The performance isn't a 1:1 gain, but it's still better to have multi-GPUs than not since licensing isn't based on the number of GPUs, but on the number of physical machines. It's much more cost-effective to put 4 GPUs in a single machine than spend the money on 4 machines with a single GPU per machine.
-Paul On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Leoung O'Young <[email protected]>wrote: > We are interested in Redshift too, just wondering what is the performance > different between having 2 titan in one machine vs 2 machines with 1 titan > each? > > > > On 23/03/2014 12:05 AM, Ed Manning wrote: > >> On the economic advantages of redshift or other gpu renderers. >> >> My current workstations are Mac Pro 3.1s which are left over from the >> company I shut down in 2009 (bootcamped into Windows). Essentially >> worthless from a CPU standpoint. Putting a single $1000 titan gpu into one >> of them makes it more efficient at rendering than any modern 16-core $8,000 >> workstation running any CPU ray tracer. Putting 2 titans in them is like >> having my old 162-core blade server renderfarm without the $5000/month >> electric bill. Not to mention all the IT overhead and license costs. >> >> I have never seen a single piece of software (in concert with the >> astonishing graphics hardware that is now so cheap and still getting >> cheaper) have such a cost-reducing impact. >> >> Plus they are fanatically hard workers and great communicators. >> > >
