Holy crap!

[jo]

Hi Frank,

TG2's processor detection code currently ignores hyperthread virtual processors/cores and only accepts physical cores. This is because on older HT processors it was slower. Perhaps we'll need to change it for Nehalem family processors. In any case, you can set your preferred number of cores in the Startup preferences panel if you want to stick with 8.

Your news is interesting, as it makes me think I should definitely wait for a Nehalem based Mac Pro before buying a new machine. A dual quad core machine with HT ( which was actually fast ) would allow 16 threads. TG Mac in particular doesn't scale very well past 4 yet though.

Regards,

Jo

[FrankB]

Hi Jo and all,

OK, I made a little benchmark for with and without HT

First of all, I took Karsten's benchmark scene, and was highly disappointed, because with HT, the benchmark was only like 3 seconds faster :-(
I though I would have to go back to this forum and apologize for the hysteric excitement and over-euphorical misinformation, but I thought "Frank, you know it's faster, you've seen it!"
I gave it another try with a slightly more difficult scene. With GI 2/2 and quality 1, and a heightfield covered with countless fakestones of all sizes. (still a simple scene, after all).

Results:
4 cores = 4:22 min
8 cores = 3:35 min

so... it's not twice as fast like I said I believe it was, but still alot faster - in this scene! I wouldn't be surprised if on other scenes, it would run close to twice as fast, maybe if I render sky, water, objects... I don't know.

Cheers,
Frank

[rcallicotte]

Has anyone no mercy? 

<-- fingers in ears and humming...

A dual quad core machine with HT ( which was actually fast ) would allow 16 threads.

Regards,

Jo

[Volker Harun]

Hi Frank ... can you upload that file?
I just ran Karsten's test on an 'in-use'* 2x Intel Xeon Quad.
Using
2 Cores: 2:26
4 Cores: 1:13
7 Cores: 1:03
8 Cores: 0:56
15 Threads: 1:04

*'in-use': Well, the machine will be free for me from 7pm to 7am weekdays and the whole weekend ,-) - during the testrender it served about 20 Clients ,-)

[FrankB]

good that you asked me for it! While digging this up, I figured that had set min thread to only 7, instead of 8 (maybe a typo or so). I've rerendered the scene with 8 threads and the new time is now 2:52 min.

I've attached the file for you. It's a stupid scene that decides to render background mountains first in the upper right quadrant, before covering them with the foregound later.... But for comparison, I'll leave it as is.

You'll have to generate the terrain first and use the quick render node for rendering.

Cheers;
Frank

[Volker Harun]

By the way ... a well chosen title for this topic ,-)

The full 8 hardware-cores of my machine had to render ... 3'46"
Setting to 15 threads (did not dare to go for more  ) made 4'50" (while the render finished visually 1 minute earlier, and just waited for one cpu to complete its work)

Congrats to that hot machine! 

Volker

[neon22]

29:37 on my single core Xeon 2.8Ghz.  (irwindale core (dell precision 470))
[edit] checked it again 29:35

I need a dual i7 quadcore. (assuming one exists) really really badly 

[edit]
no dual i7 is possible. but xeon versions of the chip (for servers) will be capable. Xeon 5570
Check out this amazing info:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=532

[PG]

good that you asked me for it! While digging this up, I figured that had set min thread to only 7, instead of 8 (maybe a typo or so). I've rerendered the scene with 8 threads and the new time is now 2:52 min.

Cheers for the file Frank. You say 2:52 on 8 cores? I'm guessing that's the 4 HT'd cores. I just ran it on my core 2 duo. 2:51

[FrankB]

interesting.
and hard to believe, considering a single core xeon @2.8GHz took half an hour. Did you use the quick render node?

Frank

[PG]

Nope. Left everything as it is except for the threads settings. Just set those to 2.
Edit: Oh I see you were using quick render. Yeah it is slower on that one. I couldn't even be bothered to finish it It was only half way through the render when it passed your 2:52. It eventually took 6 minutes exactly. The weird thing with this scene is that it renders the first two chunks as normal, then when the second of the two finishes the first chunk suddenly goes painfully slow and the render only works one chunk at a time until the last two chunks where it does them both at the same time again.

[jo]

Hi,

Just for laughs I thought I'd try it on my dual 2.7 GHz G5. 12:23 - that new machine is looking better and better!

Regards,

Jo

[cyphyr]

Also for laughs
4:28
richard

[freelancah]

I punched up 100mhz more to my clockspeeds so ~3,5ghz(q9400) now and results were: 3:01

[freelancah]

Btw if anyone happens to have one those new Phenom II processors in their hands, I'd certainly like to see how the scale here

[Luggage]

good that you asked me for it! While digging this up, I figured that had set min thread to only 7, instead of 8 (maybe a typo or so). I've rerendered the scene with 8 threads and the new time is now 2:52 min.

I've attached the file for you. It's a stupid scene that decides to render background mountains first in the upper right quadrant, before covering them with the foregound later.... But for comparison, I'll leave it as is.

You'll have to generate the terrain first and use the quick render node for rendering.

Cheers;
Frank

Sniff, 6:56s on my last year's Intel E8200 with 2gb ram, @ 2 threads...