Help on choosing rendering machine

[Eidorian]

Well that's kewl then. I hadn't really looked at the 750 yet but I'd take a 4.2 Ghz for $158 per CPU hells yeah!

I thought you were talking about the Core i7 950.

My Core i5 750 can probably pull off something around 3.8 - 3.9 GHz before the memory or PCI-Express controller start getting weird.

 

[Gomff]

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.

Yeah, I was just covering myself just in case there was one.

I like MR, but it's not the most efficient or fastest renderer out there. You can get some beautiful results with it though.

 

[nanofrog]

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

Sure. You willing to be the CPU "donor"? I'm not!

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.

I'd have thought you'd gone a bit higher than that. 3.6 - 3.8GHz range to keep it cooler and stable.

I've gotten up to 4.2GHz on air, but it ran too hot for my tastes, so I backed it down to 4.12GHz. As the summer got hotter, I pulled the OC all together, as I ran into a couple of firmware issues (solved). The thermals were OK, but I was too nervous to leave it, as the ambient temp was also hitting as high as 84F. So I haven't yet gone back to OC the system, even with going ahead and lapping the cooler (too lazy previously, as I was in a hurry to get the system running & tested). I should have known better... it has lowered the temps by enough to be worth it (7 - 12C @ stock settings)

I thought you were talking about the Core i7 950.

That was my interpretation as well.

My Core i5 750 can probably pull off something around 3.8 - 3.9 GHz before the memory or PCI-Express controller start getting weird.

What happened, and what were the temps?

 

[Eidorian]

What happened, and what were the temps?

I haven't gone any higher than 3.486 GHz myself. On the review sites you have to watch the clock speed on the onboard controllers because they're tied into the BCLK as well on Lynnfield.

Voltages come into play with pushing the controllers further as well but Lynnfield doesn't go as high as Bloomfield does.

Depending on the ambient air I hit about 57 - 63° C at 3.486 GHz on my cooler.

 

[nanofrog]

I haven't gone any higher than 3.486 GHz myself. On the review sites you have to watch the clock speed on the onboard controllers because they're tied into the BCLK as well on Lynnfield.

Voltages come into play with pushing the controllers further as well but Lynnfield doesn't go as high as Bloomfield does.

Depending on the ambient air I hit about 57 - 63° C at 3.486 GHz on my cooler.

I understand it would take some time to push it further. With your current temps, you could try it, but they're fairly nice as is (you may not want to go higher here), and may not be worth the effort involved (time and potential damage to components, depending on your comfort level with both).

 

[Eidorian]

I understand it would take some time to push it further. With your current temps, you could try it, but they're fairly nice as is (you may not want to go higher here), and may not be worth the effort involved (time and potential damage to components, depending on your comfort level with both).

I like running at stock to be honest. The newer firmware from Gigabyte also seems to force the x21 multiplier on at all times when using all cores as well.

Anandtech managed to hit 4.2 GHz on a Core i5 750 using my board with 4.1 GHz being the maximum stable.

 

[nanofrog]

I like running at stock to be honest. The newer firmware from Gigabyte also seems to force the x21 multiplier on at all times when using all cores as well.

There's enough of a safety margin in it that you don't have to these days. But I understand the reasoning.

Anandtech managed to hit 4.2 GHz on a Core i5 750 using my board with 4.1 GHz being the maximum stable.

You could try it (use the settings they tried) and see what happens. It would at least let you know how your i5-750 binned out in comparison to the one they used in the test.

Assuming it works, take a look at the temps, and see what's possible that you're willing to live with.

 

[emanresu]

Hi,

New here and wanted to ask a quick question regarding Maya and core(s) speed since it's been discussed somewhat already. I know that Maya rendering likes more cores/threads better and that the viewport likes higher clock better. But will the viewport utilize dual processors also? For example, i7 920 clocked to 3.6Ghz (or 4Ghz even) vs dual E5520 @ 2.26Ghz, which one will be faster when you're working with your models?

Thanks for in advance for the help!

 

[Umbongo]

Hi,

New here and wanted to ask a quick question regarding Maya and core(s) speed since it's been discussed somewhat already. I know that Maya rendering likes more cores/threads better and that the viewport likes higher clock better. But will the viewport utilize dual processors also? For example, i7 920 clocked to 3.6Ghz (or 4Ghz even) vs dual E5520 @ 2.26Ghz, which one will be faster when you're working with your models?

Thanks for in advance for the help!

Viewport rendering is GPU dependant. You won't see significant performance differences between the processors. If you are going to be running Maya under OS X then the choice is open, assuming either way you can get at least a Radeon 4870. If it is for Maya under windows then I'd recommend the over clocked i7, the difference in price should afford you a Quadro FX 3800 and you should be looking at the 1800 if not.