solution...
(I'm italian forgive my bad english).

I'm rendering an animation with Vray 2 and 3DS Max 2011.
I'm asking a friend of mine some help, and I cannot understand why, but his renders are 250% faster than mine, even though I've a better computer.



Of course the scene is EXACTLY the same, with EXACTLY the same Vray Preset, texture, etc.

I've an AMD FX 8350, with 16GB RAM.
He has an I7-2600 with 8GB RAM.

My render time per frame (on same scene, same settings, etc.) is: 25mins.
His render time is: 10 mins.



How is it possible?!?! What's wrong!??!
I've already made a benchmark and everything seems to work perfectly. All the 8 cores are working at 100% at 4k clock. The RAM is working (9gb/16). Everything is good, but the render time... I've tried to install a newer version of Vray and also a brand new version of Max, but the problem remains.

So, my question is: how is it possible? Can some installed software create conflict with Vray?
Do I have to format? Or there's some glitch? I've to use BIOS settings? What can slow down my render time comparing to my friend's one?

I'm going crazy!
PLEASE HELP!
 
Old 04 April 2013   #2
What kind of motherboard and memory are you working with? These may be factors, but most importantly you're going to need to optimize your FX to get it working optimally. I've had great results from the Sabertooth 990FX motherboards. But also, I'm using ProcessLasso which is a third-party "Task Manager" style application that really rocks. It helps tune your processes and keeps the OS much more responsive as a result. I did some benchmarks awhile back with and without it, and Maya/mental ray were rendering a good 10% faster with ProcessLasso helping out.

Have you installed the latest FX fixes for Windows 7? They should be part of your Windows Updates, but I'm not sure now as it's been awhile since I first tuned up my FX-8120.

I'm using a prior-generation FX-8120 myself, and it's blazing fast; 5GHz on air alone, when clocked up a bit. But that said, as an 8-core CPU even at 5GHz it barely keeps up with my older 6-core Phenom X6 1100T @ 3.3GHz (the then-flagship CPU from AMD). It's different tech inside, and the Bulldozer much like the Intel chips can be considered a 4+4 core CPU - 4 physical CPUs and then 4 secondary cores sharing memory resources with the first four.

I'm keeping my 1100T around for awhile still; 6 physical cores instead of 4 Bulldozer modules still renders a little faster, generally. The FX chips are great for the money, but still won't beat out Intel's best chips for speed or efficiency.
__________________
Commodore 64 @ 1MHz
64KB RAM
1541 Floppy Drive


"Like stone we battle the wind... Beat down and strangle the rains..."
 
Old 04 April 2013   #3
Thank you so much for your reply...
Regaring mobo:
Mine is ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3
My friend's ASUS P8P67 LE

For RAM and other info, take a look to this 2 pictures:

MY FRIEND


ME


I can understand little improvements as you suggest with Win7 patch, etc., like 10% or 20% faster, but that my friend is rendering in 10 minutes and I'm rendering in 25 minutes is making me crazy!!! I guess that it could be a software problem, not hardware.
According with the benchmark, my CPU and RAM are better than his ones...

Last edited by chaosmonger : 04 April 2013 at 07:52 PM.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #4
Sorry to say, but chances are you are an AMD marketing victim.
The 8350 isn't a real 8 core CPU. It's a 4 core CPU with 4 additonal integer only processing units. A renderer usually mostly needs floating point calculations, so half of the cores are not contributing nearly as much as you think.
Having said that, it shouldn't fair as bad against the 2700, since that is also a 4 core chip. At the same clock speed current intel chips are usualy a bit faster than AMD. Imo your friend has overclocked his 2700k quite a bit.
Cheers
Björn
__________________
- www.bonkers.de -
The views expressed on this post are my personal opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #5
Did you check the MEMORY ALLOCATION TAB in VRAY SETTINGS?
on both machines?
also PAGE FILE on both systems?
__________________
http://trideval.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04 April 2013   #6
Ok, we made a benchmark scene, restarting our machines, both me and my friend.
I'm little bit faster than my friend!!!

Here the final results:

ME:


MY FRIEND:


So, what could be the problem on a bigger scene?
Textures? Lights?
Of course the scene where he is 2.5X faster is quite complicated, 4 characters with bones, wires, links, high quality texture, resolution 1920x. But seems that my computer is faster...
 
Old 04 April 2013   #7
Why dont you check what I've told you, just one post above??
__________________
http://trideval.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04 April 2013   #8
Originally Posted by okmijun: Why dont you check what I've told you, just one post above??


Ok, sorry. Regarding the page file, I've setted manually from 2 to 4 GB on the same drive (different partition) from where I've the rendering files (texture, etc.).
My friend is keeping the system default settings.

For the MEMORY ALLOCATION TAB, we are both using the same VRay preset. So I guess it's the same, and anyway, I've double of his RAM (16GB vs 8GB) and same ram speed.

What kind of memory settings (tab) are you talking about? Is not loaded with the same preset?

 
Old 04 April 2013   #9
Originally Posted by Srek: Sorry to say, but chances are you are an AMD marketing victim.
The 8350 isn't a real 8 core CPU. It's a 4 core CPU with 4 additonal integer only processing units. A renderer usually mostly needs floating point calculations, so half of the cores are not contributing nearly as much as you think.
Having said that, it shouldn't fair as bad against the 2700, since that is also a 4 core chip. At the same clock speed current intel chips are usualy a bit faster than AMD. Imo your friend has overclocked his 2700k quite a bit.
Cheers
Björn


The FX-8350 is not a quad core processor. It's an eight core processor and every two cores share a floating point unit. Also consider the price difference in the platforms, the AMD processor with a motherboard is about half the price of the Intel processor with a motherboard.

For the original poster, sorry it doesn't live up to your expectations but that's not the processor's fault. Do more research next time to understand what you're buying/building. Having said that, there might be some configuration issues with the AMD machine. The Intel processor is faster, but it's not that much faster.
__________________
http://www.whenpicsfly.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #10
Originally Posted by olson: The FX-8350 is not a quad core processor. It's an eight core processor and every two cores share a floating point unit.

As an engineer i see four full blown cores and four less usefull ones. As a marketing guy i would see eight cores plus four additional FPU units.
Since the days of the 80486DX x86 CPUs have an integrated FPU, the decision of AMD to split this up is only a marketing gimmick to enable them to promote 8 core CPUs at low prices. There are many customers who thought that these cores were comparable to what Intel offers, which they aren't. AMD redefined the term core for their purposes, while technically correct it just isn't the same thing.
Cheers
Björn
__________________
- www.bonkers.de -
The views expressed on this post are my personal opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.
 
Old 04 April 2013   #11
Originally Posted by chaosmonger: Ok, sorry. Regarding the page file, I've setted manually from 2 to 4 GB on the same drive (different partition) from where I've the rendering files (texture, etc.).
My friend is keeping the system default settings.

For the MEMORY ALLOCATION TAB, we are both using the same VRay preset. So I guess it's the same, and anyway, I've double of his RAM (16GB vs 8GB) and same ram speed.

What kind of memory settings (tab) are you talking about? Is not loaded with the same preset?




A - make page file, AT LEAST at 20GB, for current high poly scenes it is needed
B - go to this image

http://www.aleso3d.com/blog/wp-cont...er-settings.jpg

check the 3rd part of image and

SETTINGS > VRAY SYSTEM > DYNAMIC MEMORY LIMIT/ DEFAULT GEOMETRY
make it DEFAULT GEOMETRY>>> AUTO
and MEMORY LIMIT >>>> to the 80-90% amount of phisical RAM

....

hope I made this clear for you
__________________
http://trideval.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04 April 2013   #12
Ok, I made the settings as okmijun suggest, but without any noticeable results.

I cannot understand all the discussion by Srek (Bjorn).
I don't care about AMD policy or marketing. What I know is that on many benchmarks my AMD FX 8350 is better than I7-2600. Also on the small VRay scene used as benchmark, on the 2 tests that me and my friend made (see the pictures above), I was little bit faster.

In any case that he is 2.5X faster on a complicated scene is crazy! Doesn't matter AMD, Intel or whatever. 2.5X faster is too much and I need to understand what's the problem. So I'm asking help to you.

If the problem is on a complicated scene, what else could be? The loading time of the textures? (seems that my HardDrive is faster and I made a test on a SSD drive without any change).
The RAM for calculating the polys? I've more RAM and more paging than he. Maybe my RAM is not working properly? The power to the CPU (maybe there's some problem when the CPU is demanding more power)? The CPU FAN is not enough for the AMD? Or maybe is not an hardware problem, but a software issue? (I've already tried to re-install both Max and VRay without results, also I tried to deactive all the unnecessary processes).

I don't know what else to do.... PLEASE HELP!
 
Old 04 April 2013   #13
Originally Posted by Srek: As an engineer i see four full blown cores and four less usefull ones. As a marketing guy i would see eight cores plus four additional FPU units.
Since the days of the 80486DX x86 CPUs have an integrated FPU, the decision of AMD to split this up is only a marketing gimmick to enable them to promote 8 core CPUs at low prices. There are many customers who thought that these cores were comparable to what Intel offers, which they aren't. AMD redefined the term core for their purposes, while technically correct it just isn't the same thing.
Cheers
Björn


It's not a marketing gimmick, it's a logical decision. The vast majority of computer users don't need eight floating point units (email, watching videos, word processing, etc.). Despite that AMD still offers tremendous bang for the buck even in computer graphics applications that heavily use the floating point unit, in other renderers (like Cinema 4D) it's the same speed as processors that cost 50% more from Intel. Doesn't matter if it has one floating point unit or twenty if it gets the job done in the same amount of time and for less money.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20...x-8350-review/3

I'm not sure why it's so slow in V-Ray with the scene in question, for all we know it might be a bug with V-Ray. I'd suggest getting in touch with the V-Ray support folks.
__________________
http://www.whenpicsfly.com
 
Old 04 April 2013   #14
Originally Posted by chaosmonger: ....

In any case that he is 2.5X faster on a complicated scene is crazy! Doesn't matter AMD, Intel or whatever. 2.5X faster is too much and I need to understand what's the problem. So I'm asking help to you.


Man, that is so strange!
I've been planing to buy few 8350 rigs for small farm, but now, I am confused!
What makes that problem?
I do not know any more!
I woould also like to hear the solution.
__________________
http://trideval.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04 April 2013   #15
Originally Posted by okmijun: Man, that is so strange!
I've been planing to buy few 8350 rigs for small farm, but now, I am confused!
What makes that problem?
I do not know any more!
I woould also like to hear the solution.


Yes... I really don't know what's the issue!
Because on a small benchmark scene (see above), my PC is little bit faster, but on a complicated one (like the one that I need to render), my friend is 2.5X faster.

Cannot understand why... I've tried many things (see all my questions above). Hope to find a solution.
 
reply share thread



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 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.