adrianbartosiak Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Which will be better choice for V-Ray rendering node (dual xeon)? 2x Intel Xeon 2690 v3 12core 2,6 GHz (3,5 turbo, 30 mb chache, 135W) vs 2x Intel Xeon 2687W v3 10 core 3,1 GHz (3,5 Turbo, 25 mb cache, 160W) Edited October 28, 2014 by adrianbartosiak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 At base clocks, they're almost identical ('virtual' totals are 31,2 vs 31 in favour of 2690 for multithreaded performance). Now, I can't find all-core turbo (because 3,5 is one-core turbo), but I presume it might give similar advantage to both so, the difference isn't noticeable much at all in the end. 2687W is bit more power-hungry, will require slightly better cooling, is more expensive, but would make also excellent workstation, making it more universal choice overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numerobis Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The 2960 v3 is clearly better, but a bit more expensive i think: 2690 v3: 12x3.1GHz= 37.2GHz 2687W v3: 10x3.2GHz=32GHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Xeon_E5-26xx_v3_.28dual-processor.29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Damn it I am retarded, a wikipedia has better table than Intel website :- ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbartosiak Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) numerobis . You've mistaken a little bit.. 2690 v3: 12x3.1GHz= 37.2GHz, it's 12 core 2,6 GHz = 31,2 GHz 2687W v3: 10x3.2GHz=32GHz it's 10 core 3,1 GHz = 31,0 GHz Edited October 28, 2014 by adrianbartosiak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) No he's correct, he's talking the actuall "all-cores" turbo frequency. Basically the clock that you will use during rendering if you enable (default) turbo and high-performance energy settings. Ie. 2690v3 Base clock: 2,6 Ghz, Turbo 12 cores: 3,1 Ghz, Turbo single-core: 3,5Ghz. It's the middle one that matters for multi-threaded performance/rendering. You can read those value under Turbo in that wikipedia link: "5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/6/ 7/9/9" Edited October 28, 2014 by RyderSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbartosiak Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Wow, good to now! So all core turbo is for 2687W v3: (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/2/4/4) 7x3,2 + 1x3,3 + 2x 3,5 = 32,7 GHz 2690 v3: (5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/6/7/9/9) 8x3,1 + 1x3,2 + 1x3,3 + 2x3,5 = 38,3 GHz 2697 v3: (5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/6/7/8/10/10) 9x3,1 + 1x3,2 + 1x3,3 + 1x3,4 + 2x3,6 = 45 GHz It looks like that for WS the best 2687W v3 and for render node 2690 v3 or 2697 v3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) No, that's not how it works :- ) Atleast I don't think they can stuck like that automatically in turbo, maybe it's possible to set them manually that way but... That's added frequency at each number of cores used: {From left to right} (5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/6/7/9/9) 12 cores - 2.6Ghz + 0.5Ghz = 3.1Ghz 11 cores - 2.6Ghz + 0.5Ghz = 3.1Ghz .... 1 core - 2.6Ghz + 0.9Ghz = 3.5Ghz But your conclusio is correct; 2687W (W-Workstation series) is slightly better for workstation, but, due to single-core turboclock being identical between these super super-end model, it doesn't matter much. 2690 v3 is more powerful at rendering. Edited October 28, 2014 by RyderSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numerobis Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) 2687W v3: (1/1/1/1/1/1/1/2/4/4) 7x3,2 + 1x3,3 + 2x 3,5 = 32,7 GHz I'm not sure what you've done here, but the numbers just show the additional multi from all cores on the left to 1 core on the right. So, for the 2687W v3 this means for all 10 cores 3,1GHz + 1x0,1GHz =3,2GHz, 3,1GHz + 4x0,1GHz= 3,5GHz for one core and everything in between as it is listed above (1x,1x,...,2x,2x,4x,) So why would the 2687W v3 be better for a workstation? The single core performance is the same for both (3,5GHz) and the all core performance is higher... edit... too slow Edited October 28, 2014 by numerobis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianbartosiak Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 So does the base clock (2,6 vs 3,1) has any meaning if turbo for one core is in both cpu 3,5 GHz? 2697 v3 is the best but cost a lot more than 2687W v3 and 2690 v3, which prices ale similar.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippelamoureux Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Out of curiosity, is this your only render node or machine besides your workstation? I'ts obviously a nice machine but i'm wondering if it's fast enough to render videos (fly-tru mostly) at decent speed? Let's say we talk about 1min to 2 mins animations? I was under the illusion only huge render farms were viable for these kind of jobs...I am wrong? talking about 1000+frames! Because otherwise, this kind of computer that OP wanna buy, i'd like to build a similar one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I have 70 cores (5x4930k, 4x2680v2) for example. I am building 5960X next week, and 2x2690v3 this month, which will bring me to 102 cores (204 threads). And that's still not enough for animations to be honest, at all. But it does help with still images production. So does the base clock (2,6 vs 3,1) has any meaning if turbo for one core is in both cpu 3,5 GHz? 2697 v3 is the best but cost a lot more than 2687W v3 and 2690 v3, which prices ale similar.. Not in performance situation, not really. 2697 is obviously overkill, you're running into diminishing returns. 2680-2690v3 are as good options for node. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippelamoureux Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Damn ok...so there are no real alternative to cloud rendering when it comes to that...unless you make a massive investment! I guess I could at least use a render pc so I can continue to work while I render my images!!! Thank you Juraj, always very instructive to read your posts ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well,ok, you can technically render animation. But for me in production that means few overnights top, I can't stop doing any work and just render even one week straight. Just not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippelamoureux Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yea I hear you! Deadlines are often very tight. I'd prefer not to risk having a pc issue or something and lose my render. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braddewald Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 for me in production that means few overnights top, I can't stop doing any work and just render even one week straight. Just not an option. Do you stop working totally when you're rendering something? I use a separate machine to host the renderings on the farm so I can continue working on other projects on my main workstation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Do you stop working totally when you're rendering something? I use a separate machine to host the renderings on the farm so I can continue working on other projects on my main workstation. You took it far too literally :- ). What I meant is if I would have 7 machines rendering animation around the clock, that would hinder any other work, as I depend on them for everything, even simplest test renders. Productivity would suffer and that is crucial to me. Animation for me is whole different beast than stills, I produce one for Herman Miller, and they render it internally with 1536 threads, and it still takes few days to do. It's just not realistic to do that in-house yet or pay the cloud service. Edited October 28, 2014 by RyderSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braddewald Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Ah, I see. 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