I have the opportunity of getting a MacPro with Quad 3.0GHZ processors, 3gig of ram, and 2 good geforce graphics card ( it can take a total of four! )
At the moment we use a G5 PowerMac 1.8dual core processor, 2gig of ram, 1 x graphics card

We are trying to spend our money in the wisest possible way to get the best render times that we can at the moment - does anybody have any other suggestions, or experience with using a MacPro
or generally any helpful comments

We are trying to do animation for video presentations, and want to get a reasonably fast workflow for producing 5 - 10 minute presentations ( some fully animated in Vue, [and blender!?] )

What's your experiance?

Do it. I think the Mac Pro is an incredible fast machine. I have the 2.66 MHz version with 4 GB Ram and am already totally happy. It is so far one of the fastest machines around.

The only tzhin gthat would make additional sense is to have more than one machine for rendering. Especially when you want to do animations. Then network rendering is a lot of help probably and something to think about. With Infinite (5 or 6 does not matter) you can have Winodws PCs as well in the network so not all machines need to be Macs.

And not to forget, most sense does an Intel Mac make when you run a UB version on it. Which means a Vue from generation 6.

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

Quote - And not to forget, most sense does an Intel Mac make when you run a UB version on it. Which means a Vue from generation 6.

 

I'm not sure what you mean re. the quote above - could you explain

Also - the mac would have 3 gigs + 2 graphics cards - how would that compare with your 4 gigs

Also also - we already have a G5 powermac - that could be hooked up to get faster renders?

UB means that the program is a universal binary. V6I is UB so it will run natively on the IntelMacs (MacPros), which will mean a significant speed bump compared to a G5. As wabe already suggested I'd go for the MacPro for sure. 3GB should do, however it depends on the amount and size of textures maps used.

Yes, as TheWingedOne said - Universal Binary. this means the program is optimised for Intel Macs. And indeed an incredible step forwards in performance. And i mean a really BIG step forward.

Memory i think is ok on your machine, the two graphic cards i question a little. Is this really necessary? I was unsure in this field as well and thought the same. Then i found out that the default NVidia board that is build in has already 256 MB and is able to drive two monitors without a problem. Now for rendering processor performance is key, not graphic card quality. I at the moment have a new 20“ TTF monitor as working monitor and my old 17" moinitor as second here. Is perfect for my needs.

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

So having 4 graphics cards will really do nothing for the renders - what would anybody need 4 graphics cards for then ( coz it can take that many!)

also - will it be beneficial to link the 2 macs together to get faster overall animation renders
( ie macpro does 700 frames  plus G5 does 47 frames!)

Well, maybe for people who want to run a store with several displays more than one or two graphic cards could make sense. But i think this is only advertised because it is possible - not because it is necessary.

What i find as well very interesting on those Mac Pros ar ethe two Ethernet cards that are there - so you8 can have a network AND an ethernet printer on the machine without needing a hub.

A super interesting thing of course is the option to run Windows on that. Part of my busioness is doing PowerPoint presentations. Mostly for clients with Windows machines. Now i can do that on this machine without using an emulator and performance loss. As well for tests this is excellent - i can check wether bugs are Mac only or are Mac and Windows. For me this is brilliant. For you it might be interesting to use video editing software that only runs on Windows on this machine. Could be another interesting aspect.

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

Presumably you'd have to by a new windows xp operating system to stick on it - is that how it works?

I plan to rebuild my render farm (2 P4 3gHz w/ 2gb RAM each and 2 AMD 2gHz 1gb and 512 mb RAM respectively). I have found that rendering time is a fraction of what it was before. Performance manager only shows 24MB of RAM usage but 100% of CPU cycles. So I will get the most powerful processors I can afford but only 512MB each.

Either that or puchase a lot of 40 866mHz machines off Ebay (they're like $45 each).

Better go for a few really fast ones, but 40 slow ones, if you don't want to spent most of your budget on electricity and cooling. Just my two cents... ;)

The two macs that I will have ( the G5 one running OSX 10.3, the other macpro, the intel one, presumably running mac OSX as well ) they will be linked into a windows 2003 server ( our whole office is PC based apart from these two macs.

Will the macs work fine running togther as render farm over the windows 2003 network  -  or can they/should they be linked directly one to another?

Any help really is appreciated  - I do the graphics, draw the pictures, but could do with knowing alot more . . . . 
thanks for help so far

I'm upgrading (as soon as it gets here) to a dual athlon 5000+ system.

A few questionsbefore it arrives:
Is there a V8I 64 bit version? 
Will V6I automatically take advantage of a dual core system, or do I need to make some system or preference changes?

It was listed as having windows xp installed, but it didn;t say if it was windows xp64, or just windows xp. It also looks like new pc owners with xp installed get a free upgrade to vist when it's released, and I';l probably go ahead with vista 64 when it's available.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

Gareee,

There is a Vue6Infinite 64-bit version.  Vue runs beautifully on a 64-bit system.  I am currently running it with XP-64.   The 32-bit and 64-bit are included in the current version of Vue.  Vue senses your operating system and installs the right one.  I'm very happy with XP-64 and have no plans to upgrade to Vista in the near future.

And Vue takes complete advantate of dual core.  During renders both are running full blast. :-)

Lin

www.lingriffin.com

So nothing to set? COOL!

Microsloth dicided to aid manufactuers for the holiday season, and are giving Vista away free for anyone who buys windows Xp (+) before January 1st. I figure for free, I'll take the upgrade! ;)

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

Grayhem, i think you can do both. Via network or via link the computers together directly. All it needs is a unique address for each computer. Normally an ip address. Then you define ther cows via those addresses and all can participate. As well, exactly what i am doing.

And i think you asked it before - to run Windows XP on the Mac Pro you indeed need a license for XP. But Windows XP home isn't too expensive - and this would be enough for the Mac Pro.

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

XP Home won't use all 4 CPUs/cores on that MacPro, it's limited to 2 CPUs/cores.

As for rendercows, if I'm not mistaken you can even install cows on some of the faster Windows machines in your network and have them work together with the Mac(s). 

Intel based Macs are (probably, I don't have the data) fine and fast render machines. G5 based Macs are SLOW when it comes to Vue rendering. I've seen stats where a dual G5 2.2 was slower than a P4 2.4. 

64bit is great. That MacPro looks sweet, but make sure it has enough memory. 3 Gig looks like quite a lot, but with 64bit you'll want more. Especially if you're working with complicated scenes with lots of objects, lights, hires textures and polygons.

By the way, XP Pro 64bit isn't all that expensive. I bought an OEM version for 140 euros. XP Home is cheaper, but not by much. And it's far more limited.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff

Thanks for all your comments

Because we thought that the G5 was the best machine on our network, and trying the rendercows network rendering before proved reasonably dodgy ( a couple of nights renders messed up ) we have been just using the G5 mac.  We planned to link the new macpro up to the existing G5 to (well at least, we thought, get DOUBLE the render speed)

It looks like maybe our G5 doesn't compare very well to the macpro - is our thinking right that it would be the best to link to the macpro for network rendering?

Would you folks agree that we really need to utilize ALL of the reasonably decent machines on our network for network rendering? ( I think it was before the fix of 5.11 that we had our problems - we didn't really try after that as we had looming deadlines!!)

again, thank you for all your input - it is v. helpful

For Vue rendering I'd recommend a dual Opteron or dual Xenon setup. On a mainboard that supports at least 16 GB of memory. 
If you use dual Quad core Xeons, you can have 8 cores in one machine - it'll be one hell of a renderbeast!
It'll have to be a PC running a Windows Server 2003 OS. Mac doesn't make these machines (yet).

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff

The MacPro can have up to 16 gig ddr ram & quad core 3 ghz processors ( that means 3ghz  x4, doesn't it?)
Would what you're suggesting ( SVDL ) be better than that? - I mean it sounds interesting, for we really are trying to find a fast solution

But bearing in mind we also use the mac for video editing and quite alot more

Hard to beat a Mac when it comes to video editing. Hard to beat a PC when it comes to Vue rendering. So I think the MacPro with quad core Xeon is probably the best bet.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff

Just a thought - how about illustrating your actual network so that we can have a better view what makes sense and what not. At the moment it is a little foggy for me.

So, how many workstations do you need/have and how many render "slaves" do you want? In my eyes this is the first step - to define the needs for let's say the next two-three years. And then try to find out how to get there.

For the machines that are discussed here i would say it needs not many render slaves really to have a really powerful setup.

AND, you can always grow. If you need a Mac for video editing AND 3D (and i guess you do not want to repurchase especially the video software for a new Windows machine)  then go for a Mac Pro. Full stop, no alternative. Then, if you find out that you need more power for 3D Rendering you can add a powerful Windows machine to the toolbox, Vue for example comes with both versions, Mac AND PC so you will not need any extra investment on the software side.

I personally - and i am absolutely no network expert - found the networing of a mixed machine environment not very difficxult. Especially when you do not want much more than file exchange and backups. And i guess that is what you mostly want to do.

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

Thanks everybody - its really good to get feedback that helps

Watch this space today or tomorrow for a illustration of the network - don't know how thorough or exact I can make it  - I know the specs of the machines roughly, but I'm sure even an approx guide might help ( I'll try to be exact! )
See what I can do!

I running Vue 6 xStream on Supermicro X7DA3 based Dual Xeon 5160 system with 8G of memory.  Latest updates fix most of my stability problems with Floating license system.  I have notice that the renders are very fast and use all 4 cpus. 

Is there a good benchmark for Vue 6.

There will be a new V6 benchmark thread at C3D as soon as the release version of V6I is available (currently it is the pre-release).

sorry for the delay in giving illustration of our network - been v v v busy!
I suppose really what I was trying to figure out was would the Macpro quad core  be a big renderspeed improvement 
and it seems so

I would like to know just how much an improvement - is that what the benchmark test will tell us?  -  are they going to benchmark the Macpro quad core?

Everything will be benchmarked :) The MacPro is a fast machine indeed, but the best performance sweet spot right now in the high end is a Core 2 Extreme QX6700 machine, which you can easily overclock. And if you want the absolute fastest dual cpu system for rendering, you should go for a Dual Xeon 5355 (2 x 4 cores).

Quote - ...And if you want the absolute fastest dual cpu system for rendering, you should go for a Dual Xeon 5355 (2 x 4 cores).

 
I typed in 'Dual Xeon 5355' to google and got a site that talked of a Macpro with the possibility of having 2 x 4 cores - 8 cores ( they seemed to think that this modification they made might void their macpro warranty! )
Can a macpro legitimately have 2 x 4 cores - in effect 8 processors?

It's an off-record experiment that they did, so it is not supported by Apple. Officially, there is no 2 x 4 core Apple machine yet, but in theory nothing prevents them to build and sell one. The problem for the big names (Apple, Dell etc) is : how to justify selling a new high-end machine just a few months after the Woodcrest one, and say to recent buyers : the workstation you spent $$$$ on, just two months ago, is now obsolete, thank you ;)

but can you upgrade your machine reasonably safely? or is it dodgy?

I am not a Mac user, so I can't answer this, but apparently it is not that simple :

"Incidentally, we strongly advise you not to try this at home: the Mac Pro case is not designed to allow the end user to perform CPU surgery -- and we've got the cuts and bruises to prove it!"

How long do you reckon it'll be before apple actually bring out an 8 core machine?
Should we wait, and spend our money later??
6 months - a year - 2 years?

I really don't know, I guess in a few months it would be logical for them to announce something... but it's only a guess. If you can't wait the best way is to build yourself a workstation with a Tyan or SuperMicro motherboard, right now. Unless you absolutely want an Apple machine of course.

we have the whole final cut video editing thing for apple and lots of other stuff too - the main guy who works it doesn't go for PCs too much
we're trying to get a really good overall machine for many uses - a few months doesn't sound too long  -I maybe could wait for that!

Well, an 8-core machine is excellent for 3D rendering, but if you only do  video editing the 8 cores won't be used. The current MacPro would be more than sufficient.

No - we do a lot of rendering as well as video editing - that being my point - we want it for both!
Using Vue 5 (vue 6 probably soonish) and blender

( a total aside .. .. .. would be good if vue was compatible with blender .. .. .. do you think that might ever happen?! )

I believe if you export a wavefront OBJ object from Blender to Vue it should import all right (I don't use Blender but I suppose it knows the OBJ format).

No - I mean the way that Vue interacts with lightwave and maya etc importing vue landscapes into blender...
anyway its a bit off the subject -
but that's what were using in the 3d arena, so would be good if there was  the connection

If you want the Mac based machine now, I'd say go for a MacPro for both video editing and rendering. If rendering takes too much, you could add a rendernode to the network using a Windows based PC, 2x4core. 
That Windows box would only be used for batch rendering, so it can do without a fancy graphics card, a $40 regular PCIE x 16 card will suffice, as will a simple monitor.
So it will likely be slightlly more expensive than the MacPro. Much more raw power, less versatile.You could even build the scene/animation on the MacPro, hand off the entire rendering process to the rendernode, and then use the Mac for some video editing while the Vue render controller runs as a modest background process, taking up very few resources from the Mac. 

I suspect the first 2x4 core Mac will be VERY pricey. You're probably better off with a 1x4 core MacPro right now, and expand your render capacity as needed with (relatively) cheap PC boxes.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff

How much then would this Window 2x4 core machine cost (roughly)

As I mentioned (i think) somewhere else on in this thread, I work in an office with a network of about 5 or 6 semi reasonable PC's ( from Pentium 4's with a gig of ram down to celerons with 256 ram for basic office work )
Together they made pretty much no difference when we hooked them up with rendercows - the first couple of runs we did didn't work very well at all
We then went on to use ONLY the Mac G5 we have

All we are trying to get ( on the strictest budget ) is a much faster solution
The Macpro looked good, and quite a lot faster
If at some stage we have the resources to add another fast machine - or somehow expand the Macpro then all the better.

Why doesn't some PC company out there make a superfast 'renderbox', specifically designed for 3D rendering for amatuers and semi professionals - with no other features but render power?  Maybe this is naive...

Quote - Why doesn't some PC company out there make a superfast 'renderbox', specifically designed for 3D rendering for amatuers and semi professionals - with no other features but render power?  Maybe this is naive...

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for but if you wish to have 8 cores you will have to get a server board. This means you will have to buy some rather expensive RAM and your overclocking options will be rather limited. If you wish to have a fast rendering PC I would suggest:

Motherboard: Asus P5B Deluxe (allows for high FSB)
Processor: Intel QX6700 (single quad core processor)
RAM: DDR2, at least 800MHz
Cooling: Water or good air (Scythe, Zalman, Tuniq Tower...)
With that setup, some luck and some testing you should be able to hit around 3.5GHz.

Uuummm... Don't get so wrapped up in glitz that you get hung up on the Megahertz/Gigahertz mythos. Raw CPU clockspeed only has so much affect. There are quite a few other points. First, have 8 cores on a board doesn't guarantee a thing; the more cores you have fighting over the same system ram and cache space, the more latency you are going to get in your processes. Second, keep in mind that the quad core (actually a dual dual core) that Intel just released is pretty much a rush job to beat AMD. It is new tech, and there may be issues with it that don't show until the stress is applied. Third, the throttle on the Rendercow isn't the CPU; it's the memory and the hard drive access. Fourth, you want to minimize the investment in renderboxes; overclocking, watercooling, all that is just wasted money that could be better spent elsewhere. Here's my current rendergarden: 4 of the boxes are Athlon 64 3000+'s (3 socket 939, one socket 754), an Athlon 64-3200+, and two Athlon XP 1900's. All with at least a gig of RAM and 20 to 80 gigs of HDD. And having built it all, starting with Vue 4 and an old Athlon 700 slot A, I kinda know a few things. The socket 754 is able to keep up with the socket 939 chips, despite only having the one memory controller. There may be some miniscule difference, but so far as frame rendering time, equal or on occasion slightly faster that its bigger brothers. The s-754 has a gig of DDR-266, the s939's have DDR-400, so there is more than enough memory bandwidth from the slower ram to handle the Cow's function. That leaves hard drive access. The fastest box in the stack is the topmost of the rackmount cases on the bottom of the cart. That's the 64-3200+. But neither that, nor the fact its a Soltek board, has anything to do with that. Of all the boxes, that is the only one with a RAID array. As a test I got a couple of 40gig SATA's from Newegg and made a simple RAID 0 array (no need for redundancy, as there is nothing but the OS and render appliances installed). That one can go from cold to XP desktop in less than 25 seconds; the progress bar on the XP splash screen may make one trip across before going to the desktop. The Cow does a lot of diskswapping, as textures and scene data gets loaded there when a render starts, so the Cow is not needing a constant datafeed of resource info. You can start a garden pretty cheaply now. For example, go to newegg.com and look up the following: Asus A8V-VM. A micro-ATX AMD board with integrated video and support for the X2 chips. $54 Athlon 64 3200+ socket 939 (that socket is being discontinued in favor of the AM2, so they are getting cheap) $62 1 gig (2x512) Kingston Valueram $100 or so. 2 Western Digital 80gig SATA-3.0 drives OEM $88 total for the RAID 0 array. Put an ATX 2.0 300-350 watt power supply and a cheapy case around all that, and you have a killer of a renderbox (just make sure =NOT= to install anything like audio drivers; they will slow things down. A lot) that is not gulping amperage, running compartively cool, and getting the job done. That is all you need. Oh, I use AMD for many reasons, but in this case it is because the tech is mature; it has proven itself in the real world. Intel's offerings simply don't have the age rings to prove they are better technology.

woah! information overload...
I will print this stuff off and have a good think.....
ps - thanks again for everyone's input !