Help on choosing rendering machine

[Tesselator]

I've been into 3d for about 15 years and I've never sprung for a Quadro.

If that's to/about the info in my post I of course meant "Quad" and is a single 4-core processor system. Not the nVidia card by a similar name.

BTW, I agree to a certain extent about the cards too. The "Quadro" cards are only worth it if you're dealing with super high poly models or editing scenes with multi-thousand object counts.

 

[nanofrog]

BTW, I agree to a certain extent about the cards too. The "Quadro" cards are only worth it if you're dealing with super high poly models or editing scenes with multi-thousand object counts.

Yes, but to even take advantage of it, you need the software that can utilize the drivers do you not? And do the developers have Mac versions available?

 

[surfi2000]

3D is one of the few areas where multiple CPUs really pays off, as long as your renderer is truly multi threaded.

Does maya on windows?

@nanofrog
What PC spec would you go for if you had £2000 spare today?

 

[Tesselator]

Yes, but to even take advantage of it, you need the software that can utilize the drivers do you not? And do the developers have Mac versions available?

Mac version? Why would anyone need the Mac version?!?! There aren't even Maya optimized Quadro drivers for the Mac. No, my whole post was saying not to get a Mac for use with Maya if cost and/or performance are considerations. But thanks for the segway.

 

[nanofrog]

Mac version? Why would anyone need the Mac version?!?! There aren't even Maya optimized Quadro drivers for the Mac. No, my whole post was saying not to get a Mac for use with Maya if cost and/or performance are considerations. But thanks for the segway.

I wasn't thinking of a specific application. Just that those I'm familiar with only seem to support the nVidia Quadro line in Windows. That said, I'm not really a proponent of those cards. Perhaps an exception or two, but that would be it (extremely rare). I thought you remembered that.

 

[Tesselator]

Yeah, just taking the segway is all.

 

[nanofrog]

Yeah, just taking the segway is all.

Why? Take the direct route.

1. Quadro is expensive, and not worth it.
2. The '09 MP's are expensive, and not for budget minded users (or anyone that has any sense).

 

[Eidorian]

It depends on how many PCI-Express 2.0 lanes you need. Lynnfield offers identical performance on a single socket for less but you only get x16 lanes.

It's cooler and has a more aggressive Turbo Boost as well.

 

[nanofrog]

It depends on how many PCI-Express 2.0 lanes you need. Lynnfield offers identical performance on a single socket for less but you only get x16 lanes.

It's cooler and has a more aggressive Turbo Boost as well.

Add in an additional chip to obtain the additional lanes.

Hint: boards that support SLI & crossfire (the nF200 chip for example), though that one may not be around for much longer, as nVidia announced they're dropping out of the chipset business.

 

[Tesselator]

Why? Take the direct route.

1. Quadro is expensive, and not worth it.
2. The '09 MP's are expensive, and not for budget minded users (or anyone that has any sense).

LOL! I see you took your seqway as well.

 

[nanofrog]

LOL! I see you took your seqway as well.

Well... You have to admit, it's rather fun.

 

[Eidorian]

Add in an additional chip to obtain the additional lanes.

Hint: boards that support SLI & crossfire (the nF200 chip for example), though that one may not be around for much longer, as nVidia announced they're dropping out of the chipset business.

SLI can be enabled in in BIOS without using the nForce bridge.

Also how are you going to interface to the processor? It's still going to be limited to x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes and another 8 x 1 PCIe 2.0 you could try to squeeze out of the PCH but that's going to connect via DMI.

Even then off of the PCH I've only seen boards using x4 PCIe 1.1 lanes. My P55M-UD2 does that.

 

[nanofrog]

SLI can be enabled in in BIOS without using the nForce bridge.

Also how are you going to interface to the processor? It's still going to be limited to x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes and another 8 x 1 PCIe 2.0 you could try to squeeze out of the PCH but that's going to connect via DMI.

Even then off of the PCH I've only seen boards using x4 PCIe 1.1 lanes. My P55M-UD2 does that.

IIRC, the LGA1165 (Lynnfields) have 1-16x PCIe2.0 + 2-8x PCIe2.0 slots.

The nF200 isn't a requirement, but it has the ability to add lanes. But you can even use a pair of X58's on the Nehalem systems to add additional lanes as well (PCIe slots on the board). AFAIK, no one's doing it though, presumably due to cost.

The interfacing to the CPU does have a limit however (DMI only, as QPI is only on the LGA1366 parts).

 

[Eidorian]

The nF200 isn't a requirement. But you can even use a pair of X58's on the Nehalem systems to add additional lanes (slots on the board). AFAIK, no one's doing it though, presumably due to cost.

The interfacing to the CPU does have a limit however (DMI only, as QPI is only on the LGA1366 parts).

On X58 you get 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes to play with. In most instances it's going to be dual x16 PCIe 2.0 cards (x32) and the remaining lanes for I/O usage.

In addition you can drop in nForce 200 for more lanes but once again that adds in cost, heat, and power consumption. I do remember a ballpark around 50 PCIe 2.0 lanes on some rather impressive X58 boards.

On Lynnfield (LGA 1156) you're limited to the x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes (or 2 - x8 PCIe 2.0) and the DMI.

It just depends what your purposes and budget are. Lynnfield offers some very compelling products for less if you can tolerate what you sacrifice. Though I'm a fan of 95W processors with aggressive Turbo Boost and dropping the chipset for an even cooler and smaller machine. The Xeon X3400 Series is a fine choice for a single socket workstation.

Lets just say I like my Micro ATX P55M-UD2 and the monolithic P180 mini it's in. It's damn heavy though.

 

[nanofrog]

On X58 you get 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes to play with. In most instances it's going to be dual x16 PCIe 2.0 cards (x32) and the remaining lanes for I/O usage.

In addition you can drop in nForce 200 for more lanes but once again that adds in cost, heat, and power consumption. I do remember a ballpark around 50 PCIe 2.0 lanes on some rather impressive X58 boards.

On Lynnfield (LGA 1156) you're limited to the x16 PCIe 2.0 lanes (or 2 - x8 PCIe 2.0) and the DMI.

It just depends what your purposes and budget are. Lynnfield offers some very compelling products for less if you can tolerate what you sacrifice. Though I'm a fan of 95W processors with aggressive Turbo Boost and dropping the chipset for an even cooler and smaller machine. The Xeon X3400 Series is a fine choice for a single socket workstation.

Lets just say I like my Micro ATX P55M-UD2 and the monolithic P180 mini it's in. It's damn heavy though.

A lot of the LGA1366 boards I looked at (and I have one), used a 24 lane (24S version of the X58), and an nF200. I had to accept the compromise of extra power and heat for the slots.

I agree, if a user can accept the compromise of the LGA1156 based systems, it's a really nice way to go. It's a nice desktop system, as it's expected most users will only have a single graphics card, and be able to place anything else in PCI if needed. Hence it can make for a nice simple little workstation.

I can't get away with M-ATX boards, but they certianly have their place. I do like them for NAS/AoE/iSCSI so long as the low SATA port count can be dealt with, or a card added. It saves cash, and that can't be ignored.

 

[Eidorian]

A lot of the LGA1366 boards I looked at (and I have one), used a 24 lane (24S version of the X58), and an nF200. I had to accept the compromise of extra power and heat for the slots.

I agree, if a user can accept the compromise of the LGA1156 based systems, it's a really nice way to go. It's a nice desktop system, as it's expected most users will only have a single graphics card, and be able to place anything else in PCI if needed. Hence it can make for a nice simple little workstation.

I can't get away with M-ATX boards, but they certianly have their place. I do like them for NAS/AoE/iSCSI so long as the low SATA port count can be dealt with, or a card added. It saves cash, and that can't be ignored.

If I dropped the passive cooler on my video card I could shove in 7 hard drives into my P180 mini tower. It's a Micro ATX board with 7 SATA ports too.

I'm somewhat regretting not going with a X3440 or 3450 but then again my Core i5 750 was only $158.

 

[nanofrog]

If I dropped the passive cooler on my video card I could shove in 7 hard drives into my P180 mini tower. It's a Micro ATX board with 7 SATA ports too.

It's certainly getting better, and have noticed board makers are beginning to add additional SATA controllers (Marvell for example) to them (beyond that of the chipset/ICHx). I like to get 8 if at all possible, and run a ZFS/Z-RAID/Z-RAID2 on them. So it's beginning to look really attractive for that ($$$), as there may be no need to add a card.

It's a bit overkill, but if the board + CPU balances out, then it would be worth taking a serious look at it for that use as well. Either way, the boards are giving a really nice set of features for low cost.

I'm somewhat regretting not going with a X3440 or 3450 but then again my Core i5 750 was only $158.

I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, especially for that bit of cash. Cheaper than some of the LGA775 parts currently IIRC.

A good cooler will help make up for the extra power consumption anyway, assuming you're OC'ing the i5-750.

 

[Tesselator]

And if it were the 950 he could be running it at what, somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5 Ghz?

Keep in mind that Maya scene and model editing like core speed much better than core parallelism.

 

[nanofrog]

And if it were the 950 he could be running it at what, somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5 Ghz?

Keep in mind that Maya scene and model editing like core speed much better than core parallelism.

Not possible on the board he's using though. LGA1366 won't fit, except perhaps by sawing off some of it. And for some strange reason it wouldn't work after that...

 

[Tesselator]

Are you absolutely sure? Let's see if we can get him to try it.

 

[Gomff]

Does maya on windows?

I believe Maya's **native** renderers are truly multi threaded, yes. Things may be different if you plan on using external renderers though.

Mental Ray is not the most efficient of renderers out there, especially once you start using doepth of field effects and such.

 

[Gomff]

If that's to/about the info in my post I of course meant "Quad" and is a single 4-core processor system. Not the nVidia card by a similar name.

BTW, I agree to a certain extent about the cards too. The "Quadro" cards are only worth it if you're dealing with super high poly models or editing scenes with multi-thousand object counts.

I knew what you meant

I've nothing against Quadro's. If someone offered me one, I wouldn't turn them down or anything.....I just think money is best spent elsewhere first and if there's still plenty left over then go for it.

Ultimately, faster CPU's and more RAM will save you more time in most scenarios.

 

[Tesselator]

I believe Maya's **native** renderers are truly multi threaded, yes. Things may be different if you plan on using external renderers though.

Mental Ray is not the most efficient of renderers out there, especially once you start using doepth of field effects and such.

I dunno of any render engines (worth using) that aren't fully multithreaded. Some of them charge by the number of cores tho. MR is a pretty good engine BTW - IMO.

I knew what you meant

I've nothing against Quadro's. If someone offered me one, I wouldn't turn them down or anything.....I just think money is best spent elsewhere first and if there's still plenty left over then go for it.

Ultimately, faster CPU's and more RAM will save you more time in most scenarios.

Yup! Totally agree. The only reason you would want a Quadro is if you're dealing with massive scenes and/or objects - and smart designers try at least to avoid that by rendering/editing in smaller more manageable layers when possible and compositing the results.

 

[Eidorian]

Right now I can manage an overclock to 3.486 GHz on my Core i5 750 on my Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus cooler. It was $25 and it has a backplate compatible with Socket LGA 1156. The problem with Lynnfield overclocking is you run into a wall with the onboard PCI-Express controller when compared to Bloomfield/Gainestown.

4 - 4.2 GHz on LGA 1366 isn't that hard.

I'm sticking around because you guys use the software and know the hardware too.

 

[Tesselator]

4 - 4.2 GHz on LGA 1366 isn't that hard.

I'm sticking around because you guys use the software and know the hardware too.

Well that's kewl then. I hadn't really looked at the 750 yet but I'd take a 4.2 Ghz for $183 per CPU. Hells yeah!




.