View Single Post
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-08-2006, 21:15
Cody Carey's Avatar
Cody Carey Cody Carey is offline
,':-)
AKA: C. Carey
FRC #0306 (CRT)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Corry, PA
Posts: 1,137
Cody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond reputeCody Carey has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Cody Carey Send a message via Yahoo to Cody Carey
Re: Mac G4 render farm

Quote:
Just a nitpick, a one hour Xeon scene would probably take a 400MHz processor five or seven hours to do, probably more. We strive for accuracy...
Ok, I'm sorry for my innaccuracies, in 7 hours, the xeon would only have 7 frames done, and the render farm would have 36... the Xeon still looses, which is the point I was trying to make.
Quote:
dont dismiss. The discussion is about what computer will render faster, not processor. ram and graphics cards play just as important a role in this as the processor.
By your own admission in the first quote in this post, the render farm will still render faster. Don't sidestep.

Quote:
Scanline does go faster with dual cores, BTW. And mental ray adds buckets for more cores. watch a dual core render in MR. you'll see TWO boxes going at it.
I didn't mention a word about Mental Ray.
Now onto what I actually said, and not what was brought to the table by people other than myself. Can you show me documentation that says the default Scanline renderer provided with Max uses all the processors present in a computer? because I have timed a render on our quad-core 2.8 at the school, and It did no better than my single-core 2.8 at home.
__________________