Hardware selection for 3D animation rendering?

TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
edited July 2009 in Hardware
I had a few 3D animation students ask to use my dual core laptop and desktop to do some of their 3D animation rendering for their class. Thirty bucks to use my PCs for a day sounded good to me!

I was wondering about building an extra PC or 2 to be used for more of this work and advertising it to make some extra cash.

What specs are critical for a computer doing this type of work exclusively?

Dual core or preferably quad core CPU? Is CPU speed critical or will last year's good CPU be fine? For example, would there be a big performance gain going from a quad core 2.0 Ghz to a quad core 2.8 Ghz? Is L2/L3 cache memory something that would make a big difference?

A lot of RAM? The Newtek Lightwave 3D program on my desktop is only using 280 MB of RAM for its work right now.

Graphics card? I imagine a halfway decent card is needed to show their 3D work smoothly when it's done, but does it need to be a high end gaming GPU?

Operating system? Xp Home would be fine for this, while not using too many system resources for itself?

Give me more information on this and things to watch out for also.:rockon:
«1

Comments

  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Anyone?:confused:
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    I imagine you should probably spring for a professional card, a Quadro or FireGL.

    Is the program multithreaded? If not, a quad would probably be a waste of money.
  • lordbeanlordbean Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2009
    Gargoyle pretty much summed up all of what I was gonna say in two sentences. lol.

    Only need quad core if the app is multithreaded, which you should be able to find out from the manufacturer of the app. Professional card is likely a good idea, to my knowledge rendering 3D animations is heavy on vram, and that's one of the defining differences between consumer and professional cards - professional cards come stacked with more vram. I imagine their rendering pathways are probably more optimized toward that sort of thing, too.
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Okay, let me jump in here since I am a 3D animator and I do administrate both workstations and a renderfarm.

    If the box is going to be used as a workstation then RAM and GPU are the most important component but CPU helps as well. I regularly see people max out 8GB of RAM doing particles, dynamics or rendering a dense scene of high resolution textures.

    GPU is a tough one, the people I work for and a few of my friends always buy highend workstation Quadro's but I'd stay away from them. In the past three years I've seen nearly 30 Quardo FX 3500's go bad, so much for professional stability. In terms of performance they are good but you're paying a lot more for a relatively small increase in performance, I'd much rather buy a nice Geforce and upgrade it every six months and still come out spending less instead.

    In terms of CPU it really depends on what you're doing, if you're rendering you're hitting the CPU exclusively (unless you're using a hardware renderer like gelato). Multithreading is an issue but I like to be doing rendering at the same time as other things so I'll fire off a render on one or more cores and work in another while it's running.

    If this is a renderfarm machine then you don't need a fancy GPU (for software rendering) and you still want lots of RAM and CPU's to work. You can fire off a separate render in each core individually if you're renderer doesn't do multithreading but keep in mind that you're losing RAM with each instance.

    Hope that helps, I'm sure Lynx will get in on this and provide his expertise in the area as well.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Chris hit all the important points, and there's little left I can add that the above 3 contributors haven't already said.

    CPU and RAM. Simply. Your absolute minimum on RAM should be 4, but you'll certainly want more than that. Go for 8, or more. And high speed ram, too. Don't cheap out on the ram timings.

    Actually, If you're building a rendering machine, don't cheap out and cut any corners with any cheaper components. Be prepared to sink a lot of money into this machine.

    Unlike Chris, I have a few friends who have had great success with nVidia Quadro cards. Despite their systems also being used for 3D animation and rendering, they certainly don't see the daily use and stress that Chris' workstations do, so that could play a factor in the card's longevity. I like the Quadro cards, but don't have extensive experience using one with animating, so I can't give an experienced opinion.

    Though if you're marketing this system to 3D artists in need of a rendering box, they very well could take you seriously only if you have serious pro hardware, i.e. Quadro/FireGL. The thing that matters to the artist is that the platform doesn't slow them down. When they're looking at a complex scene in the viewport and trying to keyframe an animation, low frame rate is a deal breaker. Also, many animators will playblast a scene (in maya) to check the shot framing and animation. I believe this is done on the GPU, but I'm not positive. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris.

    Also, don't overlook the harddrive. Put at least a 1tb drive in there, and perhaps even consider RAID. If someone is rendering out HD frames of a scene, that's going to eat up space REAL quick. Be prepared to deal with massive file sizes.

    This project is going to be expensive. Real expensive. If, of course, you do it right. Beyond all the top end hardware we've dicussed, you've still got to invest in software, and 3D apps aren't cheap. (you ARE buying the software... right?) Honestly, if you build a rendering box, you're going to need quite a few clients to make the costs worthwhile. And I have to admit, I'm a bit skeptical about how hip 3D artists will be to the idea. I may be an exclusive case, but I know when I'm working on a project I'm VERY picky about file paths and organization, asset management, software customization and tweaking... I know if I didn't have a PC that could do these things, I'd only trust my work to a dedicated, consistent farm like what Chris manages. I couldn't imagine going to someone just to farm out their computer and walking away with the results. Perhaps that makes me crazy.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    "Little left I can add" followed by a wall of text. Only Lynx and Snark. ;D
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    UPSLynx wrote:
    Though if you're marketing this system to 3D artists in need of a rendering box, they very well could take you seriously only if you have serious pro hardware, i.e. Quadro/FireGL. The thing that matters to the artist is that the platform doesn't slow them down. When they're looking at a complex scene in the viewport and trying to keyframe an animation, low frame rate is a deal breaker. Also, many animators will playblast a scene (in maya) to check the shot framing and animation. I believe this is done on the GPU, but I'm not positive. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris.

    True, I hadn't thought about the marketability side of things. Also, you're correct on playblasting, if you're looking for these to be character animation or particles and dynamics scenes you probably don't want to skimp out here.
    UPSLynx wrote:
    Also, don't overlook the harddrive. Put at least a 1tb drive in there, and perhaps even consider RAID. If someone is rendering out HD frames of a scene, that's going to eat up space REAL quick. Be prepared to deal with massive file sizes.

    I so agree with this, though I'd go for four 250GB fast drives in RAID zero, especially if you'll be doing any compositing or editing on this. Once you start working with video this gets important really fast.
    UPSLynx wrote:
    I may be an exclusive case, but I know when I'm working on a project I'm VERY picky about file paths and organization, asset management, software customization and tweaking... I know if I didn't have a PC that could do these things, I'd only trust my work to a dedicated, consistent farm like what Chris manages. I couldn't imagine going to someone just to farm out their computer and walking away with the results. Perhaps that makes me crazy.

    I'll agree to this, if you've got a few people who really like this idea then it may rock, especially if you're working with students or part time 3D guys who have easy access to your rig and don't have any other options.

    He's right too about software, it can completely eclipse your hardware costs, if it's students you can get some really awesome deals on 3D software.
    Thrax wrote:
    "Little left I can add" followed by a wall of text. Only Lynx and Snark. ;D
    Hahahaha, awesome Thrax
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Thrax wrote:
    "Little left I can add" followed by a wall of text. Only Lynx and Snark. ;D

    haha, I know, I know!

    Upon proofreading the post, I noticed that as well. Decided to keep it in, it made me smile.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Sounds like it'll be FAR more complex than what I'm prepared to spend money on. The people who used my laptop brought a program called Newtek Lightwave with them, version 9.3.1 or 9.5.3, or something like that. They seemed satisfied with the performance. And that Lightwave program did all the animation rendering they needed it to do. I was watching, it looked like it had a lot of settings in it, but I personally have done no 3D work ever. So I don't know anything about it. It was running around 8-1/2 minutes a frame for them, and they let it run a couple days until the job was done. While it was running, I opened up Task Manager, and the Lightwave was only using 280 MB of RAM. I thought it would have been way more.

    I only use the laptop for playing videos while I play WoW on my main PC, so I wasn't worried about them messing up my stuff on the laptop.

    My idea was to assemble the cheapest possible PC, with a quad core, 4 GB ram, and maybe a halfway decent gaming video card I might have laying around. Sounds like that might not be ideal.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Tim wrote:

    My idea was to assemble the cheapest possible PC, with a quad core, 4 GB ram, and maybe a halfway decent gaming video card I might have laying around. Sounds like that might not be ideal.

    Not in the least bit. If this idea is going to be taken seriously as a 'business', then that won't come close to cutting it.
  • edited July 2009
    Tim, animation studios, like Pixar, use large computer clusters (also called as render farm) for rendering their movies. Check the following companies as well. They sell computing services for rendering purposes.
    http://www.rebusfarm.com/
    http://www.respower.com/
    http://www.renderrocket.com/
  • edited July 2009
    3D modeling and rendering are done on different computers. Since 3D modeling (such as creating the 3D models of the characters, environment, scenes) is usually an interactive work of the artist, it is done on workstations with advanced 3D hardware. Rendering, on the other hand, is a computing intensive automated batch process and is done on a parallel-computer/cluster.

    I found the following links for you.
    Here is an open source rendering farm management software.
    http://www.drqueue.org/

    Here is a guy who built a home-made rendering farm
    http://helmer.sfe.se/
  • edited July 2009
    I would check the AMD quad- or dual-socket Socket F motherboards with AMD Opteron 24xx/84xx six-core (Istanbul) processors for the rendering farm. You can start with a single node (12 cores/2 cpus or 24 cores/4 cpus) and add more nodes as required.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    This rendering stuff is interesting to learn about, but only up to the point where it would cost me money. No plans to make a business out of it, just a few bucks on the side from local animation school students.
  • edited July 2009
    Consider my posts on top of of what Chris and Lynx wrote.

    If there are students at your town who are willing to rent computers from you, why don't you try to target their school as a customer? You can do a render farm starting from a small scale. I know from our university, it is very expensive for the universities to build and maintain computing systems. You can develop a business model attractive to both sides.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    The most elegant solution I've seen so far is a dual-purpose computer lab & render farm. Here at ACCAD, they have a computer lab that students use during classes, but sees a lot of idle time besides that, so they have a distributed computing client that takes sets of Maya frames to render in downtime.

    Not sure if they wrote it up themselves using Maya scripting or if it's commercial software; I can't remember what it's called of the top of my head.
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Yeah, there are a bunch of clients that will do that, I've seen Muster work and we're using Qube now in my labs. You can typically setup the lab on a schedule and you can restrict renders to maximum number of CPU's and/or Memory at any given time. Qube also has a cool thing we're working to setup right now called watchdog which will render anytime someone isn't actually working at that very moment so we can setup time during classes when students may or may not be working on their projects to render and as soon as they move the mouse or whatever they'll get all their resources back.
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Oh yeah, along those lines, renderfarm management software is expensive and few renderers give you free render nodes so you end up buying even more software per machine. There's even a bunch of them that require individual licenses per CPU you render on.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Graphics card question. The GPUs we all use for playing games are made to do 3D stuff as good as possible, right? Wouldn't they be good choices for 3D animation stuff as well?

    Something around $100-$200 from ATI (4770, 4850, 4870, 4890) or Nvidia should be able to show their scenes smoothly shouldn't it?

    When the students were doing their testing on my laptop, it played the scenes smoothly, and that's at 1280X800 resolution on a GeForce 7200 graphics chip.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    No, they were meant to do gaming as "good as possible." There's a big difference in requirements when it comes to rendering the viewport of a modeling application.

    It's like saying "Well a Cadillac was made to do driving as good as possible, right? Wouldn't it be a good choice for formula 1?"
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Tim, both Lynx and I talked directly about that earlier in the thread.
  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    what Thrax said.

    That's far too complex a subject for an easy answer.

    But the general answer is no. Gaming graphics cards will generally not pull the weight of 3D applications as well as a workstation card.

    They're fined tuned to render in different means. Realtime as opposed to frame at a time.

    I'm stopping here, to prevent the inevitable 'LWoT', or Lynx Wall-of-Text.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    and also because it's just not worth it
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Tim, let me save you some time, if this isn't your life's passion then don't come anywhere near it. It's just too much work.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    And money. Which is totally better spent on Wiis for Ebay.
  • TimTim Southwest PA Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    Mirage - I loved that techarp article. There's not much that makes me smile more than getting one over on the big company seeking a huge profit on something for a tiny little software change! :)
  • edited July 2009
    Tim wrote:
    Mirage - I loved that techarp article. There's not much that makes me smile more than getting one over on the big company seeking a huge profit on something for a tiny little software change! :)

    Tim, there is no hardware difference between the GPUs of FireGL and Radeon cards, same with Quadro. The difference is created by the manufacturer by assigning different hardware id numbers and matching with special graphics drivers for professional cards. The professional graphics drivers are optimized and certified for professional graphics software and do not perform as well with games. One can not simply install professional graphics drivers on the gaming cards since the drivers are locked with the hardware ids. At the link I gave above, there is some partial success converting the cards by modifying the hardware ids. I had done a similar mod for a FireGL years ago to use Patran and ABAQUS. But manufacturers naturally want to sell professional hardware at its special price category and try to prevent such conversions. I would not recommend modding. It is the safest bet to buy the real professional card. You can find used cards on Ebay. Especially in big corporations many of the professional graphics cards are wasted with just office work and find their way to Ebay through liquidators.
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited July 2009
    I didn't realize that the driver hack could still be done (last I heard about it was years ago), but I guess I should have known better.

    I doubt that the program I'm using, Virtools, will get much extra help, but it'd be worth a try. The point cloud I'm dealing with is butchering my laptop, and my desktop struggles a bit, too. The fancypants Quadros at the ACCAD lab do better, but they're also two generations newer and have a gig of RAM.
  • chrisWhitechrisWhite Littleton, CO
    edited July 2009
    Yeah, I didn't think they were still able to do that hack either. I had a friend who did it four or five years ago but he hasn't done anything like it since and he's the kind of guy who do it. I don't think he saw that great of results with the mods either, and it totally jacked up his performance in games.

    Crazy guy though, his dad wrote memtest86 and my friend even tried cryo-treating a few hardware components to push them harder. I think he did his CPU and his RAM, the result was a 1% increase in speed.
Sign In or Register to comment.