Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Render Server (Opteron or Xeon)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 17, 2012 7:23:07 PM

Hello Community Member,

I have a several questions for anybody here that would kindly lend their assistance, opinions, and (hopefully) some factual evidence toward solving my dilemmas.

I am currently in need of a dedicated render server to free up my work station for further work. My work station is current am Intel 2600k at 3.4GHz with 16GB of RAM. While this computer has and continues to work well it is limited for rendering more... intensive scenes and animations. It is not uncommon for a single frame render to take thirteen hours (advanced lighting, complex transparencies, ETC...) and animations taking thirty minutes or more per-frame even without GI. Needless to say, I am in need of an extensively more powerful and dedicated rendering machine.

From Newegg, I am currently considering building myself either a dual Xeon or dual Opteron server for rendering. Now, the only problem I am having is decided on which platform to invest in for a dedicated render server. I am currently debating between the following:

1. 2x Opteron 6272 2.1GHz 16-Core

2. 2x Xeon E5645 2.4GHz 6-Core

Now, my primary question to the kind people on these forums. Which setup would you recommend for the greatest rendering performance with Cinema 4D? If you can not in good conscious recommend either of the above platforms, than what would you recommend that is comparatively priced?

Any and all assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Myflag
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 12:22:15 AM

i would get the opteron, more cores to work with, but thats just my opinion
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 12:46:58 AM

Opteron is cheap and offers the most amount of cores for the buck but personally there is no real mid range xeon platform that is affordable. The opteron that you linked is BD based and is weaker than what it replaced so it is cheaper than Mangy cores opterons.

Intel = Performance per thread and per clock
AMD = Lots of cores/threads

I don't know the total floating point unit performance at that clock for those 16 core options but if the total is greater than the xeons you linked you are better off going opteron unless you can manage higher clocked xeons.
Score
0
Related resources

Best solution

a c 139 à CPUs
February 18, 2012 1:01:20 AM

More cores does not mean more performance. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interla... Those xeons are last generations' architecture, the new ones will be out in march or april. My suggestion would be to wait for them but I don't know when you plan to buy.
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 1:15:12 AM

i found a benchmark with 2 x Intel Xeon X5650 and 2 x AMD Opteron 6174 with Cinebench R11.5 which uses Maxon's Cinema 4D engine
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-...
and here is a large, though both cpus are not on it, database of Cinebench scores:
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=rend&order=desc

it seems that opterons do perform better and are less expensive.
Intel Xeon E5645 $557.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
AMD Opteron 6272 $539.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Score
0
February 18, 2012 2:22:09 AM

In the past on my workstations I used a Q6600 and I overclocked it to 3GHz to save the money from purchasing the higher-end CPU. That works perfectly with my Q6600 for years without any issue whatsoever. With my current CPU I left it at stock as there was no need for the increased speed.

Would a similar solution be acceptable with the Xeons? I have just read several reviews of overclocking the E5645 and they have all achieved 3GHz+ with minimal effort. While I am hesitant to overclock a server platform, even with perfect stability, if I must to save thousands than the risk would be worth it.

Any more recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

PS: K1114 - The information I have gleaned suggest that the new Intel series is only approximately 15% faster and in any case is several months away...

Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 2:45:10 AM

try thinking about:
EVGA SR2 at 200 Bclk, default voltages
2xXeon E5645 at 3800MHz Turbo on, default voltages, 2xCoolerMaster V6GT
2x24Gb Kit GSkill Ripjaws 9-9-9-24 1600MHz (12x4Gb)
4xZotac GTX480 Quad-SLI, default clocks and voltages
2x WD Caviar Black 2Tb 7200 RPM
Silverstone Strider ST1500W
LianLi V2120X

found it on a sig on an evga thread:

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=856864&mpage=1
Score
0
a c 139 à CPUs
February 18, 2012 3:03:11 AM

I did say march or april. If you want to see performance difference just look at westmere vs SBE. Any new release is always around 10-20% faster and I'm sure you know how much better SB overclocks. The lowest 6 core is rumored to be $406.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 18, 2012 3:14:39 AM

What's your budget? Does it need to scale?

It will be hard to beat AMD for the sheer core counts.

You can get a quad CPU AMD board for $800 and fill it out as you need.
4 x $389 - AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz x 12-Core

That's 115 Ghz processing power for $2356. You could do 2 now and 2 later if your needs grow. Drive/memory prices will be comparable for either system.

The better question is does Cinema 4D actually scale to 48+ cores?






Score
0
February 18, 2012 3:42:52 PM

Cazalan said:
What's your budget? Does it need to scale?

It will be hard to beat AMD for the sheer core counts.

You can get a quad CPU AMD board for $800 and fill it out as you need.
4 x $389 - AMD Opteron 6234 Interlagos 2.4GHz x 12-Core

That's 115 Ghz processing power for $2356. You could do 2 now and 2 later if your needs grow. Drive/memory prices will be comparable for either system.

The better question is does Cinema 4D actually scale to 48+ cores?


My concern with going with the a quad CPU motherboard is that the one I found on Newegg only works with the 12 Core older Opterons. As a result it makes them slightly slower and as a result having only two CPU's would make the server only slightly faster than an overclocked Ivy Bridge 3000K series quad core. The exception being that the server is significantly more expensive... which is another one of my concerns. I do not to inadvertently waste financial resources.

In any case, after doing further research, I found that I would need to purchase a server OS to use a quad CPU system... which my experience with is limited and I am unsure of Cinema 4D's capabilities on such an operating system.

I must admit, the idea of that much rendering power in a single machine is quite intriguing.

I know that Cinema 4D can handle at least up to 64 threads.

As it stands, I believe I will go with the Xeons (with a higher clock) unless somebody knows how to make an Opteron give the same rendering performance for less money.

k1114: You mention Sandy Bridge and Westmore... do you think the performance difference will be great enough to actually warrant waiting multiple months? Some of the information I am using is coming from this link...http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-...
Score
0
a c 139 à CPUs
February 18, 2012 4:28:54 PM

Most sources are saying march but is 2 months too long if it does happen to be april? I wouldn't suggest it if it wasn't a viable option.

Another option may be a render farm, you could probably get a lot more bang/buck but then need a bit more time to set it up.
Score
0
February 18, 2012 4:46:47 PM

As it stands right now, I am currently using my Vaio Z and my iMac to assist my workstation in rendering animations. One of the primary reasons why I want a single render server, instead of a render farm, is to ease the production of images. I do not want to have to spend time 'piecing' back together images from a render farm. I am also planning to place the server in a back office so I don't have to hear it running 24/7...

Now, if we are confident that the new CPU's will be out in two months, at a comparable price, and their overclocking potential is significantly more than the current Xeons I just may wait. With the current Westmore chips I am seeing perfectly-stable speeds of 3.4Ghz without any voltage changes. Which is something that greatly intrigues me.
Score
0
February 18, 2012 6:15:33 PM

Myflag said:
In the past on my workstations I used a Q6600 and I overclocked it to 3GHz to save the money from purchasing the higher-end CPU. That works perfectly with my Q6600 for years without any issue whatsoever. With my current CPU I left it at stock as there was no need for the increased speed.

Would a similar solution be acceptable with the Xeons? I have just read several reviews of overclocking the E5645 and they have all achieved 3GHz+ with minimal effort. While I am hesitant to overclock a server platform, even with perfect stability, if I must to save thousands than the risk would be worth it.

Any more recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

PS: K1114 - The information I have gleaned suggest that the new Intel series is only approximately 15% faster and in any case is several months away...


While i'm quite sure your Q6600 was agreat chip back then, like the 2500k is now, this is another totally different ball game. MP configrations none the less. BTW OP, does you rendering software supports clustering ?
Score
0
February 18, 2012 8:16:15 PM

If by clustering you mean Net Rendering across multiple computers, than yes. If you glance at my post above yours, you will see that I mention that I use my Vaio Z and my iMac to assist my workstation in animation rendering. Though, I did not specifically say that I was using clustering. The reason why I am hesitant in purchasing something along the lines of two or three 2500k/2600k CPU's and running them instead is I do a significant amount of single frame image work in addition to my animations. While a single frame can be spread across multiple computers to assist in rendering, you have to manually 'piece' the image back together afterwords. Not something I want to spend time doing on a regular basis.

Now we are back to the reason why I want to build a multiple-processor render server that I can just stick in an office with weeks of work queued where it can render 24/7. To summarize I want a machine that that I can feed projects and have it constantly pumping out my rendered images and videos with minimal interference to my time or work. In addition, I know if I spend much more than what the basic Xeons or Opterons cost it would become more economically effective to build a small render farm instead... not a path I want to go down due to multiple issues; in which only some of have been mention.
Score
0
February 18, 2012 9:35:46 PM

Myflag said:
If by clustering you mean Net Rendering across multiple computers, than yes. If you glance at my post above yours, you will see that I mention that I use my Vaio Z and my iMac to assist my workstation in animation rendering. Though, I did not specifically say that I was using clustering. The reason why I am hesitant in purchasing something along the lines of two or three 2500k/2600k CPU's and running them instead is I do a significant amount of single frame image work in addition to my animations. While a single frame can be spread across multiple computers to assist in rendering, you have to manually 'piece' the image back together afterwords. Not something I want to spend time doing on a regular basis.

Now we are back to the reason why I want to build a multiple-processor render server that I can just stick in an office with weeks of work queued where it can render 24/7. To summarize I want a machine that that I can feed projects and have it constantly pumping out my rendered images and videos with minimal interference to my time or work. In addition, I know if I spend much more than what the basic Xeons or Opterons cost it would become more economically effective to build a small render farm instead... not a path I want to go down due to multiple issues; in which only some of have been mention.


HI, depending on what you work with that last step usually isn't necessary. Can you tell us what is the software. The application might be cluster aware. Most of those applications are cluster aware. Not saying to go to the server 2008 R2/RHat path, but, you would be saving a lot o money and getting a decent bang for your buck. And don't forget to buy a decent switch also. With a decent backplane.

I say this because the price of 2 MP ( opterons + xeons ) + the board + Memory + Special PSU. , you can easily buy 2 nodes. Hell, you can even go for 4 nodes, if you test it first and tune the perfect configuration. And while MP boxes have their advantages, they can't beat individual computers. Especially if the load is too big.

Just check if it is cluster aware, and more details about that application/software. A cluster is scalable, just add more if you want, and if one fails the work continues albeit slower. If your big rendering box fails, work stops. Oh , and BTW, overclocking xeons and opterons on MP configurations is a big NONO. Usually the boards don't support it.
Score
0
February 18, 2012 9:46:46 PM

I am using Cinema 4D which can handle up to 64 threads for each computer and render across an unlimited number of systems simultaneously.

The rest of the information that you are inquiring about is in my initial opening-post.

EDIT: I was considering overclocking the Xeons when I noticed the great performance increase that can be acquired with minimal effort. The motherboard linked below supports Xeon overclocking... though I would prefer not to overclock if there is a cost-effecting alternative.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
February 18, 2012 10:12:23 PM

Myflag said:
I am using Cinema 4D which can handle up to 64 threads for each computer and render across an unlimited number of systems simultaneously.

The rest of the information that you are inquiring about is in my initial opening-post.

EDIT: I was considering overclocking the Xeons when I noticed the great performance increase that can be acquired with minimal effort. The motherboard linked below supports Xeon overclocking... though I would prefer not to overclock if there is a cost-effecting alternative.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Considering you already have a C4D called Net Render, it is really easy to setup a cluster. There are two applications, the server ( not free ) and the clients ( free ). Animations you don't need to stitch up, still images you do need to stitch up. (Couldn't find info on the latest versions). Anyway, there is a shitload of information on the net about C4D / net render / clustering.

Net Render already loads balances for you, and it must be windows boxes. Any ( tuned) Win 7 Pro should be fine. From a quick read, it eats a bit of ram but not much and little HDD space. Honestly mate, a 4 MP box can go for 7k+ USD/EUR easily. That 4 cluster could be done with 1500 to 2000 dollars splurging a bit. Or below 1500 tightening the belt a lot.

About the stitching, i came across some replies the talked about a fix, but they weren't related to version 11 , but to version 9 of the so-called net-render. Technically speaking is much better to have a cluster, and even better taking into consideration that Net Render load balances for you , and for what i've read, the Network part isn't too important.

So, it is up to you. remember any rendering box should have the OS tuned. Most closely possible to the minimum. The last cluster i've deployed were on WS Server Core 2008 R2.

So, you just really need to ponder that stitching situation and possible ways to solve it.


Score
0
February 18, 2012 11:40:09 PM

radnor said:
Considering you already have a C4D called Net Render, it is really easy to setup a cluster. There are two applications, the server ( not free ) and the clients ( free ). Animations you don't need to stitch up, still images you do need to stitch up. (Couldn't find info on the latest versions). Anyway, there is a shitload of information on the net about C4D / net render / clustering.

Net Render already loads balances for you, and it must be windows boxes. Any ( tuned) Win 7 Pro should be fine. From a quick read, it eats a bit of ram but not much and little HDD space. Honestly mate, a 4 MP box can go for 7k+ USD/EUR easily. That 4 cluster could be done with 1500 to 2000 dollars splurging a bit. Or below 1500 tightening the belt a lot.

About the stitching, i came across some replies the talked about a fix, but they weren't related to version 11 , but to version 9 of the so-called net-render. Technically speaking is much better to have a cluster, and even better taking into consideration that Net Render load balances for you , and for what i've read, the Network part isn't too important.

So, it is up to you. remember any rendering box should have the OS tuned. Most closely possible to the minimum. The last cluster i've deployed were on WS Server Core 2008 R2.

So, you just really need to ponder that stitching situation and possible ways to solve it.


The primary problem is there is no easy method in which to solve stitching them back together without requiring even more of my already thinly stretched time. For example, I know that I can build a 4 MP box from Newegg for $3400 but I don't believe I would really want to spend that much on a single render server. Not when for the same cost, or even less, I could probably build four individual render stations with 40%+ performance.

I believe I am going to go with the dual Xeon approach. In any case, I could also purchase another server later on if the need where to arise.

Thank you all for your assistance and advice.

Myflag
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2012 6:41:03 AM

With that kind of varying render load you might want to use the "cloud" for the big jobs. Prices range from pennies per frame to $150/day for 64CPU clusters.

I was thinking a farm of overclocked i5@4.5Ghz boxes might work better as well. For the cost of just the Xeon E5645 you can almost build a complete i5 system.

Other things to note for true server builds:
-) RAM is 2x or more expensive due to needing ECC
-) Overclocking is almost non-existent but you'll have 28.8Ghz of CPU
-) Easier to manage 1 computer but you're paying a heft premium for that

Now consider a i7-3930K system that's 22.8 Ghz of CPU before any overclocking.
You could build 2 of these systems for the cost of the Dual Xeon.

If stitching is that big an issue I'm sure someone has a tool/script/app for that.
Score
0
February 19, 2012 3:17:11 PM

Cazalan said:
With that kind of varying render load you might want to use the "cloud" for the big jobs. Prices range from pennies per frame to $150/day for 64CPU clusters.

I was thinking a farm of overclocked i5@4.5Ghz boxes might work better as well. For the cost of just the Xeon E5645 you can almost build a complete i5 system.

Other things to note for true server builds:
-) RAM is 2x or more expensive due to needing ECC
-) Overclocking is almost non-existent but you'll have 28.8Ghz of CPU
-) Easier to manage 1 computer but you're paying a heft premium for that

Now consider a i7-3930K system that's 22.8 Ghz of CPU before any overclocking.
You could build 2 of these systems for the cost of the Dual Xeon.

If stitching is that big an issue I'm sure someone has a tool/script/app for that.

I am going to do some research on Newegg and estimate prices of i7-3930K systems.

EDIT: Another issue I just noticed with the i7-3930K is that they are sold out on Newegg. While I don't have to have a render server immediately, it does make me wonder about future availability and whether I should just wait for the server edition Sandy-Bridge E's that may be out in a month or two.

I'm also thinking about the overclocking performance review from this article... http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-...

I'm now thinking that buying Xeons at the moment may not be the best idea.... but if the Xeons are overclocked they appear to provide about forty percent more performance than a i7-3930K

Any opinions or advice community members?
Score
0
February 19, 2012 8:38:04 PM

I must admit... the amount of conflicting information about the dual Xeons vs the i7-3930K is significant. I look at one benchmark/review and it shows the i7-3930K is almost on par with the dual Xeons while another website will show that the dual Xeons are about 70% faster than the i7-3930K.

Any further advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you
Score
0
February 19, 2012 11:21:19 PM

Myflag said:
I must admit... the amount of conflicting information about the dual Xeons vs the i7-3930K is significant. I look at one benchmark/review and it shows the i7-3930K is almost on par with the dual Xeons while another website will show that the dual Xeons are about 70% faster than the i7-3930K.

Any further advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you


Xeon vs I7. Simple. Xeons are just normal CPUs , ready for MP configurations , with a bit of microcode for some "special" operations ( DBs, VMs ) with another type of warranty or sticker.

If you are doing Oracle, DB2, Clustered Web pages, JavaVMs, VMs or some more esoterical HPC work, the Xeons would win.
Maxon C4d use only SSE2, if recall correctly, witch is really old. So for you , for the exception of the possibility of MP configurations, Xeon = i7. If core count, frequency and Cache (L1,L2,L3) are the same, they will behave the same.

It is a hard decision you have to make. And i'm quite sure with limited money.

Btw : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Compatible MB : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Ussually image and video scale really well with cores. Why not a 2x Interlagos with 32 cores/threads ? Everything is for sale in newegg. Just remember with the OS, please go server path.

Just make sure , you pick something with the size of my NOX Blaze X2. And with at least half the fans. Cool on 24/7/365 environments is really important for stability.
Score
0
a c 139 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 12:02:10 AM

Cazalan stop multiplying cores x ghz that's like multiplying 4 wheels on a car going 20mph and saying it's going 80mph. Cpu performance is measured in flops. Cores and ghz is pretty irrelevant in this case with everything being used at it's full potential; it's all about actual performance.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 3:17:33 AM

I've finally come to a conclusion over several of the dilemmas that have been plaguing my mind regarding the CPU choices.

The more research I do and the greater I see even the Xeons overclocked to only 3.8GHz may only be stable for several days at a time... not including the weeks of hassle with overclocking. My concern is that the i7-3930K is in a similar boat; even if it is not, I can not image a CPU running at 4.5GHz+ being conducive to long term 24/7/365 stability. As a result, I have a strong concern that overclocking, or even planning on overclocking, could be potentially catastrophic.

If I am wrong in any of the above information I ask to be corrected.

With no overclocking and long-term stability (24/7/365 at 100% load) does that mean that the 2x Opteron 6272 2.1GHz 16-Core CPU would give me the most performance-per-dollar?
Score
0
February 20, 2012 7:27:17 AM

Myflag said:
I've finally come to a conclusion over several of the dilemmas that have been plaguing my mind regarding the CPU choices.

The more research I do and the greater I see even the Xeons overclocked to only 3.8GHz may only be stable for several days at a time... not including the weeks of hassle with overclocking. My concern is that the i7-3930K is in a similar boat; even if it is not, I can not image a CPU running at 4.5GHz+ being conducive to long term 24/7/365 stability. As a result, I have a strong concern that overclocking, or even planning on overclocking, could be potentially catastrophic.

If I am wrong in any of the above information I ask to be corrected.

With no overclocking and long-term stability (24/7/365 at 100% load) does that mean that the 2x Opteron 6272 2.1GHz 16-Core CPU would give me the most performance-per-dollar?


A 10 to 15% overclock shouldn't do too much damage long term. The chips would be ready for it. A 2.2Ghz would run at 2.4Ghz for example. A 3.3 would run 3.6 Ghz. You would get some free performance without affecting durability and uptime. Internal voltages wouldn't be change and CPUs would mostly run under specs.

Here is some Interlagos review on Anandtech. It also has rendering benchies. This was a pre-fix benchmark, so you can add 1-3% more performance with current OSes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interla...
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
February 20, 2012 8:46:47 AM

More cores the better for cinema 4d.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 11:41:21 AM

radnor said:
A 10 to 15% overclock shouldn't do too much damage long term. The chips would be ready for it. A 2.2Ghz would run at 2.4Ghz for example. A 3.3 would run 3.6 Ghz. You would get some free performance without affecting durability and uptime. Internal voltages wouldn't be change and CPUs would mostly run under specs.

Here is some Interlagos review on Anandtech. It also has rendering benchies. This was a pre-fix benchmark, so you can add 1-3% more performance with current OSes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interla...


Just to be clear. You are recommending the Opteron?
Score
0
February 20, 2012 12:14:05 PM

Myflag said:
Just to be clear. You are recommending the Opteron?


To be clear, you need to add up the price of RAM + MOBO + CPUs. Those are the 3 things that will differ between specs.

Intel Xeon E5645 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Price : 557 $ USD - 6 Cores total

AMD Opteron 6272 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Price : 539 USD - 16 Cores Total

While the AMD "core" might me slower they are way too many. In your case, because the workload scales linearly ( Read, no inter-core or Inter-cpu communication, cores do their task solos) 32 > 12. While one Intel core beats one AMD core, 1 Intel core doesn't beat 3 AMD cores.

Anyway the benchies i can find are Versus de X5650 ( 1000$ USD ), witch is double the price of the AMD CPU.

So they question you have to do, is what is the best ROI (Return on Investment) ? Try to find more benchies and remember on rule that we computer freaks use alot.

Although Frequency and cache sizes matter, Code names ( Architecture ) matter much more. In this case, it is Interlagos (AMD) vs Westmere (Intel).

I would study the question a bit more, this can't be rushed. You already discarded the cluster for technical reasons, now you must weight the 32 Cores Interlagos vs the 12 Cores Westmere at the same price point.

I (personally) would go for the Interlagos CPU, but i would make 2 shopping lists first ( one Intel and another AMD ) and try to talk with people that use Maxon C4D , to see what they say. And check a few more benchmark/reviews on Westmere and Interlagos arquitectures in an MP configurations. Don't worry if you are reading about a CPU that is 200 Mhz faster or slower than the one you want to buy, just give or take the percentage in relation with frequency too see what would be the performance that you would have.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:03:48 PM

k1114 said:
Cazalan stop multiplying cores x ghz that's like multiplying 4 wheels on a car going 20mph and saying it's going 80mph. Cpu performance is measured in flops. Cores and ghz is pretty irrelevant in this case with everything being used at it's full potential; it's all about actual performance.


NO! His workload is highly suited for parallel tasking which scales very well with multi-core multi-CPU systems.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 7:34:02 PM

Cazalan said:
NO! His workload is highly suited for parallel tasking which scales very well with multi-core multi-CPU systems.


I mus agree with you mate on this one. His workload scales linearly. You benchmark one core, and then basicly you can estimate 32 cores. There is no Inter-core or Inter-CPU comunication. The operatins themselfes are rather simple. So simple they are screaming for GPU accelaration.

Shame the aren't. But hey, we can still have 32 cores in a 2MP configuration, in witch by any standart, is higly impressive.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 7:36:36 PM

It would seem I have encountered another problem.

This is one of the only motherboards on Newegg that support 62xx series straight out of the box.

Radnor: The motherboard you linked has an old BIOS that does not support 62xx without first updating... which is impossible without a 61xx.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The problem with the motherboard is that it is a full-on server motherboard with distant PCI-E slots (which I was going to use a $30 GPU to power the monitor to install software) I'm going to hope that the south-bridge chip on the motherboard can provide video out like some older Intel boards... otherwise I may have a problem.

It seems that I may be forced to go with the Intel Xeons... and possibly learn and hope with dual processor overclocking. If I do need to end up using Intel, do ya'll have a recommended server CPU cooler that could MORE than easily handle an overclocked Xeon? I am also debating on a good case. I think I found one that will work but recommendations are always appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Any advice?

PS: Yes, I know I seem to be going back and forth. I just prefer to make sure that I make the correct decision. Thank you for all working through this with me.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 7:42:37 PM

Myflag said:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The problem with the motherboard is that it is a full-on server motherboard with distant PCI-E slots (which I was going to use a $30 GPU to power the monitor to install software) I'm going to hope that the south-bridge chip on the motherboard can provide video out like some Intel boards... otherwise I may have a problem.


That one has on-board video already. See the DB15 VGA connector.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 7:43:39 PM

Well... that problem was quickly solved.

Thank you.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 7:57:51 PM

Myflag said:
It would seem I have encountered another problem.

This is one of the only motherboards on Newegg that support 62xx series straight out of the box.

Radnor: The motherboard you linked has an old BIOS that does not support 62xx without first updating... which is impossible without a 61xx.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The problem with the motherboard is that it is a full-on server motherboard with distant PCI-E slots (which I was going to use a $30 GPU to power the monitor to install software) I'm going to hope that the south-bridge chip on the motherboard can provide video out like some older Intel boards... otherwise I may have a problem.

It seems that I may be forced to go with the Intel Xeons... and possibly learn and hope with dual processor overclocking. If I do need to end up using Intel, do ya'll have a recommended server CPU cooler that could MORE than easily handle an overclocked Xeon? I am also debating on a good case. I think I found one that will work but recommendations are always appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Any advice?


According to customer feedback, the board i Linked : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Quote:

Pros: Out-of-the box Interlagos support. Lots or RAM slots. I am using 4 x 8GB Samsung RAM modules and still have 3/4 of the slots empty. Plenty of SATA and SAS ports if you also get a Pike RAID card. 2 PCI x16 gen 2 slots.

Cons: Update to the latest BIOS. Was running under the 2005 bios that came with the motherboard and was having problems with the USB channels sometimes all disappearing after a reboot. Once i updated the bios to the latest (2009?), the problems vanished.


In the second customer review, Single Opteron 6272. that means you can put one, Flash the bios and then add the second one. I recommend Reisntalling OS after flashing and adding the second CPU.

That fact is confirmed by Johnatan the 6th review or so:

Quote:

Cons: Be patient with the install. Mine didn't power up with both CPUs at first. Then I used just one CPU, updated my firmware (download from the website, copy it onto a USB key, and do it from the BIOS - it's easy) and everything has worked perfectly since. Read the manual regarding which PCI-Express slots you can use and when, as well as where to put your RAM. You may need to set some jumpers as well, but the defaults are pretty good.


The ones that have a funny layout are for rackmount server. Stay away from that. And yes, all of them, if they have a VGA port, they have some sort of IGP. Amazon reviews also come with conflicting info, some say the board will post, some say they don't. It will probably post with 1 CPU alone, but not with the two. This type of quirks aren't that rare in server grade material.

Don't be worried about changing minds. Doing the best buy, and in server grade HW, it becomes almost a science. Really expensive one, with expensive mistakes. I do partially this for a living and sometimes hardware configuration decisions can take over a month, with a team of qualified IT.
Score
0
February 20, 2012 8:20:08 PM

I'll admit, one of factors that have been on my mind is this review:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/11/14/intel-...

Seeing the score of those 3930K's and thinking,"I could purchase two of these CPU's for the cost of the dual Xeon and net twice the performance." Then I begin to think,"I could purchase the dual Xeon, overclock it even relatively minimally, and net nearly the same performance of the two 3930K's with it being only -one- computer."

It is these overclocked performance benchmarks I keep seeing that keep me thinking I could essentially double my performance-per-dollar ratio. A very tempting thought... even with my concern about overclocking.

At the end of the day I wonder if it would be best to just purchase the dual Opteron and feel content in the knowledge that my server will render reliably, albeit nearly half speed of overclocked systems, without concern.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2012 9:09:47 PM

Myflag said:

Seeing the score of those 3930K's and thinking,"I could purchase two of these CPU's for the cost of the dual Xeon and net twice the performance." Then I begin to think,"I could purchase the dual Xeon, overclock it even relatively minimally, and net nearly the same performance of the two 3930K's with it being only -one- computer."


Server overclocking is a different beast. Many server boards don't support it at all. Others are limited.

BTW, that 5650 is a $1000 CPU, and the 5680 is a $1600 CPU from the benchmarks.
MUCH more expensive than the 5645 ($557) you were looking at originally.

Also note the AMD 6174 is the 12 core magny-cours not the 16 core Interlagos (which will be faster).


Interesting project will a lot of tradeoffs to make. Even your render settings can be optimized to make things run 10x faster. I used to make similar matrix comparisons when building F@H rigs.
Score
0
a c 139 à CPUs
February 21, 2012 12:47:30 AM

I will say it again: actual performance is all that matters. (Price/performance actually but you should deduce that.) Who cares about cores, ghz, architecture or anything except price/performance. The fact that the similar priced 6 core xeon (or even a 12 core 6100 opt) keeps up with the 16 core opteron should be proof enough. As shown by the benchmarks, a 6 core cpu can even beat a "16" core cpu so why do you still factor in number of cores. Factor in the price, yes, but number of cores, no. But if you want to say the 6272 has 16 cores than you should say the 5645 has 12 cores. Neither have that many real cores, I'm sure you know it's threads. If you think I'm wrong in saying that opteron is an "8" core, you need to look more into the interlagos architecture.

No cpu is linear performance vs number of cores, although the current cpus are very close. You can even see this in the benchmarks that have been posted. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interla... The single threaded test vs the number of threads of the cpus should equal the multithreaded test. But it is doesn't. The cinebench bench is way off and I hate synthetics anyways but in rendering times, real world apps it's closer to linear. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3930k-3820-... In these benches, the 6 core SBE is only 30% faster (at most) than a 4 core SBE: that's 33% more cores, close but no cigar. I can link to different software other these but you can do that too.

Now since the op is looking at different cpus than in the benchmarks, I could understand trying to figure out price/performance vs the benchmark cpus but that's not what I see. I should be seeing 6172 vs 5645 and no talk about cores.

As radnor says, a small oc should be fine for the xeons. And seeing as you want the rig sooner rather than later, I think going with westmere or interlagos is the way to go. I'd have to say to go with the opterons. Less time setting up as there is no ocing, less possible time troubleshooting from not ocing, and you know they will last a good while. Knowing that they will be stable is more important than dealing with a possible instability. I know all to well how a crash, even when a simple restart fixes the issue, affects workflow.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 12:52:13 AM

I think I finally have an answered I am satisfied with. I will wait until March, which I just found out will be the release date of E5 CPU's and purchase a SR3 EVGA motherboard which is supposed to release at about the same time. I would then purchase a single eight core Xeon for eleven hundred, which appears to have about 70% (on pre-release benchmarks) of two E5645's, and when money allows buying a second eight core. That would provide me great access to GPU PCI-E slots with the EVGA motherboard and since I just found out that later this year a Cinema 4D external render engine will be getting GPU acceleration that should work out supremely well. In addition with this motherboard it would leave the option open for overclocking (If EVGA is working their magic), if I felt compelled to attempt it. It would also grant the option for future upgrading with the next series of Intel CPU's next year or year after next... if the performance gain was significant.

The Xeon E5 Eight Core is supposedly being released on the 6th of March. Now considering those are pre-release CPU's, I would hope that the versions being shipped are superior in performance. Before I will really be able to see I will have to wait until benchmarks are released on the latest stepping.

I think I may have found an acceptable solution.

What do ya'll think?

EDIT: k1114 - If I had not just found out and thought of the info in this post I would have gone with the AMD CPU's for the reasons you state. Stability is paramount when rendering... one interrupt and your computer has to restart work on a 6 hour...12hour....or even multiple day long project. Not something that brings about great levels of efficiency. I have to ask, what do you think about my proposed idea above?
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
February 21, 2012 1:09:05 AM

Hyperthreading vs physical cores :/  Basically you would get 24 fast rendering boxes vs 32 medium fast rendering boxes.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2012 5:38:09 AM

Myflag said:
That would provide me great access to GPU PCI-E slots with the EVGA motherboard and since I just found out that later this year a Cinema 4D external render engine will be getting GPU acceleration that should work out supremely well.



That would change the playing field quite a bit. GPU acceleration is usually really good for rendering.

You could be looking at a single CPU + quad-sli system then.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 6:39:10 AM

Myflag, if GPU accelaration is coming into play, don't buy anything. If well implemented the performance difference can be huge ( 40x ) for the same investment. Really, don't buy anything now.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 1:47:43 PM

The fact of the matter is that I am not willing to pin the majority of my hopes on the GPU acceleration that will be out -later this year. While I don't doubt that it is coming and that it may grant me a 40x speed increase; I just simply am not willing to wait that long for a dedicated render machine.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 2:12:10 PM

HyperThreading is fitting 2 thread in the same core. AMD BD Cores are indeed two cores with just a shared "beffed up part". They are indeed two Cores.
Score
0
a c 139 à CPUs
February 21, 2012 4:54:06 PM

SBE xeons were my original suggestion but I don't want you to be waiting more than you want to. The higher end you go, the less bang/buck you get, but you achieve a higher level of performance the lower end can't achieve. I think it would save you some money in the long run when needing to upgrade but I've never seen a dual slot mobo being used regularly with only one cpu. I'm sure it works but just don't know what to say about it. Keep an eye out for other mobos; most mobos usually don't get previews like the evga sr series. Btw where did you read march 6th?

Each bd module is a single execution core. It goes one step further than ht by duplicating the pipelines, what you may "think" as a core but this is one part of a core. The os will see bd or ht as a pair of threads and one execution unit. It is blurring the line of what constitutes a real core but they are not independent, complete cores.
Score
0
February 21, 2012 7:55:11 PM

Well, I may just purchase both at the same time considering revised business projections.

I will keep an eye out for other motherboards. Last night I found out that Asus is going to release a board to compete with the EVGA SR-X. Also I read about March 6th from BitTech and several other websites. They all mentioned that Intel was planning the official launch of the SBE Xeons at CeBit 2012.
Score
0
February 22, 2012 2:29:39 PM

Best answer selected by Myflag.
Score
0
February 23, 2012 2:20:26 PM

It will be interesting to see how much gpu rendering will mature this year. We need more cuda cores and less power hungry gpu's... The one thing that really bothers me is how much power-hungry they are for rendering. I know they're suppose to be way faster that cpu rendering and be on full for shorter amounts of time but even in idle they consume too much power.

There's yet a lot of things that aren't implemented, but i hope this is the year to close that gap.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 23, 2012 6:06:34 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!