[lllab]

hi,
i am searching for maxwell renderspeeds of a octo machin with the new intel xeons.
anybody having such a thing already?
if yes how is it, how much faster than a quad?
cheers
stefan

[lebbeus]

check this thread out--second machine listed is an octo…

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=19437

[lllab]

thanks, sadly this is only a 2.33..

doesnt look too efficient.
cheers
stefan

[Frances]

thanks, sadly this is only a 2.33..

doesnt look too efficient.
cheers
stefan

I suspect that the disappointing results are software related.

[Mihai]

Compared to a Kentsfield single quadcore setup, the current dual dualcore Xeon setup will not offer much of an improvement. It's not software related, but system related.

Another review, using Cinebench:

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/des ... 700,00.htm


On the Kentsfield (at 2.66ghz) they got 1400, on the 8 core system, they got 2100. So not that big of an improvement. Plus you can easily overclock the Kentsfield to over 3ghz, so you would get maybe 1600-1700.

[aitraaz]

Cinebench results look pretty consistent with the octa maxwell benchmark, considering its running at 2.33.

Is due to the quad's slower speed, the 'additional octa computational overhead,' or software scalability? Would be interesting to know before making a purchase, not sure its worth all that cash considering more economic solutions....

[sandykoufax]

thanks, sadly this is only a 2.33..

What? only a 2.33?

E5345 is the second fastest xeon chip as I know.

Just only E5355 is faster than it.

[ivox3]

Yes. ...sadly that's my 2.33 machine ...

That's definitely the benchmark,...give or take a few points here and there as I've ran it many times and the results do vary --but's it's negligible.

Of course I was hoping it would do much better, ..and yes I did spend a little bit of $ on it ... I don't mind being the one who took the first step so we could see the results (someone had to do it .. ). With that said, ..the most current economical/efficient solutions are obvious(quad) and I'd suggest anyone interested to take that route. I believe you could easily build a system that could compete for the fastest time for around $1500-$1600. ...which I think is absolutely amazing.

If your still hell bent on an octo system, ...perhaps there's a motherboard out there that allows for OC'ing that I'm not aware of, .. perhaps a Super Micro board ... dunno ...but I'll say this, ...if there is, ...then the benchmark results are a totally different story.

[Frances]

Compared to a Kentsfield single quadcore setup, the current dual dualcore Xeon setup will not offer much of an improvement. It's not software related, but system related.

Another review, using Cinebench:

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/des ... 700,00.htm


On the Kentsfield (at 2.66ghz) they got 1400, on the 8 core system, they got 2100. So not that big of an improvement. Plus you can easily overclock the Kentsfield to over 3ghz, so you would get maybe 1600-1700.

It's a 75% improvement. But my math stinks, so I've probably figured it wrong.

So, we've concluded that more Ghz does not necessarily mean better performance. Chris' system has 1.4x more ghz than the oc'd quadcore. The other differences are the Mac, and the 2 gb more ram. I hesitate to say whether ram is the issue, since Maxwell will fall down and go boom if it doesn't have enough to render. If Maxwell has enough to render with, the additional 2 gb doesn't really matter.

Oops. Someone else had a MacPro, not the top guy.

[Mihai]

It's a 50% improvement, half of 1400. So it seems like half of the cores on the second quadcore go "missing". It doesn't depend solely on ghz ofcourse, the whole system and specifics of the processor plays a part. That's why a P4 3ghz cpu is one of the worst you can render with, much worse than an AMD at 2.1ghz.

[lllab]

well a 50% improvemnt isnt too bad actually i think for cpu number 5-8.

i wonder if it is more efficient to use one octo or two quads with coop rendering?
not moneywise there its clear, i mean speedwise.

cheers
stefan

[-Adrian]

It's a 50% improvement, half of 1400. So it seems like half of the cores on the second quadcore go "missing".

Nearly the same applies going from dual- to quadcore most of the times, so you get 3.* single Conroe cores with a Kentsfield. Still worth it - when in history were we able to get such a measureable speed increase for such a realistic price, i think never.

[Duncan]

Hi,
Just following this thread and had me wondering what would be
the better.

Would it be best going for a
single Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz
or
2 x Intel Xeon 5310 quad-core 1.6GHz 8MB Cache 1066Mhz FSB ?

cheers

[ivox3]

hey Duncan, ...

I think the going consensus is the quad setup ... if you compare each with a cost/performance scenario, ... based on what we've seen, ..the quad should , ..dare I say kill a 1.6Ghz octo system.

** OC'ing may be involved.

[Duncan]

Thanks Ivox,
I was thinking of going for the higher clocked Xeons, but the price really goes up for the X5233 2.6GHz, damn there expensive !!

It might be a month or 2 before I get a new machine but I think the
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz, is probably the way to go then.
Unless I can overclocker a cheaper quad core. mmm

cheers