VRAY and xeon cache size...?

[DP]

does anyone have any experience/figures on how the size of a xeon cache can improve Vray's speed...is there a noticable % increase between a 512k cache and a 1mb or even a 2mb?

thanks in advance

[twinxel]

Well, if you want to make a quick test, I've rendered the image just off the .rar file in a P4 EE 3.2 Ghz with 2Mb cache and 2 Gb RAM.

Time was exactly 1m 02 seconds at 320x240, HT enabled. Max 6.

Regards,

Joao.

Edit: here is the topic that links to the file.
http://www.chaoticdimension.com/foru...pic.php?t=6914

[DP]

Ah. thanks , but our machines are either single P4's without HT or Dual Xeons, so its going to be difficult to extrapolate any comparison.

Any other Xeon owners out there?

[nully]

as far as ive read on cyberspace - there is very little difference.. rendering relies on raw cpu power -cache helps when theres a lot of data going back and forth (servers) - theres an article on tomshardware about 1mb chache. 2cpu.com may also give you some info.

[DP]

cheers

thats article seems to indicate little impact, certainly not enough to justify the price hike.

[orbital5280]

How is this for comparison....

Not to start a flame war here but it goes to show that the cheap cheap CHEAP Athlon XP is still alive and kicking, and capable! I have an Athlon XP 3200 on an Abit AN7 Nforce2 Ultra with 512mb memory. Windows 2000 Professional.

The same scene "twinxel" above rendered I rendered in 1m 04 seconds at 320x240, woops no HT to enable here! Max6. Scene straigh out of the rar file.

By the by, the Barton Athlon XP sports a mega 512kb of cache!!!!!! My word of advice is to save your money and go XP instead of giving up all your body parts and then some for a Pentium 4EE! Performance difference is very negligible. Go take your wife, family, girlfriend, etc to Disney Land instead and still have cash left over for that Lanchia.

Word of advice. Max6 and 5 render scenes alot faster in Windows 2000 Professional than in "CRAP XP supposedly Professional". Set up a test scene and render in both OSs on systems with exact same specs, better yet, on the same one and see for yourself.

Cheers.



PS: Im new, love vray and this forum, been a stalker for 2 years now.... and finally decided to join.

PPS: No Im not an AMD employee, I just like saving my money instead for falling for Intels Gorilla marketing ways. "Were the PC Processor Pimps! If it doesn't say Intel inside, YOU"VE BEEN HAD!"

[nlo]

i got a dual athlon 2.8 and a dual xeon 3.2 and for images with for example little or no diffuse reflections, i get very similar rendertimes.
but for some more complex scenes & materials rendertimes are double on athlons.

[DP]

without also wanting to start a debate, athlons are a no-no for us, they haven't proved reliable enough for us for a variety of reasons.

[reza]

ill render mine in a sec..dual Xeon 3.06 with 1mb cache..

[zloner]

the difference between an 2MB cached and a 512KB cached XEON is as little as it could be. When we look at the pricing you can buy 2 DUAL XEONs with 512KB cache for the same money you pay for 1 XEON 2 MB cached.

In large scene animations the 2MB Xeons are faster but only a few percent. 2MB XEONs were build for database servers with mio. of threads working up in one second. You only want to render .... :P

[reza]

Speed demond.

Sorry i took too long...i was rendering some work..
i rendered the file and got about 35.2 seconds....im using Dual Xeon 3.06 with 1mb cache....its true that a 2mb cache is too much...all you need is a dual xeon with either 512 or 1mb cache...dont forget, while rendering using max...youre also using windows/virus scanner and a bunch of things running...so the answer is the extra cache helps a lot...and to those who are using intel P4EE...dont worry..the processor is still the best around...but you have to remember that youre running againts dual...and trust me on this...nothing compares to dual power regardless how much cache there is....so to conclude my findings...better to go for dual xeon with 512 cache than any other setups....by the way...im running HT...

[zloner]

sorry reza, you are wrong. The virus scanner is the only thing that could take some cpu power, but only when he is bad configured. Any other program than max is senseless on a render server.

On a render server you dont need sexy desktops, VGA power, anim. menus, firewalls, scanners and all that f***.

But, sorry, I only speak of professional work For home-use you can buy whatever the magazines, press or the people say ...

[orbital5280]

reza has a point but....

Yes the Pentium 4EE is the "top of the line" processor but from a price / performance ratio point of view, it totally sux.


Pricewatch.com as of 6/19/04

$849 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme

$137 - Athlon XP 3200 512kb

Look at above posts, the 2mb cache on the Pentium 4 makes it only maginally better than a chip with 512kb cache in MAX.

Studiosetup scene:

Twinxel P4 EE 3.2 Ghz 2MB - 1m 02 seconds at 320x240, HT enabled. Max 6.

Orbital5280 Athlon XP 3200+ 512kb - 1m 04 seconds at 320x240, HT = Joke . Max 6.



If you were to dive into how the P4 architecture works it needs a higher amount of cache to get a a better throughoutput.

If you build an AMD system properly you wont have problems like overheating, BSOD or lockups, I have yet to see one BSOD or have yet to see one of my work vanish because the computer randomly rebooted. I run it 24hours a day 7days a week. Please don't give me that AMD processors have compatibility issues and junk because thats:

1. An uneducated non computer literate person talking.

2. BS (Banana Shurbet) cause I have not run into a single compatibility problem.

3. An x86 processor is an x86 processor. Not something radically different, just because it doesn't say Intel.

Hey for the money of one P4 EE I could get 6 Athlon XP3200+ processors !!!

Bye for now.

PS: Anyone here like 2000 Pro better than XP Pro for stability in max, photo shop, etc??

[reza]

Zloner, youre right about the render server...but im refering to my workstation that i use to render my work and others as the above file.....and look below the numbers of process running at the same time max is...its small but enough to take off power calculations from max...so by having dual you can manage better cpu/ram usage...and i do consider my work as Professional Work...being 1 of the trainer for Autodesk/Discreet training centres here in Malaysia for the past 9 years...

[ezrhythm]

i got Dual Xeon 2.8, 512K with 2Gb RAM. As a workstation it doesnt have better candidates in its pricerange. Altho i tried to join my workstation at nights to my farm and it f***ed up many times... SD tree calculation, it was just quitting max alltho on the farm (P4 2.8HT 1Mb cache 1Gb ram) everything works OK.

I never used Athlon, and probably will never do.

I ran some tests:
Same scene on
Dual Xeon 512 with 2Gb RAM (HT was Disabled) - 2:55
P4 HT 2,8Ghz 1mb cache 1Gb RAM - 4:30
So, when i switch HT back, it goes to 1:40