>From what I've seen these new procs run faster with HT on. The old dual core Xeons (circa 2007) on the other hand use to be faster with the HT turned off. At least with Nuke from the tests I did at the time.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Deke Kincaid <dekekinc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just said that someone on Ars-technica did a test and found that > using hyperthreading was faster then not using it. Not that I tested > it. > > -deke > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 16:59, Randy Little <rlit...@rslittle.com> wrote: > > Peter and Deke both said thats not the case anymore and that using the > hyper > > threads since westmer i7 came out would be just as fast. To which I said > > what you just said. I just wanted to verify it. In fact even in comp in > > the GUI 8 is faster then 16. So either Peter and Deke are wrong or Mac > > threading isn't on par with the other platforms. > > > > Randy S. Little > > http://reel.rslittle.com > > http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 16:42, Nathan Rusch <nathan_ru...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I would actually *expect* the two separate instances of 8 threads apiece > >> to outperform a single instance using 16, for a couple reasons: > >> > >> 1) Not everything in Nuke is multithreaded. Throwing more threads at > some > >> things won’t get you anywhere, but throwing (effectively) two machines > at > >> them will. > >> > >> 2) There have been test results both from within The Foundry (albeit > some > >> time ago) and from end users reporting performance degradation when > trying > >> to get Nuke to make full use of virtual CPUs. Single-threaded operators > >> notwithstanding, a performance increase using two 8-thread processes > (even > >> though they’re technically utilizing the virtual cores) could be the > result > >> of letting the OS kernel handle the CPU scheduling for the virtual cores > >> between the two processes. > >> > >> -Nathan > >> > >> > >> From: Randy Little > >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:07 PM > >> To: Nuke user discussion > >> Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] Threads > >> > >> dual quad xeon 8 cores real 8 virtual. (westmers?) running 2 instances > >> with 8 shouldn't be faster then a single 16 especially if you take all > the > >> extra memory and i/o thats happening since its doubled. (this just goes > back > >> to that previous thread where they where asking to change the default > >> threads to include the virtual cores. > >> > >> Randy S. Little > >> http://reel.rslittle.com > >> http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 15:54, Nathan Rusch <nathan_ru...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> How many physical cores do you have? > >>> > >>> -Nathan > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Randy Little > >>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 3:47 PM > >>> To: Nuke user discussion > >>> Subject: [Nuke-users] Threads > >>> > >>> ok after the previous conversation I did some test here. on current > gen > >>> xeon MACS. literally I can render 2 of the same comp with interleaved > >>> frames significantly faster then the same comp set to 16 threads. Its > not > >>> even close. LIke 30% faster to render 2 instances of nuke on the same > comp > >>> with 8 threads vs one version on 16. Are we still having threading > issues > >>> on the Mac side. > >>> > >>> Randy S. Little > >>> http://www.rslittle.com > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Nuke-users mailing list > >>> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Nuke-users mailing list > >>> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nuke-users mailing list > >> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nuke-users mailing list > >> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nuke-users mailing list > > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
