Hi Guys.
As the subject says, I need as much performance as I can get from my $20,000 - $25,000 AU budget.
What’s going to give me the most performance for my money?
I’d obviously like 64-bit capability in order to run Max 9 64 and VRay 64.
Said render node(s) will only be used for rendering. I’ll install Windows, Max and VRay then put them in the server room where they shall sit until they die.
Thanks guys.
-- DJ
I’m thinking that 5 or 6 of these would be the best way to go.
4U Antec Rackmount chasis
SilverStone ST56ZF 560W PSU
Tyan Thunder K8SD Pro Motherboard
Corsair TWINX2048RE-3200 (2GB) RAM
Seagate 80GB Sata II HDD
2 x AMD Dual-Core Opteron 270
Win XP 64+
Works out to around $3,698ea including taxes.
Hmm. Decisions decisions!
-- DJ
Edit: That’d be 40GHz.
With the price drops on x2’s these may be the way to go for now. You’d end up with more boxes though. I’m not sure about rackmount enclosures, but you could probably build 4600x2 with regular cases for about $1000US. Each 4600 will get you about 2/3 the speed of the dual 270’s and you’d end up with probably 2-3 times the number of boxes. This would mean the x2 farm would have about 50-75% more horsepower. It is alot more boxes to setup and/or administer though.
Just my $.02.
David
Good idea.
I’ll cost up some X2 nodes and post back.
The potential power bill from so many boxes (20?) would be a bit of a worry though.
How much would be lost from the network traffic?
A few issues I can see are
- Windows’ connection limit. Can this be boosted, or will my workstation require a server OS?
- Will require 2 VRay licenses. Only have one at the moment, but we will be getting another one shortly down the track.
-- DJ
hey DJ,
I would go with the x2’s without the rack mount, it will save a fair chunk o change. Im not sure when the price drop will come into effect though.
Where in Australia are you?
All good points…
I don’t think you’d see any problems with network traffic. Setup a gigabit switch and forget about it. You could setup the whole thing for less than $200-300 probably.
Not sure about the Windows connection limit but this has been a problem for some people. You mentioned the render nodes would be going in the server room-is the server where the nodes would get the files and license from? Is this an actual server with a server OS? If yes to both you don’t need a server OS on your workstation.
I think you’d only need two licenses to do DR on the addtional nodes. Backburner will use all of them I think :? (anyone?).
I’m curious what you decide, keep us posted.
$20,000 of these boxes works out to 14 of them - 56GHz in total.
Antec SLK3000B Case
Antec SmartPower 2.0 400W
AMD AM2 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Dual Core
Seagate 80GB HDD
ABIT KN9S Motherboard
Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400 2GB RAM
XP Pro 64+
$1,350inc taxes
Now to
a) Find a workaround for the XP Pro connection limit
b) Figure out the difference in power consumption comparing 5 and 14 boxes.
DJ there is a connection limit hack for XP, i will see if I can find it for you.
Do you really have a need to DR on all of the render nodes? 10 will be heaps.
I would recommend going for an X2 4400 proc, will give you a little more Ghz in total. The 4400’s will come down in price soon, so ask your supplier
You may be better off getting at least the 4200 or 4600x2. Best bang for the buck… Even if it drops you down a box or two (see below):
4200: 2.2ghz * 2 cores * 13 boxes = 57.2ghz total
4600: 2.4ghz @ 2 cores *12 boxes = 57.6ghz total
jacks suggested the 4400 (or the 4800) but all of the benchmarks show very little gain by up’ing the cache to 1mb (at least in vray).
i couldnt be bothered working out the total GHz’s!
Thanks guys 
The need to DR on all of the machines would probably arise quite frequently.
The same machine with 4600+ will cost $1,512.50inc tax, which is $162.50 more per box. On a $20,000 budget I can get 13 boxes, which is 62.4GHz in total - 6.4GHz more than the 3800+ and 14 boxes.
Very fancy
I think this will be a go-er once I’ve confirmed I can remove the 10 connection limit on XP.
Cheers
-- DJ
:lol: Yeah kind of funny and not truly indicative of the performance level; you can’t just add everything up and see how they compare like that but since that’s what DJ was after I went along with it. Regardless, 13 of the 4200’s would probably be acbout 60-70% faster than the dual 270 boxes and quite a nice render farm.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000329.html
here is a URL for a hack for the 10 connection limit.
Or for the lazy lot
Just a little tool to do it all for you 
ah nice, I was looking for something like that!
Awesome
Where would I (and/or we all!) be without this forum?
-- DJ
Well I might actually be doing some work for a change :lol:
4200s render faster than 4400s. Don’t know about 4600… but that saves an extra $50-100.
XP limit is a biatch! Don’t mess with it. Get 1 less machine and build a server 2003 r2 with Raid 5. 320gb SATA II drives are only $94 at NewEgg.
You have got to be kidding me… no way do the 4200’s render faster than the 4400’s
4400’s are faster than 4200’s but only by a tiny margin.
The cornell BT i was getting a difference of about 2 secs, both boxes had the same MB, ram, HHD, etc.