i7's

[AJLynn]

That depends on your definitions of "bang" and "buck". Number of boxes to maintain, and space and power used, are all types of money.

[Antisthenes]

definition of "bang" and "buck".

 

 

[shaneis]

yea, i dont get whats with the dual-CPU systems neither.. i mean, havent these ppl heard of Render Farms?...

 

Think about this:

 

2 x networked Q6600 PC's = 2 x Mobo's, 2 x power supplies, 2 x XGB RAM, 2 x HDD, 2 x OS licences, 2 x render node licences, 2 x the set up/ maintenance, 2 x network load...

 

As AJLynn pointed out, aside from the costs of 2 x the hardware, power usage and man-hours also incur costs. So, by condensing the CPU:Space:Power supply:Node Licence ratio, you will save money.

 

The best way to look at it is $$$ per CPU hour as a running cost against the up-front hardware cost. Considering that a multi-node render farm will have a lifespan of 24 - 96 months, and can easily run at 100% for a good majority of that time, and is rarely powered down, every CPU you can squeeze into a node is saving you money. After a period of time, the hardware costs are zeroed and it becomes 100% electricity bills and maintenance bills.

 

A quick online calculator for Australian power costs (@ $0.1388 per kWh) for 1 x 750W PSU @ 12hours/day would be $456.28 annually, and of course, 2 x 750W PSU's @ 12 hours/day costs you $912.55 annually.

 

That's the deal with dual CPU nodes - maximum CPU hours for minimum overheads and running costs.

[F J]

Also don't get too excited about the Hyperthreading. Remember that in Netburst chips it only gave something like 10% improvement, and even that only worked because it didn't already have an assload of cores...

 

"Hyper Threading alone delivers a 0 - 30% increase in performance at a 0 - 15% increase in power consumption"

 

A quick online calculator for Australian power costs (@ $0.1388 per kWh) for 1 x 750W PSU @ 12hours/day would be $456.28 annually, and of course, 2 x 750W PSU's @ 12 hours/day costs you $912.55 annually.

 

heh, u cant use the PSU's full capacity value on that equation.. a Q6600 based system will hardly get up to half of that..

the Q6600's TDP is like 95W, the i7's TDP is like 130W.. now that is an example where u can use the PSU's full value lol (might actually have to use a 1000W PSU if u wanna put 2 i7's on the same board)..

 

2 x networked Q6600 PC's = 2 x Mobo's, 2 x power supplies, 2 x XGB RAM, 2 x HDD, 2 x OS licences, 2 x render node licences, 2 x the set up/ maintenance, 2 x network load...

 

the mobo for a render node doesnt have to be as 'high-end' as the mobo for a WorkStation (hell, an on-board GPU will probably do the trick), nor does the PSU..

hmmm, wouldnt u also need to have '2 x render node licences' for a dual-quad system?

 

anyways, what matters is that the i7 is here!

i will try to get me 1 as soon as i can

 

 

gotta love that bang-for-buck!

[Antisthenes]

since the price point on this new chipset is lower

 

i wonder if that means the QX6850 Quad Core will not go down in price from 650-900 becuase that is my upgrade path if i stay with what i have motherboard wise

[pyang]

I just have a question. The intel core i7 940 processor is at 8mb L2 cache 2.93 GHz. Now, the intel mobo have 6 slot for tri-channel ddr3 ram. I could put a total of 12 GB of ram using 6 x 2GB tri-channel ddr3 ram. graphic card is a 512 mb radeon 4850. My question is will this setup be able to use all 12 GB of ram on Vista 64? or is it on a 64 OS system I am limited to 8 GB?

[AJLynn]

Vista is weird. In 64-bit, Basic maxes out at 8GB, but Premium goes to 16 and Business and Ultimate can do 128.

[pyang]

Does premium includes Vista Home Premium?

 

Vista is weird. In 64-bit, Basic maxes out at 8GB, but Premium goes to 16 and Business and Ultimate can do 128.

[AJLynn]

Does premium includes Vista Home Premium?

 

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Though you might find Vista Business more appropriate for business use.

[shaneis]

heh, u cant use the PSU's full capacity value on that equation..a Q6600 based system will hardly get up to half of that..

the Q6600's TDP is like 95W, the i7's TDP is like 130W.. now that is an example where u can use the PSU's full value lol (might actually have to use a 1000W PSU if u wanna put 2 i7's on the same board)..

 

Sorry to tell you FJ, but I can use what I like when I'm trying to illustrate a point. Of course there is more to power consumption than the PSU, but there is also more to power consumption than the CPU's TDP. The fact still remains that by using twice as many machines, you will use twice as much power. Whereas with multiple CPU machines, you can reduce the power consumption by half while maintaining the same amount of CPU's.

 

the mobo for a render node doesnt have to be as 'high-end' as the mobo for a WorkStation (hell, an on-board GPU will probably do the trick), nor does the PSU..

 

Ahh, so that's why all the data centers and render farms around the world are filled up with Q6600 white-boxes running Windows, not blades and clusters running *nix, Solaris or BSD. Well, all that research into HPC and clusters must be a waste of time. Let me put it simply - maximum flops for least the watts.

 

It's also worth noting that there are dual CPU boards available that have an on-board GPU and run at over 90% power efficiency.

 

hmmm, wouldnt u also need to have '2 x render node licences' for a dual-quad system?

 

Not necessarily, it depends on the type of licence - per seat or per CPU. Most licences these days are per seat.

[F J]

The fact still remains that by using twice as many machines, you will use twice as much power. Whereas with multiple CPU machines, you can reduce the power consumption by half while maintaining the same amount of CPU's.

 

lol i dont think that is true.. the only thing reduced by half would be the render time, if u were to compare 1 Quad VS 2 Quads.. the power consumption would end up being about the same since the single Quad would require twice as long to complete the render..

 

if a dual-socket setup would only require half the power then everyone would use those as render nodes..

 

Ahh, so that's why all the data centers and render farms around the world are filled up with Q6600 white-boxes running Windows, not blades and clusters running *nix, Solaris or BSD.

 

is it possible to set up a vray node with *nix, Solaris or BSD?

[AJLynn]

Hey! No fighting!

 

Anyway, the analysis here is still a bit too simple. The power consumption of the two machines is greater than the one, but not by double. When not rendering, the computers still use power, and most people don't turn them off when they're not in use. However, a computer that's rendering uses more power than one that's not.

 

So say you're running a job that requires 24 hours of CPU time, and that's your rendering requirement over a 24 hour period. And say that a computer not under load uses P watts, while one running requires P' watts. And define dP as P'-P. So, two options, with their power consumptions:

 

One computer runs under load from noon to noon the next day. Power used, in watt hours, is:

24P + 24dP

 

Two computers run under load from noon to midnight then idle until noon:

48P + 24dP

 

Obviously, you can bring down costs by lowering P - reducing the amount of power used by everything that's not the CPU. More efficient power supply, lowest power video in non-workstations, single low power hard drive, etc. The more computers there are, the more important this is. The (dP*time under load) function is going to be fairly close to constant for CPUs of the same generation.

 

But, here's the important thing. Supposing you replace the two computers with one that has double the CPU - go from Core 2 Quad to dual Xeon. CPUs these days have pretty good power save states, so the value of P will be about the same for the Xeon as the Quad. But the value of dP will nearly double. So the third case is one Xeon box that runs under load from noon to midnight then idles until noon:

24P + 24dP

 

There a pattern - the amount of dP used is a function of the amount of work done, and the amount of P used is a function of the number of computers - not the number of CPUs. Case 3 used the same amount of power as case 1 but finished the work in half the time, which is a business advantage as it allows you to do more work.

 

Not factored in here are the additional costs of software, IT and space for more computers - these are also proportional to number of boxes, not number of CPUs. Another cost is cooling, which is proportional to total power consumption. In theory, if you know P and dP, and the other costs, and the amount of work you'll be doing, you could optimize the whole thing, but I don't think anybody here will be able to do that with any precision so when in doubt one computer is better than two.

 

BTW:

 

is it possible to set up a vray node with *nix, Solaris or BSD?

 

Depends on what your host software is. You can do a Vray for Cinema4D cluster in OSX running on XServes.

[F J]

Hey! No fighting!

 

nah, im not fighting.. just sharing what i know and what i THINK i know, as well as learning from Shane, and mostly u AJ.. so thanks..

 

Depends on what your host software is.

 

3DSmax

[Devin Johnston]

When do you guys feel like an upgrade is worth it? I ran a test on my existing machine against the i7-965 which was over clocked to 4GHz and it came back with a 51% speed increase. That's pretty good but that system will cost around $8,000 and last for about 2-3 years, or I could wait until the 6 core chips come out in a few months, spend a little more probably and get a system that will be much faster.

 

This will be the 5th dual processor system I've purchased and I've never regretted it once.

[shaneis]

When do you guys feel like an upgrade is worth it?

 

That would depend, Devin. If you and your Purchasing Dept. agree that you'll recoup those costs over the next 6 months, then I guess it'll be worth it.

 

Something to consider too is Intel's tendency to offer up some good price drops after the initial release of new generation hardware, the same goes for mobo producers. Couple that with AMD's (rumoured) plans to release a competitive range of CPU's mid 2009, so Intel will most likely counter that with either a good release of faster CPU's, cheaper pricing, or both.

 

It's the same old rule - the longer you wait, the cheaper and faster your hardware will be. You also give them time to iron-out any driver issues or manufacturing flaws.

Edited November 23, 2008 by shaneis

[Devin Johnston]

6 months for recoup is no problem, it's just hard to say yes to these 4 core chips when I know a 6 core is only a few months away.

[F J]

6 months for recoup is no problem, it's just hard to say yes to these 4 core chips when I know a 6 core is only a few months away.

 

i think u got a really good deal here.. its like someone just handed u a QX9770 for free! lol

 

when the 6-core comes we will probly be a few months away from an 8-core as well, and so on..

[shaneis]

NB: After some further research and asking questions on other forums/ lists, I have sad news - no software rendering on the systems I linked below. The only way it will happen is if mental Images, for example, were to re-write from the ground up. Hardly likely in the near future, if at all. There have been whispers of Fryrender looking to utilise the CUDA API, so finger crossed there. Until then, back to the i7 and whatever AMD throws at us next year. I'll leave my original post so we all have something to wish for at birthdays and Christmas.

 

6 months for recoup is no problem, it's just hard to say yes to these 4 core chips when I know a 6 core is only a few months away.

 

Well, if your boss can handle $8K, show him this

 

http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_supercomputer_wtb.html

 

4 teraflops from 960 cores running Windows!!! Probably no good for Max or VRay, but worth salivating over and maybe a call to Boxxtech, none the less

 

Now I think of it, imagine Fryrender or Maxwell with one of these... noise-free complex 4K renders in around 1 hour.

 

EDIT: Did some further reading, some of these builds run XP64. This is looking promising. Maxer, I configured one on the Colfax site that included a Quadro 3700 as dedicated graphics... $7901.00 Check the screen-cap below. In this config, the Quadro would handle the GPU stuff (on-screen) while the Phenom (CPU) and Telsa boards are crunching numbers (GPU as CPU). Oh how sweet it sounds and it makes the i7 look like a kid's toy!

Edited November 24, 2008 by shaneis
Sad news!

[AJLynn]

Don't get too excited. There's pretty much no useful software for it. Also, remember that GPUs aren't any more magical than CPUs, and actual performance in real software is yet to be determined (as they don't have the real software).

[Slinger]

Judging from the benchmarks, the i7 920 outperforms the most powerful of the previous desktop processors, and at an excellent price point. If I were in the market for a new desktop, it's what I'd choose without even considering upgrade paths. Things in CPU Land change too fast nowadays. I build something that I plan to be happy with for a year or two and figure I got my money's worth.

I am sorry, but I must disagree with you on this.

Although the new i7s outperform older 45nm cpus, the problem a lot of people will have is having to buy a whole new system to utilize the new cpu's. They are 1366socket, requiring a new motherboard and they also require ddr3 ram to start. To most everyday users, spending $200 for 2 gigs of triple-channel ddr3 ram and $200-$500 for a new motherboard is not feasible to them when they can upgrade there cpu only and get a good deal of performance from it.

Right now, it is more feasible to simply upgrade cpu's depending on the full system spec's then starting completely over.

[Fran]

I am sorry, but I must disagree with you on this.

Although the new i7s outperform older 45nm cpus, the problem a lot of people will have is having to buy a whole new system to utilize the new cpu's. They are 1366socket, requiring a new motherboard and they also require ddr3 ram to start. To most everyday users, spending $200 for 2 gigs of triple-channel ddr3 ram and $200-$500 for a new motherboard is not feasible to them when they can upgrade there cpu only and get a good deal of performance from it.

Right now, it is more feasible to simply upgrade cpu's depending on the full system spec's then starting completely over.

 

I can build a complete system for less than the cost of a QX9770. If you're in the market for a new system, the i7 920 is a good price point. If you're in the market to upgrade your cpu, then you are obviously not interested in a new system. But I've learned from past experience that building a system with the plan to upgrade cpu's at a later date never works as well as I expected. I remember waiting for the cost of that 2nd Pentium Pro cpu to come down. It never did. I just recently upgraded my dual-core xeons to quad, and am a little underwhelmed because the Clovertowns are now old tech, use more power, don't have as optimal an architecture as the newer cpus, and are a dead-end.

 

I try to reuse whatever I can when it comes to computer stuff. But, as I said, things move so fast that by the time you're ready to upgrade your 2 year old system, your new cpu is basically a legacy item.

 

As for costs - you have to pay to play I guess.

[tucu]

Fran,

I just got a quote for a workstation with an i7 and I am not too sure if you can build one for 1,500. The prices I will list below are in Canadian dollars..........Please note this would be my main workstation thats whay the FX Quadro 3700.

 

Cooler Master CM 690 Edition, Black $98.99

Western Digital 640GB Caviar SE16 7200rpm SATA II w/ 16MB Cache $82.99

LG Super Multi Security DVD Writer 22x, SATA, Black (OEM) $29.99

Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, OEM $194.99

Corsair TX 750W Power Supply w/ 140mm Fan $134.99

Asus P6T Deluxe w/ TripleDDR3 1600, 7.1 Audio, Dual GB Lan, 1394, PCI-E, CrossFireX /SLI $374.99

Intel Core™ i7 Processor 920 2.66GHz w/ 8MB Cache $399.99

OCZ 6GB PC3-12800 Gold Edition Low Voltage Triple Channel DDR3 Kit (3 x 2GB) $384.99

FX Quadro 3700 $975.84

 

CAD$2904.00 (Inlcuding taxes and everything)

US$2340.00

 

Would you change anything??

Cheers!!

[AJLynn]

If you used a cheaper motherboard and cheaper video card you wouldn't be losing much performance but you'd be in line with the $1500 estimate.

[tucu]

I don't think you have many option for motherboards.

Now, regarding the video card. Any recommendation? I have heard that FX Quadros are the best for Max. Are they really worth the price?

[AJLynn]

A lot of people - probably most of the ones on this forum - are using Geforce cards for Max. Not even the most expensive ones, but the midranges, like 8800GT. With Max being happiest in Direct3D mode for the last few versions, there's not that much point in a Quadro. And the MB I linked to isn't that different from the Asus and is US$80 cheaper. You can also save on the power supply - I like these and I've been accused of overkill. 750W isn't needed with 1 CPU, 1 video card and 1 hard drive unless you plan to water cool and OC the crap out of everything.

 

Actually, this should be easy to do for under $1500:

 

LIAN LI PC-7B plus II Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case $69.99

Antec True Power Trio TP3-650 650W ATX12V $69.99

MSI X58 Platinum LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard $219.99

MSI N9800GT-T2D512-OC GeForce 9800 GT 512MB $114.99

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $294.99

HITACHI Deskstar 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive $54.99

Sony NEC Optiarc 22X DVD±R DVD Burner Black SATA $24.99

OCZ Gold 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) $224.99

Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64Bit SP2C for System Builders - OEM $139.99

 

Total: $1214.91 (in USD from Newegg - but CAD prices from NCIX aren't going to be much different). There would be no noticeable difference between this system and the $2340 one. Shipping would be free and there would be no tax in most states.