renderless machine 10,000$ +

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2013   #16
dude have a look at this rig
http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/3dboxx-8980-xtreme

and custom it with gtx680
__________________
Best Regards
jibran baig
3d Generalist | Technical artist
itsmejab@gmail.com
http://jabranbaig.wordpress.com/
 
Old 06 June 2013   #17
Hey man,

At the scale your buying at, getting 2-4 single socket nodes is usually the best option. It might also be a good idea to get a small rack, and put your nodes in 2U cases.

Check out the Cinebench scores for the processors your looking at, and compare that with the price. The single socket nodes give you a much higher bang for your buck.

A pair of these 1400 USD Dell systems will equal that 10000 USD Boxx system in rendering power.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16883155601

Remember 3D raytracing does not require a graphics card, and most renders don't use any more than 8GB of RAM. You also don't need a SSD or a large HD.

-AJ
__________________
 
Old 06 June 2013   #18
There are a few ways to improve rendering performance for single frames. If your workflow doesn't require advanced rendering features like motion blur, instances, displacements, fur, then you might have the best luck with a renderer that uses the GPU for acceleration. Product renderings and architecture renderings are good candidates for GPU rendering.

If you don't want to change your workflow dramatically for whatever reason there are two ways to improve the rendering performance for single frames. One is to build a very high performance single machine, and the other is to distribute the rendering of the image to multiple machines. Some renderers can send individual tiles to other clients on the fly, so if you start a render you see the tiles pop up as soon as they are done. If the renderer doesn't support that the tiles can be sent off as individual renders and then reassembled after all of them are complete. Each method has pros and cons to consider.

GPU rendering: good bang for the buck and relatively inexpensive, doesn't scale up to huge operations, only a few renderers to choose from, very limited rendering features (see first paragraph).

Distributed tile rendering: a good balance between expense and flexibility, most renderers support distributed tile rendering, can scale to huge operations, requires some tinkering and networking to setup.

Uberworkstation: very expensive and not very good bang for the buck, doesn't scale to huge operations, doesn't require any changes to the workflow.

If it were my money I'd find a way to make the distributed tile rendering work. Maybe upgrade the workstation if it's old but also get a bunch of commodity machines to help with the rendering (four to eight cores, onboard graphics, 16-32GB of memory, small hard disk).
__________________
http://www.whenpicsfly.com
 
Old 06 June 2013   #19
Originally Posted by AJ1: Hey man,

If your talking Mental Ray/Vray/Renderman type rendering, then no. Those chips are designed for scientific/financial applications.

-AJ



They're still chips like anything else. They're just used mainly in financial/scientific applications more often because of deep pockets and needs.

The main issue would be how many cores does Mental raay/vray/renderman support right now and is maya/3dsmax/zbrush compatible with windows 2012 server + an additional CPU license to support 4 CPU's


For what you get, this machine with E5-4617's CPU's could be had for a somewhat reasonable price:
http://www.thinkmate.com/System/HPX_XS5-4460

Last edited by sentry66 : 06 June 2013 at 08:17 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #20
I know... lol. I think English is a second language for the OP, so I was trying to keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I've read its the massive thread count and memory bandwidth of those machines makes them ideal for certain calculations, usually running custom written and complied software for solving physics and chemistry type problems. The biggest one from Intel has 160 threads on 80 cores.

I also know there are certain applications in the financial and engineering world that can run over 100K per node, and its best to get as much power on a single seat as possible. I've also read about them being used for industrial control systems, like a machine that needs to input and process huge amounts of data very quickly, and spit out the result.

I don't think however that the quad socket boards are very efficient at ray tracing with the commercially available apps. I saw a cinebench score of 27 for a 48 core 12K USD system. I think a high end dual socket Intel system will score about the same. I've obviously never done anything with a quad socket system though, so I'm just passing along things I've read on the internet.

-AJ
__________________
 
Old 06 June 2013   #21
I wonder if that cinebench score you saw with the quad socket was an AMD system since they've had reasonably priced 12-core chips for awhile. I've seen a lot of quad AMD system score around 27 in CB.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #22
Look guys the only debite is that that can an overlooked 4.7 ghz xeaon dual physical processor with 32 gb of ram be better then i7 4th gen extreme simple is that
__________________
Best Regards
jibran baig
3d Generalist | Technical artist
itsmejab@gmail.com
http://jabranbaig.wordpress.com/
 
Old 06 June 2013   #23
Originally Posted by itsmejab: Look guys the only debite is that that can an overlooked 4.7 ghz xeaon dual physical processor with 32 gb of ram be better then i7 4th gen extreme simple is that



The answer is the overclocked dual xeon is much better than a 4-core single CPU 4th gen i7, and much more expensive

The overclocked dual xeon BOXXTECH sells is barely overclocked to something like 4.03ghz? up from 3.1/3.8 turbo. It is nowhere near 4.7 ghz. The xeon boards won't do it

Last edited by sentry66 : 06 June 2013 at 06:15 AM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #24
I have seen a configuration its max setting goes to dual xeon 4.7 ghz overclocked
__________________
Best Regards
jibran baig
3d Generalist | Technical artist
itsmejab@gmail.com
http://jabranbaig.wordpress.com/
 
Old 06 June 2013   #25
any one use that prosessor what are the reviews

Intel® Core™ i7-4930MX Processor Extreme Edition
(8M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz)
vs
INTEL I7 QUAD CORE ENHANCED PERFORMANCE PROCESSOR 4.5GHZ overclocked 2nd generation
in the box workstation
__________________
Best Regards
jibran baig
3d Generalist | Technical artist
itsmejab@gmail.com
http://jabranbaig.wordpress.com/
 
Old 06 June 2013   #26
Originally Posted by itsmejab: I have seen a configuration its max setting goes to dual xeon 4.7 ghz overclocked


probably for single-threading, but not multi-threading

multithreading performance would still top at at just barely over 4ghz


Originally Posted by itsmejab: any one use that prosessor what are the reviews

Intel® Core™ i7-4930MX Processor Extreme Edition
(8M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz)
vs
INTEL I7 QUAD CORE ENHANCED PERFORMANCE PROCESSOR 4.5GHZ overclocked 2nd generation
in the box workstation


between those two, the 4930mx would be faster
 
Old 06 June 2013   #27
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed 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 07:51 AM.


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