Forgetting cost considerations, is render time faster with three 6-core PCs or one 18-core PC (assuming both PCs have the same clock speed, ram, etc.)? I am trying to determine if having one massive core PC is better than having several smaller core PCs from a render speed perspective.
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von thiago.ize. Gehe zur Lösung
If each computer can render a different frame, then three computers might be faster. If it's the same frame, then get a single computer.
Thank you. I am particularly interested in batch rendering Arnold in Maya. I believe this would distribute frame by frame, rather than distributing buckets. In this context, you are suggesting that the multiple computer scenario would likely be best.
I wonder, does the massive core PC only allocate its cores to one frame at a time? Or, can it allocate for multiple frames (i.e., one frame on the first 6 cores, the second frame on the next 6 cores, etc.)? If it only allocates to one frame at a time (even though all cores are not used), then it seems reasonable that multiple PCs with smaller cores, each allocated one frame, would likely be faster than one massive core machine allocated only one frame at a time.
You can run multiple instances of arnold on a machine, but for the most part Arnold is pretty good at using all the cores so there's usually not much of an incentive to do that. You'll end up consuming 3x more memory so you might need to add 3x more RAM. You also lose out on sharing the CPU cache across all threads, so that could in theory hurt performance. If you need to read in 3x more data off disk, that could also slow things down. So which is faster is hard to say -- it's probably scene dependent, but for most arnold renders I'd expect a single instance of arnold on a machien to be fastest.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.