Yes I've always had better luck when using the same number of real cores for nuke.
On 04/02/2012, at 02:57, Randy Little <[email protected]> wrote: > Im not talking about turning HT off Im talking about setting Nuke to 16 from > 8 on dual core. I tested it on 3 boxes with different comps and on none was > it faster to set nuke to use more the the max real cores. but it was faster > to run 2 instances set to 8 each to render. I don't recall this being the > case on z800's running linux. > > Randy S. Little > http://reel.rslittle.com > http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 20:46, Diogo Girondi <[email protected]> wrote: > >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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 > >>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Nuke-users mailing list > >>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nuke-users mailing list > >> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nuke-users mailing list > >> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nuke-users mailing list > > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
