and render 3d half speed... next time you wait for a render from me, dont ask me why it is so slow... :-)
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Ron Ganbar <ron...@gmail.com> wrote: > I doubt it, Itai. > Maybe you can assemble a box for testing based on i7s and test that > instead. > > > > Ron Ganbar > email: ron...@gmail.com > tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] > +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] > url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:08 PM, itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> im assembling a box for nuke, resolve and 3d. it is not a render node, i >> need the faster interactivity of the i7. >> is nuke going to be optimised for multi threading any time soon? >> thanks >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Nathan Rusch <nathan_ru...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Nuke's 3D system is archaic (read: single-threaded), so the poor 3D >>> performance isn't too surprising. My instinct is that the performance >>> differences you're seeing are probably due to the i7's higher clock >>> combined with scripts that aren't optimal test cases for pure threaded >>> rendering. There are still plenty of nodes in Nuke that will prevent it >>> from taking advantage of the threading potential of modern hardware if they >>> exist in your script. >>> >>> If you're assembling render node hardware, I wouldn't worry about Nuke >>> in your decision-making process, as the render times for Nuke scripts will >>> almost always pale in comparison to those of 3D renders. >>> >>> -Nathan >>> >>> >>> *From:* itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM >>> *To:* Nuke user discussion <nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) >>> >>> Ive tried extensively with regular and m16, >>> the m16 sheds about 15-20% of render time, getting the dual xeon >>> slightly closer to the i7. >>> Another oddity, i tried displacement, with an imported obj, the i7 took >>> 4 minutes to render the scene, >>> the -m16 xeon took 12 (twelve) minutes, and the regular (32 threads) >>> took a relaxed 15 minutes approach. >>> I thought maybe the imported obj is difficult for a xeon processor, so i >>> did a test with a built in nuke sphere, >>> displaced it a bit with local noise node, and the i7 took 8 minutes and >>> the -m16 xeon a leisurely 19 minutes. >>> so, it seems to me that nuke is not liking xeon processors. >>> thats a big shame, because i need these for 3d rendering...:-( >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Randy Little <randyslit...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> yes -m 16 but try 14 or 15 and see if that frees up cpu for system >>>> calls. Worth a try. >>>> >>>> Randy S. Little >>>> http://www.rslittle.com/ >>>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the machine has 2 xeon e5 2689's, 8 cores each. >>>>> so that's 16 physical cores, >>>>> should I do -m 16? >>>>> thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Deke Kincaid <d...@thefoundry.co.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi itai >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that 16 physical or virtual cores? If it's virtual then you >>>>>> should do it for the physical ones -m 8. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, December 8, 2014, itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok I checked with the xeons on 16 threads only, >>>>>>> now they lag behind the i7 for 10-12% only... >>>>>>> this is very weird. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:38 PM, itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sorry guys for the hebrew, that was meant for Ron, >>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips, i'll test it with -m 16 cores and see what >>>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:19 PM, itai bachar <itaibac...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> תודה. >>>>>>>>> דה פאונדרי לא שמעו על WINDOWS? >>>>>>>>> זה די נפוץ... >>>>>>>>> לא מצליח להתחבר למיילינג ניוז הזה. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Ron Ganbar <ron...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Windows in this case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ron Ganbar >>>>>>>>>> email: ron...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >>>>>>>>>> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >>>>>>>>>> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Neil Scholes <n...@uvfilms.co.uk >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ron, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious is that on linux? Thinking about new machine so >>>>>>>>>>> processor choice is on my mind...... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Dec 2014, at 20:07, Ron Ganbar <ron...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would expect a piece of software like Nuke to, well, push >>>>>>>>>>> and make use of everything available. It really feels odd to me >>>>>>>>>>> that The >>>>>>>>>>> Foundry aren't taking care of this. >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips. I'll pass them on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> R >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ron Ganbar >>>>>>>>>>> email: ron...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >>>>>>>>>>> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >>>>>>>>>>> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Randy Little < >>>>>>>>>>> randyslit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah or just hit x in the dag and type "set threads" see if >>>>>>>>>>>> its using virtual cores. If it is try "set threads (physical >>>>>>>>>>>> cores)" so >>>>>>>>>>>> "set threads 16" if thats even the case. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Randy S. Little >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rslittle.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nathan Rusch < >>>>>>>>>>>> nathan_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nuke has (always had?) performance problems on machines >>>>>>>>>>>>> with many virtual cores. First thing I would try is running Nuke >>>>>>>>>>>>> with `-m >>>>>>>>>>>>> 16` on the Xeon box. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Nathan >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Ron Ganbar >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Nuke user discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey guys >>>>>>>>>>>>> A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old >>>>>>>>>>>>> i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd >>>>>>>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>>>>>> windows). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster at >>>>>>>>>>>>> rendering, around 5%-30% than the dual xeon machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Interactivity is also >>>>>>>>>>>>> slightly faster on the i7. (the xeon redraws a bit slower when >>>>>>>>>>>>> you go to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> new frame on the timeline). >>>>>>>>>>>>> When rendering in Maya, he gets the expected 105-115% speed >>>>>>>>>>>>> gain (more than twice as fast) from the xeon's. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems very odd. How come? Anything we're missing here? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Ganbar >>>>>>>>>>>>> email: ron...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >>>>>>>>>>>>> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >>>>>>>>>>>>> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Deke Kincaid >>>>>> M&E OEM Development Manager >>>>>> The Foundry >>>>>> Mobile: (310) 883 4313 <%28310%29%20883%204313> >>>>>> Tel: (310) 399 4555 - Fax: (310) 450 4516 <%28310%29%20450%204516> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
