Greg Hess

Oh I completely agree Ernest. I'm just pointing out how logical buckets can sometimes effect rendering time. I'm mainly trying to get the benchmarks re-run with hyperthreading disabled, to see a core vs core comparison (vs the systems without hyperthreading). Kinda of a way to see the effectiveness of hyperthreading etc. I like data .

I will agree that I exaggerated a bit. What I should have said, is the newer architecture scales far better then the previous architecture did. You could take a look at the scaling from just the cores themselves, by trying the same set of benchmarks with hyperthreading disabled. You should see slightly better scaling (when comparing core to core, vs core and logical to core and logical). One of the things I noticed in terms of disadvantages to hyperthreading in vray (in a few select circumstances), is that sometimes a logical bucket will be attached to an enormously computational part of the scene (a bucket with reflection, refraction, subsurface scattering/displacement, etc). In that situation, sometimes the entire scene will finish rendering, while that damn bucket just sits there, slowly trying to figure out how to finish. Of course that is a very limited occurrence, and overall, hyperthreading is a big boon (especially when you're always rendering things on white backgrounds, like myself).

It's dependent on scene, and rendering time. Vray has a number of steps which are not threaded very well. It's the final part of the rendering process (the bucket section), which scales the best. (I believe this is not completely vray's fault, but the way 3dsmax hands off the data to vray). When dealing with short term renders (less then 5 minutes), a majority of the time will be spent in the "pre" bucket phase. In other words, you can tailor your benchmark to either scale more, or scale less, depending on the % of time the benchmark is spent in the final phase of rendering. You can see this in your last two vray benchmarks, airport vs the vraybenchmark. The scaling % increase will grow as the benchmark time increases. I ran into the same problem a long time ago when I was doing all the 3dluvr techbits. I created a set of benchmarks to help show the differences in cpu power, but it became apparent that after a period of time (a year or two), the growth in cpu power made the benchmarks unable to show statistically relevant data. As such, I would recommend possibly creating a new series of benchmarks if you want to show differences in vray. Perhaps one that takes roughly an hour on a current gen system. (And multiple hours on an older one). That way, in the next few years, it will still be relevant as the # of cpu cores (and speed) increases. Once you start getting into the sub 5 minute benchmark range, differences become less apparent. You can sometimes offset this by repeating the benchmark multiple times (10-20 times for a sub 1 minute benchmark and taking the totals). I wonder if the vray forum has an updated benchmark, if so, that would be a good start. Oh, and is Ed Caracappa still working over at boxx? If so, tell him Greg from 3dluvr says hi!

Check out the Antec P182 case instead. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8863&page=2 It's my current fav case. Watch out for extra length psu's though...you might have to remove the bottom hd fan to fit them in, then put the fan back in afterwords. Also make sure if you own a P180 or P182, that you remove the fan filter covers on the front of the case (leave the filters in place, just remove the plastic swing doors). Removing the mini swing doors increases airflow by nearly 50%! Also a wireless g card? You should really look into an N. I don't know what your available network speeds are in your area, but wireless n is a much better investment at this point then g.

Each core, whether logical or physical, is assigned a bucket in vray. Because of this, vray scales enormously well. The more cores you throw at it, the faster it goes. Since the Core i7 system's are no longer massively bandwidth limited, they scale almost perfectly. (See old xeon vs new xeons) http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16656 Though you will still see diminishing returns, they are FAR FAR less then previous multi-cpu or multi-core platforms. Bucket based rendering system's are one of the best rationalizations for getting as many cores/cpu's as you can afford. Either lets you make more money in the same time frame, or get some well deserved free time .

More info http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16981

I'm currently running (as a default config)... Primary Drive (program/system files) Intel X25-M 80 gb SSD Second Drives (Textures/Materials/Scenes/Data/etc) Raid 1 WD Caviar Black or WD RE3 I'm a big fan of having some sort of redundant drive system setup for the actual data files. If the system/program drive goes down...that's recoverable. If you lose weeks of work...that's devastating.

If you were going to go dual xeon, then go with the newer xeon architecture. This will net you a number of major advantages. 1) No need for FB-Dimm's anymore. You can now deal with standard DDR3 dimm's, allowing for cheaper and faster ram configurations. 2) New hardware, means some growth potential. (You can swap in higher core models later in the year, or next year). 3) New memory controller setup/bus allows for incredible scalability over previous generation Xeons. 4) Decreased power consumption. (we're talking 60-75 watt's here, which if building multiple systems can add up! Can you imagine the power savings across a few full racks???) The new Nehalem Xeon's (Basically Core i7 architecture) are designated by a 55xx in their model #. Here's an excellent article that goes over the basics. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16656/1 IMO, it would be better to go with a single core i7 system, then an older model dual xeon system. Sure the i7 will be a bit slower, but you'll have an upgrade path, and any money you save can be put towards those upgrades...instead of investing in a platform that is reaching the end of its service.

If the system has issues booting with 4 sticks of ram, but not 2 sticks of ram, it's most likely one of the following. 1) The second set of ram dimms is damaged. 2) The second set of ram dimm SLOTS are damaged. 3) There is not sufficient power to power all ram slots (unlikely). First thing I would check...is if all the ram dimms are from the same company, with the same voltage and timing specifications. After getting that information, I'd go into the bios, and make sure all the timing and voltage settings were properly set. Do not assume the bios will correctly set voltages, most of the time it WILL NOT. It will default to the 1.8v (DDR2). Many ram dimms which run faster timings (such as 4-4-4-12) require higher voltages to obtain it. (example, 2.1v). If you never set either the timing, nor the voltage in the bios, the ram will run out of spec. Since each ram dimm has it's own tolerances, the first few dimms might be fast enough to handle higher speeds at lower voltages, but the second set might not. Now if all the settings are correct, I'd run a memtest. http://www.memtest86.com (That link seems down, try this one instead) http://www.memtest.org/#downiso Burn to disk (get the iso) then boot to the cd. Allow it to run. If you get memory errors AND your memory settings are correct, then return the ram for replacement. I'd test in sets of 2, then in sets of 4. If you don't feel like listening to me, and you just decide to reinstall windows...here's a secret IT tip. If you get ANY copy error (where you have to tell the installer to retry) during the windows installation, that's 99.9% of the time a RAM ERROR. So then just go ahead and follow my instructions again. If you wonder what type of ram I usually run, it's always muskin. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146731 This is my current favorite DDR2 set. 5-4-4-12 at 1.8v, allowing it to run in systems with bios's that can't modify dimm voltages.

Desktops are also generally consumer based, and the type and quality of the hardware tends to reflect that. They generally use bargin bin parts, and skimp on the quality of electronics, as well as meeting just the bare minimum specifications for power, cooling, etc. Workstations are desktops which have undergone an "upgrade" both in reliability and quality of components. Though a desktop and workstation may be similarly spec'd in terms of performance, the workstation will tend to be significantly more reliabile and consistent over time. A server is a workstation taken to the next level of redundancy and reliability. Most servers have redundant harddrives, power units, external backups, and run an excessive amount of ram and cpu's to handle massive continuous loads. Where as a workstation may be turned off at the end of a day, a server will run until it dies....which if spec'd correctly, is usually when its being replaced by a newer server.

For those looking for the "ultimate" bang for the buck...wait till jan. That's when the E4300's come out. 1.8GHz, 9X multiplier running at 200MHz FSB. This type of processor is usually the best overclocking chip on the market. 300A Celeron anyone? March is when the video card competition heats up...and the longer you wait, the more quad cores come out....until the octals arrive. Weeeee. I think its time to go to siggraph again.

Thanks for the comments guys. The big giant S was for one of my friends Sahar, an awesome designer. I have no idea how I made it. Completely random doodle. Zeilveen, I've thought about doing that, but most of my modeling is not very impressive if you actually see the wires. It's mainly being covered up by high cook filters, lighting, and the composition of the render. Stuff tends to look pretty good when printed though, so nobody's complained yet...just doesn't realy hold up to large scale online renders, where its easy to pick out flaws and mistakes.

Thanks guys, Ya, nothing here is really architecture, just a lot of design. My studio mainly does spaces and furniture right now...very very slowly. We might get into actual structures one day, who knows. Gotta start somewhere!

Hey Fella's! Finally took the time to get a selection of my works on a gallery system which can actually be viewed instead of a bunch of hyperlinks you have to click on. Here ya go! http://www.fallentear.com/gallery/v/3E/ You can also view my companies website @ http://www.3estudios.net But the work in the gallery is actually more current then the website. Last 3 gallery links are renders, the rest are photos or scans.

Jeff, I assume you ran the general cleaners, like ccleaner, adaware, etc. How old is the install on the desktop? Generally when things are hesitating, or taking awhile to process, that indicates some sort of issue, either spyware or hardware related. However I can't quite figure why it wouldn't be happening remotely. If anything, it should be exaggerated while remotely connected.