Best processor for max?

Anonymous · ‎08-08-2008

I'm looking into buying a new computer and I'm not sure what processor I should get. I know with 3D rendering you want to have a nice processor over everything else along with plenty of ram. I first thought I would build my own computer which I'm pretty confident I could do, but right now I'm thinking of just buying one.
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66GHz 6MB Cache 1333MHz FSB
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz 6MB Cache 1333MHz FSB
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz 6MB Cache 1333MHz FSB
Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 8MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 8MB Cache 1066MHz FSB
Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX6850 3.0GHz 8MB Cache 1333MHz FSB

The one in the bold comes with thet computer, so that's why there is no price. I've read around the forums that if you have the money, buy the most hefty processor you can. I'm still a student but I am slowly working my way up and I find myself with out the processing power I need for my renders. So I guess my question is, which processor would be the best for rendering. Just to be clear, I want SPEED if anything. I don't really care much about doing other tasks while im rendering, all I want is shorter render times.

I'm fair in tech knowledge but with this I'm just stumped and I'm not sure what I should be looking for.
Thanks for your time!
(sorry for crude spelling, this current computer doesn't have a spell check feature.)
Oh, if it makes a difference, I would be buying the computer with XP 64bit and I would be using max 9.

Anonymous · ‎08-11-2008

Best bang-for-the-buck is going to be the Q6600.

Though on that list a +$200 seems a bit steep. The price difference on newegg for an E8200 vs Q6600 is only about $30...

SJ

Anonymous · ‎08-11-2008

Yeah. That's one of the down sides to buying retail. If I knew for sure that I could install windows XP with out a problem and get all of the hardware to work, then I would go with building my own. But...I'm not 100% sure that I would be able to do it with out some help. I won't be really paying for a computer, but working it off...so I guess as long as the buyer doesn't mind I'll probably just go with that.
Thanks!

Anonymous · ‎08-14-2008

I am a hardware guy but just getting back into 3DS, and don't know much about how version 9 renders vs. what happens when just working with it.

From what I have seen when 3DS renders (at least with V-Ray), it uses all the cores (so a quad core means 4 processors are working at once) and the faster they are the faster it renders. My question is memory speed, where all the data that lives in memory (your model) gets moved in and out - if that pipe can flow at 1333 MHz versus 1066 MHz (think miles per hour) how much does that help, and is it different when working with the model versus rendering?

Sorry if this is not the right place to post. I do agree with Steve that the Q6600 would be the most bang for the buck for rendering.

Anonymous · ‎08-16-2008

From what I know max doesn't use the processor while working in the viewport when it comes to graphics and how they are displayed if you have a GPU or video card. (not sure if they are the same thing or not, technicality). I also know that when rendering your computer wouldn't use the graphics cards built in processor to help with rendering, which I never understood but that's what I'm told.

So, just so I know that I'm on the same page as you, if I have a single core processor running at 2.5GHz and a Quad Core Processor running at the same speed and I set them both up to render the same image/frame the quad core would get done in a fourth of the time that the single processor finishes? I'm just a little confused about if I have a quad core would it speed up render time. I'm sure that going from my crap anthron AMD 2.08GHz to any quad core would see a significant difference, but is it worth the money? Of course worth is something that comes differently to the individual, but all I mean by it is that is...would it speed up render times to a noticeable rate?

Thanks DBlair, sorry for the stupid questions. haha.

eodeo · ‎08-17-2008

If you care for REAL life prices
Q6600= e8400 in money- but 2x faster in max for rendering, because it has 2x more cores.

So, just so I know that I’m on the same page as you, if I have a single core processor running at 2.5GHz and a Quad Core Processor running at the same speed and I set them both up to render the same image/frame the quad core would get done in a fourth of the time that the single processor finishes?

In theory- yes. In practice, chance are that the single core is based on the old architecture and it will be more than 10x slower than the quad.

For example, my old Pentium 4 Celeron 320d Prescott 2.4ghz OC to 3.6ghz is 90x slower than my new core 2 quad 6600 2.4ghz OC to 3.0 ghz.

While in theory it should be under 4x slower, in actual- its 90x(no typo) slower. Just to reiterate that means that a frame that takes 1:30min on my celeoron takes 1(one) sec on the quad. Nice difference. This extreme difference is measurable only in Mental Ray rendering; in other areas difference is nowhere near as big, while still present in at least 1:4 speed- where the single core is at least 4x faster.

In theory, if by some miracle you should find the single core of the “core2” cpu working alone, it should be 4x slower than core2 quad.

I’m just a little confused about if I have a quad core would it speed up render time. I’m sure that going from my crap anthron AMD 2.08GHz to any quad core would see a significant difference, but is it worth the money?

Well, if you browse the web and listen to music- hardly. If you do ANY sort of work in Max, than yes. New quad should be over 100x faster for rendering than your current Athlon.

but all I mean by it is that is...would it speed up render times to a noticeable rate?

I think you will be able to notice at least 100x faster renderings.

eodeo · ‎08-17-2008

if that pipe can flow at 1333 MHz versus 1066 MHz (think miles per hour) how much does that help, and is it different when working with the model versus rendering?

DBlair,

Barely 5% max, if that. It usually falls into 3% margin of error, so it can’t be measured in real life conditions; in Max it has no difference whatsoever. Only CPU actual speed matters, not how fast subsystem is.

Example:

CPU running at fsb 200(Quad Pumped 800mhz) with multiplier 12 (12x200) would run @ 2.4ghz and same processor running at 400 fsb (qp 1600) with multiplier 6 (6x400) would also run @ 2.4ghz. For Max rendering, difference could be felt, but also within margin of error of 3%.

What you would readily notice, if you plan to overclock- that you can easily overclock our imaginary CPU with fsb 200 to 333 and greatly increase CPU speed due to: 333x12~ 4ghz, while overclocking fsb 400 you could OC it to Max ~500 fsb: 500x6=3ghz. And for this, you would need special motherboard and expensive ram to do it. So you would need more to get less- kinda like when you want a Mac.

For Max- the higher GHz is better, while for OC the highest multiplier with lowest FSB is best. That’s why for OC, I always recommend c2q 6600 over c2q 9450, even though the 9450 is faster at stock- its more than 2x more expensive and cant overclock as much as the c2q 6600 nor as easy.

Anonymous · ‎08-19-2008

thanks eodeo. It seems that I won't have the funds available in till winter, but its always good to know that I will have a quad core open in the future. I've taken all advise and I'm still looking over my possibilities, but now I can make a more educated decision.

eodeo · ‎08-19-2008

thanks eodeo. It seems that I won't have the funds available in till winter, but its always good to know that I will have a quad core open in the future. I've taken all advise and I'm still looking over my possibilities, but now I can make a more educated decision.

Be aware that due out in q4 2008 is intel Nehalem, new CPU that should be plenty faster than core2. Will it have reasonable prices for the speed difference? Probably not at first, but it will eventually. Is it worth the wait? You’ll have to wait and see for yourself, or ask me again later 😉

Anonymous · ‎08-26-2008

if that pipe can flow at 1333 MHz versus 1066 MHz (think miles per hour) how much does that help, and is it different when working with the model versus rendering?

For Max- the higher GHz is better, while for OC the highest multiplier with lowest FSB is best. That’s why for OC, I always recommend c2q 6600 over c2q 9450, even though the 9450 is faster at stock- its more than 2x more expensive and cant overclock as much as the c2q 6600 nor as easy.

Eodeo, thanks a lot for all posts !!! .... i'm about to replace my "P4 3.0 - P4P800SE" and your comments are a giant help !!!
i'm planing to OC the processor so i take your advise on choosing Q6600 ... my only doubt is the "8M cache" vs the "12M cache of Q9450"
does it matters L2 size in order to low render times ?
do you know any serious "Q6600 vs Q9450" 3DMax test ?

eodeo · ‎08-26-2008

Eodeo, thanks a lot for all posts !!!

🙂

I’m planing to OC the processor so i take your advise on choosing Q6600

Did I say that q6600 is slower 10% clock per clock than q9450? Q9450 is new generation of core2s and it has sse4 instructions to noticeably decrease video encoding time.

If Max rendering is your only concern and you plan to OC, q6600 is still the best one, especially given the price difference.

my only doubt is the “8M cache” vs the “12M cache of Q9450” does it matters L2 size in order to low render times ?

For max rendering even 1mb of L2 cache is enough. Toms hardware did extensive research into this and have found that L2 cache can dramatically speed up your gaming, while rendering, such as Max has no visible effect. Their testing was 1 vs 2 vs 4mb of L2 cache and they have found not 1% difference for rendering (while big increase in gaming performance). I would think that same is true for 4mb vs 6mb (x2 for quads as they are just 2x dual cores, so their cache does not double)

do you know any serious “Q6600 vs Q9450” 3DMax test ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/3d-studio-max-9,369.html?p=1272,1271,12...

Its not exactly what you asked for since 9450 is not included in the list, but you can see how old core2 compare to new ones (6xxx vs 9xxxx)

Q6850 @ 3ghz is exactly the same speed as q6600 OC to 333 fsb- so even fsb is the same. This fsb 333x9=3.0ghz is OC for “free”. You will need much better cooler than the included if you want to overclok more. If you want to know which are good coolers: http://www.frostytech.com/top5heatsinks.cfm

Also, you can see 2 same speed core2duos - one with 2 and one with 4mb of L2 cache. They perform exactly the same.

Good luck 🙂

Anonymous · ‎08-26-2008

Q6600 vs Q9450

Ok, thanks again Eodeo.
by the way ... since XVid and H264 encoders don't use SSE4 instructions....
i still don't see a good reason for paying the difference being a motion graphics user.

eodeo · ‎08-26-2008

Q6600 vs Q9450
by the way ... since XVid and H264 encoders don't use SSE4 instructions....
i still don't see a good reason for paying the difference being a motion graphics user.

well just because they don't at the moment, doesn't mean that they wont at some point, but i still don't think that the price difference of the 2 CPUs is justifiable at the moment.