Sarah, a powerful graphic card won't do anything to speed up render time though. I just wanted to make sure you knew that before you spend money on a new graphic card.
Depending on the program, the stronger the processor the better the render times. Once the calculations have been run, the RAM has no effect on the rendertime. However, you need enough RAm to be able to get there in the first place. If you use Max or Viz then you can enable the bitmap pager which will use your hard drive as a temporary file storage rather than using the RAM.
note that paging to a hard drive will increase render time significantly.
you should have enough memory to hold the rendering process (512mb+ is good, but i've got 1.5 gigs cause i tend to multi-task a lot, and i render both 3d and complex fractals on my computer).
a balance between a good processor and a good amount of ram is key for faster rendering.
mmm, not sure about that. I've read about a so called "three Ggbytes switch" operation that suposeddly allow 3dsmax and vray to go past this limit. I've tried it on a computer once but I can't remember how and where I'd find out. probably on chaos forum...
French, you're right (I've talked about it here before)
the /3Gb boot.ini switch can make an extra GB available to applications, but it's a bit tricky and not all applications can make use of it, and some systems have stability issues with it as well.
I figured for simplicity's sake I'd leave out mentioning the rare, limited exceptions (there's one or two more as well)
64 bit systems are thre real answer to memory limitations. Now if the drivers and software could just catch up....
I have a Nvidia 6600, a quality card. check Tom's Hardware, it's a good source for reviews and bechmark comparisons. A quality video card is more appropriate for on the fly render, or when you are physicaly working in the model. The most Video Card intensive programs are Video Games (A larger amount of textures and triangle planes that need to be stored and processed).
I would somewhat counter argue some of these posts on here and state that you need a quality processor before you need extra ram. Next time you render, his ctrl-alt-del (assuming you are using a PC, otherwise download a resource monitor for your Mac. There are several Widgets that you can dl for such). Once you open your monitor (ctrl-alt-del) go to the process tab. While it's rendering you'll see the processor usage will jump near or all the way to 100%. Is your ram usage coming close or over your total? Probably not.
512MB will almost always be enough (maybe not for photoshop though). It will be very rare if you go over 1GB (that be some pretty intense renders). And if you are actually using a 1GB of ram during rendering, your processor will probably significantly below what it should be.
One last thing! If purchasing a laptop, and you want a quality video card, you can usualy control how much ram it offers (usually 16, 32, or 64 MB). BEWARE if it's shared or not. Shared ram means it takes the card's memory from the system memory...not a good thing. Many laptops don't specify if it's shared or not, and just because it doesn't say it's shared doesn't mean that it's fully dedicated. It's tough to find 64 MB dedicated (you usualy have to specially order it) and somewhat easy to find 32MB dedicated (Apple is much easier to find 32). You may not want a laptop, but just keep that in mind when purchasing (desktops can sometimes have shared memory, but usually the quality of the computer is relatively low if a desktop is doing such).
if you are using GI, 512mb will be exceeded very quickly. I'd say my average rendering goes beyond 1 gig - usually between 1 and 1.5 (rarely above that), even when maxing out the 2 Xeons.
If you plan on rendering, I'd go with nothing less than 1 gig, and plan on adding more later on.
The main reason for having a bunch to begin with is that it can cause your machine to crash, even if you have plenty of hard drive space. That's my experience, anyway.
Maya needs work to take full advantage of OS X and the hardware. BTW that test is on a machine released in june of 2004
"CUPERTINO, California—June 9, 2004—Apple® today unveiled its new Power Mac® G5 desktop line with every model featuring dual 64-bit PowerPC G5 processors. The top model, featuring two 2.5 GHz processors, the industry’s fastest front-side bus running at 1.25 GHz per processor, and advanced liquid cooling starts at $2,999. The entry model, featuring dual 1.8 GHz processors, starts at just $1,999."
The latest one is a Quad G5 2.5 GHz (and that was released last year)
Oh and i was refering to the cinebench benchmarks since there wasn't much difference between the two and even the benchmark that i linked to was for a old dual PowerMac G5 also architects are more likely to use cinema 4D or similar priced 3d app since it's more affordable. The PowerMac is a great rendering machine even with a PowerPC chip and will be an even better machine when the intel versions eventually come out.
yeah and if you wanted to run your windows software you can still do that within your windows bootcamp partition. There are a lot of great apps for OS X unfortunately companies like Autodesk, Bentely and Mcneel are a bit stubborn. Architects are also doing some great work using their macs, they aren't just pretty machines. At the moment most consumers haven't been properly informed about the choices out there, so misconsceptions are common place. While i'm sure windows can be a good tool in the hands of someone who can sort all the issues out not everyone can or wants to and that's where a mac fits in
Apr 10, 06 9:05 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
wat graphic card do you have?
i use a radeon pro w 128mb (pc).. my rendering skills r getting stronger, so i need more power
(any recommendations r appreciated)
nvidia geforce 6800GT....if you care bout cash, dont go for the quadros...they are far too expensive for the same chipset
Sarah, a powerful graphic card won't do anything to speed up render time though. I just wanted to make sure you knew that before you spend money on a new graphic card.
remonion is correct. A graphic card has ZERO influence on the rendering speed.
You need:
#1 - A new computer
#2 - more ram
#3 - A new processor
I'd skip #3 altogether. If you only have 512mb ram, upgrade that. It's cheap and it'll help. If you are on an old machine, get a new one.
thanks :)
Sarah7,
Depending on the program, the stronger the processor the better the render times. Once the calculations have been run, the RAM has no effect on the rendertime. However, you need enough RAm to be able to get there in the first place. If you use Max or Viz then you can enable the bitmap pager which will use your hard drive as a temporary file storage rather than using the RAM.
note that paging to a hard drive will increase render time significantly.
you should have enough memory to hold the rendering process (512mb+ is good, but i've got 1.5 gigs cause i tend to multi-task a lot, and i render both 3d and complex fractals on my computer).
a balance between a good processor and a good amount of ram is key for faster rendering.
2GB Ram and 2x AMD Opteron 244s OWWWWWW
fyi, i go beyond 1.5 gigs all the time. Rarely go past the 2 that I have in my main workstation, though.
whatever is in the Powerbook 1.67 G4
G4's and G5's for rendering.. heh... i dont think that's a good idea.
applications CAN'T go past 2GB without (at a minimum) 64 bit windows.
for what designers do, more than 2.5 GB will generally be a waste.
mmm, not sure about that. I've read about a so called "three Ggbytes switch" operation that suposeddly allow 3dsmax and vray to go past this limit. I've tried it on a computer once but I can't remember how and where I'd find out. probably on chaos forum...
what you need is backburner, and sneak a littlebit of work on the other computers on your network...most of thm will never notice!
French, you're right (I've talked about it here before)
the /3Gb boot.ini switch can make an extra GB available to applications, but it's a bit tricky and not all applications can make use of it, and some systems have stability issues with it as well.
I figured for simplicity's sake I'd leave out mentioning the rare, limited exceptions (there's one or two more as well)
64 bit systems are thre real answer to memory limitations. Now if the drivers and software could just catch up....
I have a Nvidia 6600, a quality card. check Tom's Hardware, it's a good source for reviews and bechmark comparisons. A quality video card is more appropriate for on the fly render, or when you are physicaly working in the model. The most Video Card intensive programs are Video Games (A larger amount of textures and triangle planes that need to be stored and processed).
I would somewhat counter argue some of these posts on here and state that you need a quality processor before you need extra ram. Next time you render, his ctrl-alt-del (assuming you are using a PC, otherwise download a resource monitor for your Mac. There are several Widgets that you can dl for such). Once you open your monitor (ctrl-alt-del) go to the process tab. While it's rendering you'll see the processor usage will jump near or all the way to 100%. Is your ram usage coming close or over your total? Probably not.
512MB will almost always be enough (maybe not for photoshop though). It will be very rare if you go over 1GB (that be some pretty intense renders). And if you are actually using a 1GB of ram during rendering, your processor will probably significantly below what it should be.
One last thing! If purchasing a laptop, and you want a quality video card, you can usualy control how much ram it offers (usually 16, 32, or 64 MB). BEWARE if it's shared or not. Shared ram means it takes the card's memory from the system memory...not a good thing. Many laptops don't specify if it's shared or not, and just because it doesn't say it's shared doesn't mean that it's fully dedicated. It's tough to find 64 MB dedicated (you usualy have to specially order it) and somewhat easy to find 32MB dedicated (Apple is much easier to find 32). You may not want a laptop, but just keep that in mind when purchasing (desktops can sometimes have shared memory, but usually the quality of the computer is relatively low if a desktop is doing such).
"G4's and G5's for rendering.. heh... i dont think that's a good idea."
Why not? Mine works well
if you are using GI, 512mb will be exceeded very quickly. I'd say my average rendering goes beyond 1 gig - usually between 1 and 1.5 (rarely above that), even when maxing out the 2 Xeons.
If you plan on rendering, I'd go with nothing less than 1 gig, and plan on adding more later on.
The main reason for having a bunch to begin with is that it can cause your machine to crash, even if you have plenty of hard drive space. That's my experience, anyway.
frem...
look at benchmark comparisons between intel/amd processors and g4/g5 processors.
not too good.
ask anyone knowledgeable in 3d rendering and they'll agree
the g5 is a decent rendering processor if the engine is somewhat optimized for it (there are a few, MR, MWR...)
hell, the g5 quad can keep up with high end 2x opteron 270 systems in many cases.
the g4, on the other hand....
adding ram vs processor: it all depends on the rendering engine and the model+texture data you're sending it.
*cough*
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
no offense, but if you are rendering with bryce, well... you aren't really rendering anything complex and worthy of being commercial rendering work.
now... mental ray and maya... huh?
http://www.barefeats.com/maya.html
Maya needs work to take full advantage of OS X and the hardware. BTW that test is on a machine released in june of 2004
"CUPERTINO, California—June 9, 2004—Apple® today unveiled its new Power Mac® G5 desktop line with every model featuring dual 64-bit PowerPC G5 processors. The top model, featuring two 2.5 GHz processors, the industry’s fastest front-side bus running at 1.25 GHz per processor, and advanced liquid cooling starts at $2,999. The entry model, featuring dual 1.8 GHz processors, starts at just $1,999."
The latest one is a Quad G5 2.5 GHz (and that was released last year)
Oh and i was refering to the cinebench benchmarks since there wasn't much difference between the two and even the benchmark that i linked to was for a old dual PowerMac G5 also architects are more likely to use cinema 4D or similar priced 3d app since it's more affordable. The PowerMac is a great rendering machine even with a PowerPC chip and will be an even better machine when the intel versions eventually come out.
oO c4d comes for macs....
i'm so getting a macbookpro.
i drool.
AWESOME.
yeah and if you wanted to run your windows software you can still do that within your windows bootcamp partition. There are a lot of great apps for OS X unfortunately companies like Autodesk, Bentely and Mcneel are a bit stubborn. Architects are also doing some great work using their macs, they aren't just pretty machines. At the moment most consumers haven't been properly informed about the choices out there, so misconsceptions are common place. While i'm sure windows can be a good tool in the hands of someone who can sort all the issues out not everyone can or wants to and that's where a mac fits in
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.