ProMax One 16 core machine Speed demon

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 2012   #1
ProMax One 16 core machine Speed demon

Hi guys-
I'm curious if any of you use one of these machines.
http://www.promax.com/s-149-promax-one.aspx

This looks like some serious power. I've had my Mac Pro 12 core for as long as they've been out but I'm looking for MORE POWER! Who isn't right? This thing is posting a 25.3 on the Cinebench. That 10 points higher than my super MAC. Or, what, 75% faster? Nice. Want.

These are expensive, but not much more than I paid for my MAC (which is running windows anyway BTW).

It's an awesome looking box. I haven't seen anything out there with a Xeon 3.1 dual processor with 16 core (32 threads!) yet. If I'm missing something I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks all!
Alec
__________________
Alec Syme
http://www.fuseanimation.com
 
Old 06 June 2012   #2
In that price segment i would wait a bit longer until Intel offers the new 22nm Ivy Bridge based Xeons. They will dleiver more power/GHz, run cooler and offer more cores per CPU.
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 06 June 2012   #3
i work on a similar machine like that. CB 25.33, also some of our customers use it.
i love it very much. it is a dream machine for rendering with c4d and or vray p.e.

we made it our own only of the very best parts. one can also get it at our shop (if interested pm me) or see here in our forum: http://forum.vrayforc4d.com/showthread.php?t=11851

cheers
stefan
__________________
V-Ray on FB:: http://www.facebook.com/vrayforc4d
http://VRAYforC4D.net
http://www.3dtools.info
http://rhino.io
 
Old 09 September 2012   #4
I ordered the Intel Xeon 2680's at 2.7ghz (3.5ghz Tubroboost), but now I regret trying to save a few hundred $$$ and wish I'd gone for the 3.1ghz version. But $4000+tax is a hell of a price for two processors. The rest of the build came in at just over $3800.

It allegedly still scores 23.2 on Cinebench, which is a fair score and only slightly behind the faster chip.

Anyway. I'm just curious if you can talk about single core performance on these Xeons, as I haven't received mine yet.

I'm running an older 12 Core Xeon, that I don't touch for productivity because my 6 core sandy bridge extreme edition knocks it out of the park in the single threaded stuff and scores close to it's rendering performance.


So dd I just spend close to 8k on an overpriced render machine that will be less useful for scene creation compared to the overclocked cpu? Or does it actually perform as a workstation should and aid you in productivity?

Anybody who has an E5 chip, I'd love to hear about your experiences in C4D with it...
__________________
۩PRIST


Last edited by ThePriest : 09 September 2012 at 08:27 PM.
 
Old 09 September 2012   #5
As Rendering specific machines these kinds of systems are awesome but why anyone would opt for their workstation to have a single core performance of <3GHZ is beyond me.

I opted out of going for dual processors and 24 threads, for the 39xxk series I7's which are super easy to notably overclock 35% and only a little work to take further to say 50%, a stable 4.8GHZ cpu from a 3.2 3930k is common, giving you a wonderful single core speed that should reach 13-14 CB score for little over 2k depending on what you add with it of course. I opted for a 4GB nvidia card for plenty of graphics mem in Mari, and possibly gpu rendering down the road, and 64GB of memory which is so ridiculously cheap it is insane but costly enough to put me in the 2500-2700 price range.

No cinebench yet as still building and waiting for a few parts to arrive
__________________
Quote: "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -Leo Tolstoy
Kai Pedersen
 
Old 09 September 2012   #6
If it sits around acting as a render slave for VRay/Maxwell and carries the burden of doing stuff that is multi-threaded or requires the additional ram (96gb) (RealFlow etc). It'll still serve a purpose in my workflow.

I agree, in theory that dollar for dollar, the 6 core I7-3960x or I7-3930 seems like a better deal.
But if I buy two maxed out I7 machines with all the bells and whistles I like to add, the price soon adds up to around $3000 and a dual core Xeon inside a single box looks attractive again. Especially for raw render power and bragging rights.

CPU mark scores for each setup
16 core = 32,000 (/16 = 2000 per core)
I7-3960x = 14,000 (/6 =2333 per core)

There's a gap, an even larger gap with OC'ing, but it's not that significant.

There's pros and cons to both setups, thankfully I'm running a fast I7 and a soon a new dual Xeon rig.

I will definitely give it a run and if they're not up to the standard I hoped for, I'll part ways with them for the slightly faster Xeons, with minimal loss of money and a bigger tax right off.
__________________
۩PRIST


Last edited by ThePriest : 09 September 2012 at 05:31 AM.
 
Old 09 September 2012   #7
Originally Posted by LucentDreams: a little work to take further to say 50%, a stable 4.8GHZ cpu from a 3.2 3930k is common, giving you a wonderful single core speed that should reach 13-14CB


I took my 3930K to 5.2GHz just for kicks when I only had 16Gb, but 24/7 stable-wise my chip won't do much more than 4.3GHz with 32Gb, that's mainly down to the memory banks being full though. Need to get hold of some 8/16Gig sticks and some better WC
__________________
brasco on vimeo
 
Old 09 September 2012   #8
strange with watercooling it should be able to do 4.4 with most motherboards that have automated overclocking.

I agree if it's a rendering box then yes massive cores is a great way to go. I'd assume most people need a workstation as much as any render system. As well for a second that is more rendering focused you could build a second 3930k overclocked for a lot less as it wouldn't need the fancy graphics, or PSU to power the gaphics card, or large format highly expandable motherboard, or tower to encase such boards and PSU, you you get a lot cheaper really fast, and then win back the advantage of a dedicated rendering box while having a good workstation as the same time.

Disadvantage being two systems to manage and take up room, produce heat form both being overlcocked and power consumption. So not superior by any means but seriously I think people overlook the importance of their actual editor performance.
__________________
Quote: "Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -Leo Tolstoy
Kai Pedersen
 
Old 09 September 2012   #9
Why on earth would you buy an expensive Mac to run Windows on? That's like buying a Porsche and replacing the interior with one from a Fiat 500.

Originally Posted by AlecS: Hi guys-
These are expensive, but not much more than I paid for my MAC (which is running windows anyway BTW).
Alec
 
Old 09 September 2012   #10
Theyre nice machines, I ran windows on an 8core macpro for a couple of years, one of the nicest machines i ever had.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
Old 09 September 2012   #11
Originally Posted by Neil V: Why on earth would you buy an expensive Mac to run Windows on? That's like buying a Porsche and replacing the interior with one from a Fiat 500.


Why on earth would you buy an expensive Mac to run Cinema 4D period, regardless of the operating system? It may have once been the workstation equivalent of a Porsche, but today it's an aging machine with last generation hardware from a company that cares more about money than keeping loyal fanboys happy.

More and more studios are coming over to the PC side, whether they like it or not. From the conversations I've had with various creative directors etc, the transition has been ultra smooth.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
Old 09 September 2012   #12
Originally Posted by Neil V: Why on earth would you buy an expensive Mac to run Windows on?


Contrary to the latest XEON (two socket) workstations from PC vendors (e.g. Dell, HP, Fujitsu) you can use MacPros without wearing ear protectors.

Best regards,

wbj
 
Old 09 September 2012   #13
Originally Posted by wbj: Contrary to the latest XEON (two socket) workstations from PC vendors (e.g. Dell, HP, Fujitsu) you can use MacPros without wearing ear protectors.

Best regards,

wbj


Another myth created by people who haven't sat in rooms with pc's lately.
There's a million hardware configs aimed at a quiet experience, none of which will break the bank. Liquid cooling, rubber fans, bulky cases like the Cosmos II.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
Old 09 September 2012   #14
yes my 16 core xeon is a lot MORE quiet than my mac pros 8 core. so thats an absolute myth.

cheers
stefan
__________________
V-Ray on FB:: http://www.facebook.com/vrayforc4d
http://VRAYforC4D.net
http://www.3dtools.info
http://rhino.io
 
Old 09 September 2012   #15
Originally Posted by lllab: yes my 16 core xeon is a lot MORE quiet than my mac pros 8 core. so thats an absolute myth.

cheers
stefan


Then you're not using a machine of the vendors I mentioned - their machines topped the loudness rating (see recent tests @arstechnica and @heise.de); I think the Fujitsu Celsius R920 Workstation reached > 12 sone at full power.

That 's like putting two hoovers close to your ears (> 80 dB).

Best regards,

wbj
 
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 01:51 AM.


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