Mac G4 render farm

[6600gt]

Originally Posted by addictedMax

and intels are good at things like rendering

Usually because the software is optimized for them...otherwise AMDs are not bad either...

[Cody Carey]

In this particular setup, however... the g4s would far out perform the Xeon.

[theycallhimtom]

Sure the render farm would be faster than one single computer. But consider other things. There needs to be a network so add the cost of that. The space for 36 computers, power costs etc. Then the time to setup and keep the cluster running would be a pain.

Over the summer I had an internship at a local college. My teacher had a 48 computer cluster (each one with dual Pentium 3s) it was a pain to keep everything running. After a few years the motherboards stopped working so they had to be replaced by hand. etc.

[Chris27]

well for $4000 you could make 6 computers based on an amd x2 or a core 2 duo that will easily outperform all of those macs.

[addictedMax]

Originally Posted by Chris27

well for $4000 you could make 6 computers based on an amd x2 or a core 2 duo that will easily outperform all of those macs.

atlon 64's even

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by 6600gt

Clock does not determin performance. That is why AMD beat Intel until now. the new Xeons are far more advanced and do more per clock than those G4s ever could. The Xeons can do more instructions per clock than those G4s ever could.
The old 3GHz P4s could do 10,000 MIPS.
Clock speed tells nothing about its MIPS or the performance of the processor

No they don't, the clock speed determines how many instructions per second. Period. Just because the new Xeons are more "advanced" doesn't change the definition of megahertz. The farm of G4s do more instructions per clock (not considering other system specs, just processor) than the Xeon's does, even if you take into consideration the four logical processors...

The average studio quality scene takes an hour per frame to render.If the Xeon takes an hour to render it, and the G4s take 3 hours each, then they still win... because in 3 hours the Xeon will have rendered 3 frames, and the G4s will have rendered 36.

In standard rendering programs (like the default scan-line renderer for 3dSmax), three of the four cores in a quad-core processor are wasted, because the renderer only uses one. I have no Idea about the standard renderers for Maya, but I wouldn't imagine they could be much different.

The Xeon computer would have to be more than 36 times faster than its G4 predecessor to have better rendering capabilities, and that just isn't plausible.

[Capt.ArD]

Edit: double post.

[Capt.ArD]

Agreed, other things influence the performance of a computer than clock. buswidth allows more simultaneous calculations, and therefore increases the net work done. Dual cores act essentially as a tiny renderfarm on one chip, and do the same thing. It's not about the clock, men, there are more important things...

If the Xeon takes an hour to render it, and the G4s take 3 hours each

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...

(not considering other system specs, just processor)

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.

In standard rendering programs (like the default scan-line renderer for 3dSmax), three of the four cores in a quad-core processor are wasted, because the renderer only uses one. I have no Idea about the standard renderers for Maya, but I wouldn't imagine they could be much different.

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.

[Cody Carey]

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.

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.

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.

[Chris27]

codyc, mhz has very little to do with how much gets done. IPC, or instructions per clock cycle is what determines how much work a processor can do per mhz. just look up some benchmarks of a lower clocked processor like a dothan (pentium m) or conroe (core 2 duo) and compare them to a higher clocked processor like a prescott (pentium 4). you will find that a conroe at 2 ghz can compete with a pressler (pentium d) at 5+ghz. A lower clocked chip with a very high IPC is better then a higher clocked chip with a low IPC. high MHZ = lots of heat, and wasted energy. that is why the pentium 4 turned into a disaster while the athlon 64 kicked butt.

there are still many other factors such as bandwidth, latency, cache, ARCHITECTURE etc.

unless you are comparing the mhz speed of the exact same chip, you are doing a hopeless apples to oranges comparison. Even if you are comparing the same chip, performance does not scale linearly to mhz. a 4ghz chip is not going to be twice as powerful as the same chip clocked at 2ghz.

[Capt.ArD]

By your own admission in the first quote in this post, the render farm will still render faster. Don't sidestep.

Who's sidestepping? It's a valid point.

I didn't mention a word about Mental Ray.

I did. It's also a valid point. Sorry if MR kicks scanline out the window.

there are still many other factors such as bandwidth, latency, cache, ARCHITECTURE etc.

Thank you, this is what i ws trying to say. It's not the clock, or how many processors you have. It s the overall setup.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Chris27

codyc, mhz has very little to do with how much gets done. IPC, or instructions per clock cycle is what determines how much work a processor can do per mhz. just look up some benchmarks of a lower clocked processor like a dothan (pentium m) or conroe (core 2 duo) and compare them to a higher clocked processor like a prescott (pentium 4). you will find that a conroe at 2 ghz can compete with a pressler (pentium d) at 5+ghz. A lower clocked chip with a very high IPC is better then a higher clocked chip with a low IPC. high MHZ = lots of heat, and wasted energy. that is why the pentium 4 turned into a disaster while the athlon 64 kicked butt.

there are still many other factors such as bandwidth, latency, cache, ARCHITECTURE etc.

unless you are comparing the mhz speed of the exact same chip, you are doing a hopeless apples to oranges comparison. Even if you are comparing the same chip, performance does not scale linearly to mhz. a 4ghz chip is not going to be twice as powerful as the same chip clocked at 2ghz.

This is true, but the clock speed is all we have to go in in this scenario... we know nothing more about the Mac G4s than the clock speed, so we can't say which has more ram or a better video card. All we can do is assume, and as stated before... we strive for accuracy. Making calculations based on clock speeds when nothing else is known about a computer is in no way a mistake, It's working with what was given to solve a problem that was presented.

About the heat caused by Pentium 4s, I don't know if you're much into researching the reasons behind problems, but I am. The extra heat of a Pentium 4 is due to the fact that they require more core voltage to operate. My 2.8 Pentium 4 requires a core voltage of 1.8v while my brothers athlon equivalent only asks 1.6v, and yes mine runs hotter, but it beats his in all of the benchmarks. If there is more energy going into the core, then more energy will have to come out, and alot of it will be heat, but every bit as much energy will will still be going into the practical functions of the processor. High megahertz does not equal lots of heat, High core voltage does. High megahertz equals faster ability to process data.

I have searched and searched for the benchmarks That state that a
5.0 Ghz looses to a 2.0Ghz, and I just can't find them... mind pointing out where you found them?
I sure hope you didn't take those numbers out of thin air...

and as for the 6 computers that would beat the 36, you may be absolutely correct, but that has nothing to do with the question that was asked, so don't present it like a point in your argument.

As for the render wall costing more in energy and labor than the single computer... The 46 extra cents a day (when you have the machines running) and having to replace hardware every couple of years is worth it
when you have a deadline coming up and your singe Xeon can't render your project fast enough.



This is starting to feel pretty hostile, So I'm done.

-Cody C

[David55]

Originally Posted by Cody C

This is true, but the clock speed is all we have to go in in this scenario... we know nothing more about the Mac G4s than the clock speed, so we can't say which has more ram or a better video card. All we can do is assume, and as stated before... we strive for accuracy. -Cody C

Just wanted to point out that some of the specs are listed in the product description. All of the G4's have 128 MB of RAM and some have Dual Head or DVI videocards ( I am assuming these are the cards that came with the computer so they are not too advanced.)

And Cody, there is really no reason to leave this discussion. After all, we are just discussing a theoretical question about which system will render faster

David

[Capt.ArD]

I think i am done as well, after this last post.

Making calculations based on clock speeds when nothing else is known

Much is known. The specs of a xeon and of the G4 are only a google search away.
Xeon:
http://www.2cpu.com/articles/99_1.html
G4:
http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-New_Tech...z_7MXMG400_200

As per the benchmarks, I did them myself. I was speaking for what i have done and seen. Such were my observations, and many of my other computer friends have had similar experiences. I apologize if my using this information was offensive to anyone.

[Joohoo]

Another thing to look at the G4's is do they support OSX, they may be limited to OS 9.2 which could limit you to a somewhat volatile OS and not be able to get compatible software.