New Mac Pro & Cinema 4D

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 12 December 2013   #31
Originally Posted by sirio: Not really. Both 4, 6 and 8core version all turbo boost single threat performance to 3.9ghz. You may also want to read this:
http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
8core is the sweet spot in both single and multithreaded operation. The 12 core doesn't make sense anymore since today you can offload the render power to cheap wintel rendernodes.


Great Info. Thanks.
__________________
____
Cinema 4D Studio MSA, Zbrush, CS6, 3DCoat, Moi
Twitter: @holgerbiebrach
www.c4dStuff.com

HB_ModellingBundle
 
Old 12 December 2013   #32
About the hackintosh, besid the fact that it's not legal to install OSX on non apple stuff, think also of the resale value. A used MacPro after his life cicle retain much of its initial value. You will be surprised by the price people are selling old MP, and believe me they sell just fine. It may sound crazy but many people offer more than 1000 for my 6years old 8core MP. Nobody will ever buy a used hackintosh after 1 year, just like every other selfbuild PC, it doesn't matter what you have put inside.
IMO hackintosh are mostly for computer geek or hobbiest, and I'm sure it could be funny to build one. Maybe after some trial you may end up with a stable cheap machine, but onestly in a working environment where time is money I don't want to mess with BIOS, compatibility problem, not reliable software update and so on, I just want to switch the power on and start to work.
 
Old 12 December 2013   #33
Originally Posted by sirio: Not really. Both 4, 6 and 8core version all turbo boost single threat performance to 3.9ghz. You may also want to read this:
http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
8core is the sweet spot in both single and multithreaded operation. The 12 core doesn't make sense anymore since today you can offload the render power to cheap wintel rendernodes. This is my personal solution:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...11&page=1&pp=15


Thank you very much. Excellent information!
 
Old 12 December 2013   #34
Originally Posted by sirio: Nobody will ever buy a used hackintosh after 1 year, just like every other selfbuild PC, it doesn't matter what you have put inside.
.


I'm not sure where you got this information from.

Anybody who'll put down 7k for a machine with a single 12 core processor, needs to get their head checked. You gain nothing from your ignorance.
__________________
۩PRIST

 
Old 12 December 2013   #35
Originally Posted by ThePriest: I'm not sure where you got this information from.

Anybody who'll put down 7k for a machine with a single 12 core processor, needs to get their head checked. You gain nothing from your ignorance.


I'll bite, why having 24 computing threads for a piece of software that specifically work exponentially faster with the more cores and threads it has, a bad thing and the people that buy it ignorant, oh and mentally unstable(thats what happens when you need your head check, right)?
__________________
Nate M.
Cinema 4D Artist | Chicago, IL
www.444studio.com
| nate@444studio.com
 
Old 12 December 2013   #36
This is an Avid machine - isn't that obvious ? There's nothing about it that makes it well suited or good value for CG work as its practiced today. You're paying for 2 Pro cards where the 2nd will be useless in almost everything apart from renderers that only support Cuda. And you're overpaying on both of them to be pro cards when they're going to get smashed by equivalent gaming cards in almost every CG app going - even those few that gain some benefit from pro cards don't justify the premium vs performance gain.
The only outstanding feature of the machine is the I/O speed (very impressive)- very useful for certain other tasks but not so much for CG.
Most CG now is for good reason still CPU limited (There are good GPU renderers but they are not quite as mature or flexible as CPU renderers) . This machine will get beaten by overclocked 3930s in scene editing as was its predecessor, only the top end configurations will be able to win in rendering at such a high cost ($) as to come up against far higher core competitors & again be comprehensively beaten for much less money.
I mean , I might just understand if the OS was even better than windows but its about the same, for every thing it does better it does something basic worse too.
It really looks like this machine has been put together for Avid, maybe some Adobe apps, maybe Nuke (Although I think it's still Cuda accelerated mainly?) but anyone who will be mainly doing CG with this really needs to think again.
Honestly, I think the top end I-mac makes more sense, especially if you are thinking of leaning heavily on team render.
__________________
Cinema 4D R17 Studio, VRAYforC4D, Z Brush, Mudbox, Photoshop CS6.
 
Old 12 December 2013   #37
Originally Posted by NateMac: I'll bite, why having 24 computing threads for a piece of software that specifically work exponentially faster with the more cores and threads it has, a bad thing and the people that buy it ignorant, oh and mentally unstable(thats what happens when you need your head check, right)?


Because for a little more, you can have 24 cores and 48 threads, more ram, much better open gl performance and the same amount of stability. This is all comes down to a perception, the perception that PC's aren't stable. I have news for the masses of people lining up to buy this overpriced tin can. They are.

Why do I even bother? When my understanding of the reality of this situation gives me a competitive edge. I should hold my tongue, have your pseudo workstation, enjoy being made a fool of.
__________________
۩PRIST


Last edited by ThePriest : 12 December 2013 at 12:51 AM.
 
Old 12 December 2013   #38
Originally Posted by ThePriest: Because for a little more, you can have 24 cores and 48 threads, more ram, much better open gl performance and the same amount of stability. This is all comes down to a perception, the perception that PC's aren't stable. I have news for the masses of people lining up to buy this overpriced tin can. They are.

Why do I even bother? When my understanding of the reality of this situation gives me a competitive edge. I should hold my tongue, have your pseudo workstation, enjoy being made a fool of.


Please read the OP's post.
Feel free to take your ability to understand reality and competitive edge to some other thread, and let us continue making fools of ourselves in peace. Thank you.
 

This post by fireball101 may contain offensive material. Click here to view it.

Old 12 December 2013   #40
Originally Posted by fireball101: Hi there,

you are coming to a CG PROFESSIONAL BOARD and you want to know something about Cinema 4d and the new MacPro.
This baby-toilette is BULLSHIT, if you want to hear something positiv about it, please contact the APPLE-Fanboy-Homepage!
The guys from VrayforCinema begin to cry when you talk about this Shit.
The guys from Octane begin to cry when you talk about this Shit.
Almost everybody starts to cry when you talk about this Shit, especially people working with CINEMA 4d... knowing it`s bottleneck.


Oh please stop it.
__________________
____
Cinema 4D Studio MSA, Zbrush, CS6, 3DCoat, Moi
Twitter: @holgerbiebrach
www.c4dStuff.com

HB_ModellingBundle
 
Old 12 December 2013   #41
Originally Posted by ThePriest: I'm not sure where you got this information from.

Anybody who'll put down 7k for a machine with a single 12 core processor, needs to get their head checked. You gain nothing from your ignorance.


I don't know where you read that a single 12core will cost 7k, as far as I know it's more likely about 6K, beside that there's no need to be rude.
A 12 core CPU cost 2700$
Two firepro GPU cost 1200$
Let's say 1100$ for xeon motherboard, case, PSU, RAM, and superfast SSD.
If you want to build a similar system by your self you are already at 5k, after you add some margin(like every other computer brand) you realize that 6k it's not that much. Of course you can build a system with cheaper GPU solution but beside that there is not much savings if you want a top of the line 12core xeon.
Anyway I'm not buying a 12 core version, I've already build my render farm for raw power, and a single 6/8core system is cheaper and plenty fast for 99% of the normal operation on C4D, even faster than a 12 or 24 core system. On many of my other software single threated operations are the vast majority(just run the activity monitor or the task manager to actually see the CPU utilization when you are not rendering). Even for the multithreaded operation core count do not scale very well, that's why the industry is focusing on GPGPU processing that scale linearly.

Last edited by sirio : 12 December 2013 at 09:31 AM.
 
Old 12 December 2013   #42
... something I've been wondering about is what monitors you can connect to this new Mac Pro... I'm still using an old 30" Cinema Display with Dual Link DVI... Can that be plugged into a a Thunderbolt port and will it work properly...? I used to have this screen plugged into a Mini Display port via an adaptor (Apple Mini Display Port to Dual-Link DVI Adapter), but I used to notice abnormalities from time to time... and I wouldn't consider buying one of Apple's latest glossy Thunderbolt 27" Cinema Displays, so what are my options?

Another thing I ask myself is about the graphics cards... In my current Mac Pro I have the standard ATI card which often gives me problems and crashes in Cinema, which Maxon attribute to poor drivers, claiming that ATI Mac drivers are renowned for being poor ... Aren't AMD and ATI the same cards...? So how will the AMD Fire Pro cards perform with Cinema...?

I also ask myself about storage. With a new Mac surely I'll have to also have something like a LaCie Thunderbolt disk drive which will require it's own separate power cord and plug socket ... I hate extra wires !
 
Old 12 December 2013   #43
Originally Posted by sirio: I've already build my render farm for raw power, and a single 6/8core system is cheaper and plenty fast for 99% of the normal operation on C4D, even faster than a 12 or 24 core system. On many of my other software single threated operations are the vast majority(just run the activity monitor or the task manager to actually see the CPU utilization when you are not rendering). Even for the multithreaded operation core count do not scale very well, that's why the industry is focusing on GPGPU processing that scale linearly.


One other thing to consider over the next 12 to 24 months is that the next battleground will be making more of the core operations within creative applications per se (but in particular 3D applications) multithreaded (just look at the difference in viewport performance between Modo & C4D). So whilst on paper at the moment a single 6/8 core system married to a WinTel TR setup seems the best solution. I would hope that this situation will change in the near future. Moores Law has gone lateral in recent years with most of the increases in performance coming from other areas than pure CPU grunt.

The level of investment anybody makes in a workstation at this point in time and whether they go single 6/8 core system over a 12 or 24 core system must depend on the shelf life they expect from the system. We were spoilt with the old Mac Pro machines as they have proved to provide an extended obsolescence through their expandability, and on that basis the new Mac Pro configurations have a lot to live up to IMHO.

jm
 
Old 12 December 2013   #44
Sirio:
I think ThePriest's point was that it contains many forced components that you wouldn't want to copy and mimic when building your own machine for a 3D workstation. For what you get the price is fine, the issue is that it has much stuff you wouldnt care about. For example the $1200 on dual fireGL cards... virtually nobody building a 3D system would do that to begin with, theyd get better performance and cuda support by picking a single GF780 for $400.

SSD storage, whilst its nice, changing the load time for c4d or photoshop from 5 seconds down to 2 seconds is really the least of peoples worries, the built in SSD is only going to be large enough for the OS and its apps, so the high speed is never going to be used when actually editing video etc. A nice 3TB fusion drive will be a quarter of the price of a much smaller ssd whilst giving many of the benefits, but thats not an option on the mac because theyve deemed space for a 3.5 drive as not worth it. You also cant get dual cpus as theyve decided you WILL have dual gfx cards instead, even if nobody particularly wants them.

ThePriest:
I think sirio was trying to say that a second hand mac after a year holds much of its original value and is very easy to sell afterwards. A second hand home made hackintosh (or any OS system for that matter) will lose a lot of its value and would be easier to sell as individual components than as a whole system.

Benek:
You can connect your 30" screen, but you have to splash out an extra $100 on their dual link adaptor, which hangs off the back and piggybacks extra cables into the usb ports for power.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 

This post by fireball101 may contain offensive material. Click here to view it.

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 11:07 PM.


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