it really depends what you're doing, ie how well your comp
can be multi threaded...
generally speaking there will be some operations which can't
be multithreaded well somewhere, and this will the
bottleneck when comping, because the other nodes have to
wait until that operation has finished. so for fast comp
work, a CPU with better single core performance will usually
be better.
for rendering, a CPU with more cores can be of advantage
because you can render multiple frames simultaneously (given
fast disks, preferably SSDs). it's also nice that you can
render a flipbook in the background while continue working.
in the high end workstations, the latest intel i7 and the
xenons equivalents will win over AMDs at the moment .. if
you're on a budget, an overclocked i7-2600K will get you a
long way.
++ chris
On 9/7/11 at 2:39 PM, [email protected]
(Constantin Lorenz) wrote:
So when it comes to CPUs what do you think is better -
more cores or faster cores. I was looking up the different
options and it looks like one could build a 24 core
machine using a dual-socket AMD configuration (two 12 core
AMDs, each at 2.6 GHz) or, alternatively a build that
centers around a dual socket configuration with two Intel
i7 six cores (so 12 cores total), each at 3.46 GHz.
Then again I saw a post on a different forum where
somebody thought that the dual socket setup per se is not
really worth it, and that it would be better to go for a single
as-fast-as-possible six-core i7 CPU. As I'm sure
most people don't have the budget to experiment with
different builds ad nauseum I'm wondering what the
thoughts are specifically for Nuke, considering its
internal architecture.
Clearly good and fast HDs and tons of RAM are big factors,
but let's assume for a second that we have a sufficient
setup there, maybe 24 GB of RAM.
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
