sstamfb Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi all, i'm doing an animation using default scanline renderer. My computer has quad core cpu. During the render procession my computer uses only the 25% of cpu (just the one core?). Is this normal? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinHawaiian Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Did a quick test and yep, scanline uses more than one core. You just can't tell off-hand since there aren't multiple buckets going. Just a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nazcaLine Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 go to customize>preferences>rendering and make sure "multithreading" is checked. Eduardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstamfb Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 multithreading is on. when i do mental ray rendering my computer uses 4 buckets, but in default scanline or when i prepare a scene it uses only the 25% of cpu ....i thing something is going wrong .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Is it a large enough rendering that all 4 cores would kick in? Have you tried a different scene?? When I render on my Quad core, all 4 charts jump to +/-100%.. but if it is a very small scene only 1 core jumps to 100% (I am talking about scenes that render in just a couple of seconds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstamfb Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 i have a large scene... my windows are xp64 and i use cpu extreme quad qx9650. Only in mental ray things seems to be normal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 What about on other scenes? Just start a brand new one, throw in some random objects with random textures and do a few tests - see if all 4 cores kick in... they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstamfb Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 Hi SEH, i load another scene but the results are the same.... i use max 9 32bit and xp64.. might be a problem of the max 32bit thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 You run XP 64, but MAX 32??? :huh: That defeats the whole purpose of running a 64-bit OS. I would say that has to be one of the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 You run XP 64, but MAX 32??? :huh: That defeats the whole purpose of running a 64-bit OS. I would say that has to be one of the reasons. i run a 32 version of max on a 64 machine. it does not defeat the prppose because max can access more ram. the ram limit is a windows32 problem, not a AutoDesk problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazdaz Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 i run a 32 version of max on a 64 machine. it does not defeat the prppose because max can access more ram. the ram limit is a windows32 problem, not a AutoDesk problem. RAM limit is a 32-bit problem. Period. A 32-bit OS/System/App can not access more than 4GBs of RAM. How much RAM do you actually have?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 RAM limit is a 32-bit problem. Period. A 32-bit OS/System/App can not access more than 4GBs of RAM. How much RAM do you actually have?? a 32 bit app can only access 4gb of ram under win64, but isn't that twice the amount it could access under win32? so, i stand corrected in saying that a 32bit app can utilize all the ram available in the machine, but it appears to me that you can still gain a performance boost because max32 can access the full 4gb? i have 8gb. i wasn't pushing IT to install the 64bit max because I didn't think it made a difference. however, i will still wait until we roll out 2008, because i don't want to bother reconfiguring my setup twice. ...who has that much free time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now