ssstrutz

Hello,
I am looking at upgrading my computer to try and speed up render times. 2 and a half years ago I purchased a refurbished dell for cheap and upgraded to 3gb of ram. What I have is below:

XPS 400 Desktop: Pentium D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.80GHz, 800FSB) No Raid 1 GB DDR2 Non-ECC SDRAM 533MHz (2 DIMMs) Microsoft Windows XP Media Center 2005 USB 2 Button Mouse 56Kbps Data/Fax Modem IEEE 1394A ADAPTER,DIM9150 ISP Software Wild Tangent Gaming Client Image Restore Software USB Keyboard Power DVD Software 160 G (I) (7200 RPM) 16X DVD ROM Drive McAfee Security Center with VirusScan, Firewall, Spyware Removal, 15-months 16x DVD +/- RW w/dbl layer write capability 1394 Controller Card 13 in 1 Media Card Reader Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Reader QuickBooks Simple Start Edition 256MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X600 SE HyperMemory
I should probably upgrade the computer itself but would like to know if there is anything I can do for cheap(under $300) to increase render times. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!

Trissel

To speed up rendertimes you need cpu power. The more Ghz the better. What I would do with $300:

Buy simple second hand computers with a fast processor and a network card. (you dont need a soundcard, keyboard, screen etc.)
Connect the sytems to network and use them as renderslaves. (DR or Network rendering)

This gives you the most bang for the buck. But your using old systems so the chance of them breaking down/ not working is a bit risky. So you need to consider if you want to take that risk (and the headache )

Good luck!

ssstrutz

Thanks Trissel,

I think that sounds like a pretty good idea. I will have to see what I can find. I had a job a couple years ago that we used network rendering and as far as I remember it was a nightmare to set up. It would be nice to have one computer working on the renderings and still working on the other(if that works).
I assume if I were to get one cpu a dual core wouldn't make much of a difference if it is used for just rendering, correct?

Do you know if a better graphics card would help at all? I have heard some people say they help and others say it doesn't make a difference. I would also like to get a dual dvi card for two monitors. I have read some bad things about the hypermemory I have using up system ram in other posts.

Any more information you can give would be appreciated.
Thanks!

Trissel

It can be a nightmare to setup. I had alot of problems finding maps and proxys. But a few days ago reinstalled my renderfarm and upgraded vray (in case you want to use that render engine) to sp2 and a lot of problems where fixed (when you assign a netrender, check send maps and all your textures and proxies are send to the backburner) You may want to check this out, its an old guide but a good one.

http://www.3d4all.com/onlinedemo/pdf...n_the_farm.pdf

dual core does make a difference, but if youre workstation is working ok for you than invest in renderslaves (i.e. dual core's). The graphic card doesnt matter for renderering, you just need a simple one to set up the computer.

What you do need (i forgot to mention before) is RAM. Make shure you have enough.

Good luck.

manish_mv

It is probably the best to have a maximum GHZ core 2 quad machine in hand and 4 to 6 gb of ram in it or go for a phenom based machine as a cheaper option

ssstrutz

Thanks,
Well I have started to look at my options and have been able to find a quad core barebone kit for $400(US) This seems like a really good deal. Am I understanding that if I get a quad core machine render times with max and vray will get shortened by a lot.
Does anyone know how well the quad core works? Does it break the rendering into four different cores, cutting the render times in half from a dual-core?
Here is the other question. If I want to upgrade to Max 9 do I have to switch from Windows XP to Vista? I might be better off saving for a quad core that comes with the operating system and use that as my main computer instead of a render cpu.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!

aram

im using max9 on windows xp, apparently vista sucks

manish_mv

see what and all you need to ensure is that you shud have a quad core machine (x2 or better than dual core if ghz per core is same) and if you want to run the most appropriate way then uprade to max 2009 or if u wanna to be in max 9 only then ensure you are working on a 64 bit OS and with 64 bit max installed and if using any third party renderer in max then use the 64 bit version of that. Then you can say you are absolutely upgraded your platform.

one more tip try to learn about striped hard disks if possible get yourself 2 or 3 hard disks installed and striped so that you can get your programs loadup within a few seconds.

mfured20

As for the question about the different cores, instead of having two buckets, Vray will split up into 4 buckets. I was using a Pentium D Dell for a while, and I couldn't believe how much faster my quad cores take care of the job. The Pentium D architecture was good as a first step, but the new Core 2s [both Duo and Quad] are really really good. I run a couple as slaves and render out thru backburner, like Trissel said, and while mapping the images can be a pain, its now a seamless workflow for me. This was definately the way I suggest upgrading... its the way that I did it.

As for the graphics card, I have the cheapest ones I could find in my slaves. They don't contribute anything to rendering... yet. As I understand it, Max 2010 [as well as Photoshop CS4] is supposed to support floating point renderings from graphics cards at 10 times the speed of a cpu IF you have the appropriate hardware. I havent been able to find any more deatails on this, but my tech guy says that I can just upgrade the graphics cards in my slaves down the line and reap the benefits.

Of course, as I look for the article I was looking for to prove my statments, I can't find it. Can anyone back me up on this gpu rendering deal?

__________________

aram

whats better, intel quad core or AMD phenom x4??