Dual CPU in Maya - Only useful in Batch Rendering?

[kozy]

Many here say that a Dual AMD Opteron machine would beat a Dual Intel Xeon machine any day.

I'm not sure about the new Maya 6.0 version, but I know that older versions of Maya (Maya 4.5 f.ex.) only use the Second CPU during a Batch Render (final rendering).
So I wonder when using a Dual CPU machine, are you only using ONE cpu most of the time when running Maya?

Intel's most expensive cpu (about $1,159) is the:
Intel P4 478 3.4 GHz 800 FSB 2MB (HT) Extreme Edition

If Maya uses only both cpu's when finalizing a Maya project (doing a batch render), wouldn't this Intel be the smartest choise for everyday use of Maya?

Sorry about my english

[grinch]

I had the same question a while ago and the answer is, theoraticaly, Yes!

But you forgot about something, TestRendering, how can you tell if your lighting is good unless you take a test render (one frame render of your camera view), or how can you tell if your texture looks the way it suppose to look, or your shader does what it's supposed to do?

So when doing a project, you find yourself taking a lota testrenders and with a single P4, you'll lose precious time waiting for results.

Also, keep in mind, not all dual cpu stations render faster than a uni-cpu box, check http://www.zoorender.com in the mentalray benchmark, for instance, a single Pentium 4 3.2 renders faster (according to zoorender) than a dual opteron 242 or a dual xeon 2GHz.

Michael

[aaron_johnson]

Render into New Windows (test rendering) supports dual CPU, as does IPR. also if u do a lot of compositing with your animations it will help u out in those apps.

but for a cheap workstation a single CPU is a good solution. i prefer Athlon64s cause they are almost as fast, and only one third of the price...

[gmask]

Also, keep in mind, not all dual cpu stations render faster than a uni-cpu box, check http://www.zoorender.com in the mentalray benchmark, for instance, a single Pentium 4 3.2 renders faster (according to zoorender) than a dual opteron 242 or a dual xeon 2GHz.

How did you come up with that???? according to zoorener dual opterons are at the top of the charts and according my own test with the test scene from here they are faster than equivalent of lesser procs.

[lando75]

yeah, i think that that one 3.2ghz p4 bench for the mental ray is incorrect. It should run closer to the 1:50 to 2:00 mark. However, it is true that a slower dual setup will be relatively equivalent to a higher end single processor, but by all means things like a dual 248 opterons which are 600+ a pop, and 1MB L3 Cache Xeons are going to crush and p4 or AMD64 machine. However, realize that the price of such a rig are only for the most serious 3d work or professionals as the price to performance ratios aren't proportionate in the cpu world. For example with sofware rendering dual 248 opterons do around a 40 sec render while a P4 3.0ghz and AMD64 3000+ will do around 1:00. Price: 1200 for the pair of opterons and 200-400 for the P4 and AMD64. However, this is not an absolute for all performance issues as in certain scenes scaling does vary. And again I'd sure like to know how that 3.2 renders so fast cause it's definitely not reflective of the average system, even if it was a P4EE (perhaps).

[grinch]

How did you come up with that???? according to zoorener dual opterons are at the top of the charts and according my own test with the test scene from here they are faster than equivalent of lesser procs.

gmask, in the mentalray benchmark page on zoorender, if you count 10 rows down from the top, you'll find:

01:15:00
Win XP Pro
Pentium 4 3200
1GB RAM
Motherboard ASUS P4P800
By Antonio De Lorenzo

And five rows down, is:

01:36.37
Suse Linux 9.0 AMD64
Dual opteron 242 1600
2GB RAM
Tyan
By Thunder Stefano Cossu

And three rows down, you'll find:

01:52.02
Win 2000 SP4
DUAL XEON P4 2000
2GB RAM
HP X4000
By Bryan Smith

Of course, if you compare high-end flagship cpus, Opteron 248 and Opteron 250 (which by the way, has been waaay awesome in Maya, check www.Spec.org) with P4 3.4 1MB cache, Dual Opteron always comes out first. But my point is, comparing a P4 3.2 with Opteron 242 1.6GHz, as you see above, doesn't give the same result and the P4 renders faster.

Unless of course, the numbers from zoorender are not accurate.

Michael

[gmask]

I'd like to see single cpu perforamnce for Opterons on those test scenes as you cann just double the the performance of dual and say that's what they woul deb like in single CPU mode. It does appear that for the money a single p4 is pretty fast but I would rather spend the extra money for duals. At first I thought you were saying p4's were faster than dual setups. ... and I was like... you crazy!

[lando75]

P4s are faster than certain dual setups. I still think that on P4 bench is off cause it doesn't measure up to my tests. However, with a dual opteron setup shaving off 20 seconds+ versus a single cpu can be a blessing in renderview and especially in a batchrender. However, if you are cannot afford such a rig and are still in the process of learning 3d a AMD 64 or P4 rig @ the high end should do just fine, especially if you don't have an extra grand or two to spend.
I too would be interested in seing a single opteron bench though I'm not sure many have that setup.

[gmask]

P4s are faster than certain dual setups.

Let's assume we are talking about the most current top of the line processors

Personally I look forward to quad Opterons when a board comes out that has AGP.. there's something to drool over!

[aaron_johnson]

a single P4 is fast but dollar for dollar an Athlon-64 is faster my PC's score of the highend3D test scene was 58 seconds on my single CPU Athlon-64 3200+ (2GHz, like the Opteron 246). and a very cheap workstation as well.

u can't just half the time for a dualCPU setup - in some cases u might only get 80% render performance increase with dual. someone on this list has benchmarked the same scene with dual Opteron 248s and got 36 seconds... which is fast but not as good as u might expect for dual 248s at 2.2GHz.

[lando75]

Ok ok. I unconsciously put a single P4 cause that's what I have. lol. I meant P4 and AMD64. Price wise they are about the same, but with P4 you get HT, faster encoding and mover overclockability and with AMD 64 you get faster gaming, 64 bit insurance and less memory latency. And just to throw it out there My P4 3.0ghz rig does 58-1:00 on Maya 4.5 w/ XP which isn't too shabby. I'd like faster, but until the money comes rollin in it ain't gonna happen. lol.

[mag]

Here are the results i got in the highened testcenter benchmark about a month or so ago.. just for your information

p4 2.6 75 seconds
p4 2.8 (prescott) 66 seconds
dual xeon 2.4 56 seconds
dual opteron 242 (1.6ghz) 46 seconds

this is all the machines at my work.. the opteron machine being the last one we purchased (due to it being cheaper than a dual xeon setup as well as being faster)

Dual cpu isn't just handy in batch rendering... its handy in being able to tell programs only to use one cpu...

its also very handy in playing games whilst you render

[pyrokinesis]

Having dual CPUs sounds "way cool," but you're likely to be disappointed. The only time when you can really get your money's worth out of it is when: you have a motherboard etc. that's ACTUALLY able to work efficiently in this mode; and you've really got enough work to keep two CPUs busy; and you have a job to do that can really be "split up" between two CPUs who are working on the same problem at the same time. Furthermore, the two CPUs, when they are "working on the same problem at the same time," must be able to efficiently keep out of one another's way. If you don't have enough RAM in the machine, or the chips aren't really fast enough to handle "two engines goin balls to de walls" ... you're just throwing money away. Like any machine, a CPU's not earning money when it's idle, even for microseconds.

A dual-CPU system with boatloads of resources could probably do two renders (two frames...) at the same time, but you may find that a pair of separate machines running as the world's almost-smallest render-farm will deliver better overall throughput at much less cost.

[titouk]

Thought this might be helpful:

I did the test render thing on this website and here are the specs and timings:

AMD XP 1700, 512 MB: 02:58
AMD (1) Opteron 246, 1024 MB: 00:58
AMD (2) Opteron 246, 1024 MB: 00:37

This is a new dual opteron machine for me but for the quick renders and if wanna stay in the zone when yer working and not wait for the renders then its a great thing to have.

[joojaa]

Well, theres one thing that is actualy for having a dual proc! Usalay the licence of 3rd party renderers is per machine, or atleast a dual proc counts a s 1 lic. Wich can mean a great deal in money!

Besides its realy up to the softare wheter a dual proc can use 2 times the speed.... for example prman actualy comes pretty close to 2 times the speed for rendering a frame!