Render Heads

PressXPressX Working! New
edited August 2004 in Internet & Media
This is for you guys who use 3D MAX.

I Have a customer who is looking for a new rig and is a heavy 3d max user (He creates visuals from plans for developers). He has asked me to spec a PC for around £1000 / $1800 that can be used as a workstation but also for rendering. Now I have never used 3d Max in anger. Is it memory or CPU that does the hard work? or Both. I suspect it will be memory but need to know what other people think? Do I build AMD or Intel (would prefer not to go Intel) do I go dual Procs or spend the extra on loads of mem? Is the a Linux build that can render? This may make better use of AMD64?

So any thoughts from this knowledgeable community? ;D

TYIA

Marcus

Comments

  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Rendering is done by CPU, the graphics card is only used while BUILDING the models. A good GFX Card is useful while doing teh work for those high poly models, but there will be no rendering difference if you use a TNT card vs a Radoen X800. It's all done via software.

    Hope that helps.

    EDIT// And as for the memory and Dual processor stuff, I would go for Dual Processor. Memory does help, but if you're main importance is Rendering, go Dual Processor.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2004
    I think any DCC artist will tell you, time is money. The faster you can render something, the quicker you can get paid. With that in mind, I think lots of memory is very important (+4gb) which means that dual cpu's are your only choice. Don't forget a good DCC video card. The nvidia quadro series, radeon firegl series, or wildcat cards will all work.

    I think all of this will push past your budget though....so you could always go for a a64-fx53 with like 2gb of ram and a middle-of-the-road DCC video card. Below is a rough estimate...

    $900 mobo and cpu
    $500 ram
    $500 dcc video card
    __________
    $1800
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Really? Cause I have been working on systems with only 1GB of RAM running with only a Single Processor and the best graphics card I have used is a Radeon 9800 Pro. So far it runs great, and while memory is nice to have, it isn't really all that required. But I do agree that Dual Processors are the best thing you can get, wish I had a Dualie :D
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    PressX wrote:
    This is for you guys who use 3D MAX.

    I Have a customer who is looking for a new rig and is a heavy 3d max user (He creates visuals from plans for developers). He has asked me to spec a PC for around £1000 / $1800 that can be used as a workstation but also for rendering. Now I have never used 3d Max in anger. Is it memory or CPU that does the hard work? or Both. I suspect it will be memory but need to know what other people think? Do I build AMD or Intel (would prefer not to go Intel) do I go dual Procs or spend the extra on loads of mem? Is the a Linux build that can render? This may make better use of AMD64?

    So any thoughts from this knowledgeable community? ;D

    TYIA

    Marcus

    I basically do what he does, the majority of 3DSMAX relies on processor power as well as memory. Here would be my recommendations:

    Bare minimum for 1 gig-o-ram, 2 would be best but that could get costly, atleast leave him room to add more memory if he needs it.

    Nvidia graphics card (ATis have conflictions with 3DSMAX, my Radeon 9800 pro gets sluggish at around 200,000 polys yet my old Geforce 2 GTS stayed stable when I was doing an animation in late winter at 800,000 polygons. I haven't tried the 6800 for 3DSMAX yet, I don't know many people who have. I hear very good things about the Quadro all the time.

    Processor is going to be the meat of the system, I currently run on an Athlon XP 1800+ and it has been very stable and fast for me. Lots of rendering nodes work of off dual Xeons in the corporate manwhore stations, and is a very popular choice. I would recommend AMD in my experience, I've never heard any stability problems at all from the people who use it, whereas I've heard lots of people complain about their Intel product being too hot, too sluggish, too taboo, whatever. I guess the choice is if you want to stick with the old AMD series or move up to the 64 bit series. This is really going to test your budget if you go AMD 64, and it will be faster, but he may not be buying Win 64 immediately when it comes out (Whenever the hell that is). As of right now, 3DS MAX is not 64 bit compatible, and the OS as well as the program must be compatible to take advantage of it. 3DS MAX 7, which will be shown at Siggraph in a little bit, is unknown if it will be 64 bit compatible. Even if it was, he probably won't rush out and go upgrade for another $3,000, and if he is using a 3rd party rendering system, then he definately will not be upgrading. Hyperthreading is also important.

    *Edit*
    4 gig is overkill, you start loosing the usefullness of RAM after about 2 gigs, after that it's just pissing in the wind.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Nomad, how can you suggest AMD and then say Hyperthreading is important :wtf:;D

    I would say try as hard as you can to cram dual processors into that budget somewhere. A minimum of a gig ram, to be sure, but duallies make a huge difference in rendering.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Nomad, how can you suggest AMD and then say Hyperthreading is important :wtf:;D

    I would say try as hard as you can to cram dual processors into that budget somewhere. A minimum of a gig ram, to be sure, but duallies make a huge difference in rendering.

    I meant it is an important thing to weigh in, a local friend of mine said enabling hyperthreading in 3DSMAX increased his render speeds by 10-15%, but I don't know if it was faster than his AMD processor (They, like I did, renderd an animation on a mixed render farm of anything they could get that turned on basically) I would suggest going AMD, but the choice is yours between an AMD 64 that may never get its full use, and a dual AMD system, which will get good use.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Memory is used as the VFB, or virtual frame buffer... This helps when rendering AND when modelling. As nomad said, anything beyond 2GB is just throwing your money in the toilet and hitting the handle.

    nVidia video cards are the way to go for 3D graphics work. They're one of the industry leaders in video cards for enterprise modelling applications. No one knows why ATI doesn't work very well, but nVidia does excellently.

    Hyperthreading? Yes, it's important... However, dual Opterons equivalent to any Xeon will A) Be cheaper and B) Be faster. The 64 bit doesn't matter so much as it's just <b>considerably faster than any other processor in existence.</b>
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    The 64 bit doesn't matter so much as it's just considerably faster than any other processor in existence.

    Right, but what I'm considering is the fact that for the extra money, would he see the benefit from it, a considerable benefit without the 64 bit applications.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    An Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) is approximately 15% faster than a 3.4GHz xeon. And cheaper.
  • PressXPressX Working! New
    edited August 2004
    So to conclude this little meander into 3D hardware specs the general feeling is:

    Dual Opterons
    2GB Ram
    Nvidia GPU

    The proc does a lot of work, while memory is important going over the top (>2GB) is not needed.

    I will price it up and see what my customer says. I suspect it will be out of his budget. UK prices are higher and it would be the same as building it for $1000... But I will try :rant:

    Thanks for the replies. I hoped this would generate a good response :thumbsup::respect:
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Hey Nomad, what sub $200 NVidia card is best right now? I just tested my radeon with a sphere of 300,000 poly's in Mesh Mode and it got pretty sluggish.

    Besides, I am getting tired of crashing in games... this card seems to be dieing :P
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Thrax wrote:
    No one knows why ATI doesn't work very well, but nVidia does excellently.

    Poor OpenGL drivers are the reason that nVidia crushes ATI in professional 3d applications :)
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Shorty wrote:
    Poor OpenGL drivers are the reason that nVidia crushes ATI in professional 3d applications :)

    It's not so much that either, I tried running on Direct 3D for awhile and it was still craptacular.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    Shorty wrote:
    Poor OpenGL drivers are the reason that nVidia crushes ATI in professional 3d applications :)

    I was told by my teacher that if you use a Radeon Card that you should run 3D Max under DirectX 8 and not 9 due to this same reason. I haven't tried it yet though :P
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    what's your budget on the vid card?
    If you're shopping from $200 - $500 then I'd say go with the FX500-700.
    FX500 (128bit) is considered entry level and FX700 (256 bit) mid-range ...by nvidia of course.

    Of course if it were me I'd be leaning towards a Wildcat.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited August 2004
    Here are some related articles. The first is on AMD opterons rendering ability. The second one is how to convert your regular radeon to firegl with a BIOS flash.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20040811/index.html

    http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=105&var2=0

    140 opteron render farm plus 60 other individual workstations! WOW! That is awesome!
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    ryko wrote:
    140 opteron render farm


    :eek2:
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited August 2004
    PressX

    I work with Softimage which is 3DStudio Max's rather large and scary uncle.

    Everyone is correct here in saying that the 3D modelling programs are CPU intensive for rendering out a single or multiple pict sequence. (Images). The GPU for OpenGL or Direct3D is mainly relied upon for manipulating the model. EG: spinning it about then redrawing it's framework.

    The rest of it is 2D.

    It is worth it to get the 3D Professional cards mainly for the specific driver support. There isn't so much of a hardware difference between Nvidia products, for example. It's in the driver set and what is/isn't enabled on the hardware side of the card.

    I, myself, haven't run into a situation where something couldn't be done on a 9800 PRO vs the FIREGL. But I know it's lurking out there somewhere.

    Best case...dual processors as recommended.
    Best case...professional workstation ATI or NVIDIA card. Most favor NVIDIA.
    Best case...2 GB of RAM...1 is fine.

    We use a Quadro 750 XGL and it works just fine. Not that expensive but hard to get.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited August 2004
    SoftImage lost a lot of market when they went to make XSI because it took so long, but they are definately gaining some back, especially with their new price ($499). I'm still ticked off that Autodesk still charges absorbenantly high prices. I thought that when Maya, Rhino, and SoftImage dropped their prices Autodesk would follow soon, apparently I was wrong :\ XSI has a lot going for it in terms of game development. It's got a good native render (Better than Mental Ray in my opinion)
Sign In or Register to comment.