|
|
974 posts
|
We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed. As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays. Brad's dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.
Here are some clips showing the renderer in action. The first shows that this was not pre-baked and the second reveals how well our rendering load balances.
modo201 on quad G5
modo201 load balancing
Message edited by BradPeebler on 10/27/2005 - 6:06 PM
|
|
10/19/2005 - 8:51 PM
|
|
|
Calgary, Canada
1088 posts
|
wow - very cool - can't wait to give it a go on my opterons
|
|
10/19/2005 - 9:01 PM
|
|
|
San Antonio, TX
1037 posts
|
That is fast. Then again so is 38 seconds. Is this the full resolution?
PS: Na-na-na-na-na-na...Brad's machine is sloooow.
Paul
|
|
10/19/2005 - 9:30 PM
|
|
|
Realm of Reason
2240 posts
|
38 seconds seems fast to me.
Custom 3D modeling and animation - MagicAnimation.com
|
|
10/19/2005 - 10:34 PM
|
|
|
San Mateo
1978 posts
|
Hey! I'll take 38 seconds "slow"! ;)
BTW: Allen is a rendering maniac. He can not, nay, will not be stopped! I believe Allen has gone into what is known as "MECHA-Allen-modo" GO! GO! GO!
BP
|
|
10/19/2005 - 10:48 PM
|
|
|
974 posts
|
Quote from P. Ham :
That is fast. Then again so is 38 seconds. Is this the full resolution?
Yes, that PNG is the exact image saved by modo on the quad Mac -- no scaling or postprocessing was done.
I just tried this scene on my home Dell 530 workstation, and I'm afraid it was beaten by both Macs. Here are the results so far:
dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds
Admittedly my PC is getting old, but still I don't know if we have anything that can beat the quad G5. Obviously it has more improvements than just the number of cores since the speedup is greater than a factor of two.
My thanks to Andrew Brown for the radio car test object!
Message edited by Allen Hastings on 10/19/2005 - 11:44 PM
|
|
10/19/2005 - 11:24 PM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
17 seconds for that? Wow, just wow. "That's superspeed!"
Too bad it would take about a minute on my lowly 1.6GHz G5... Still, a minute for that isn't too shabby either. ;) Edit: have you tried it on a G4? How's the performance on older hardware?
Oh, by the way, what do you mean by "indirect rays?" Did you render it using 200 indirect global illumination bounces, or what?
Message edited by Captain Obvious on 10/20/2005 - 1:47 AM
|
|
10/20/2005 - 1:46 AM
|
|
|
1731 posts
|
These render times seem unreal!
If you were to simply slap on a brick texture (not microply displaced as previous) and some fractal noise, what effect on render time does that have?
Great to see another render.
|
|
10/20/2005 - 2:52 AM
|
|
|
new zealand
637 posts
|
ill get by with 38 sec on my dual 2.5 G5...
alan, id be happy to verify the speed with a 201 beta...
.
.
'inch by inch its a cinch'
Message edited by bracesport on 10/20/2005 - 3:32 AM
|
|
10/20/2005 - 3:31 AM
|
|
|
Norway
914 posts
|
The smoothness of the GI, and the quality of the AA is stunning.
Where can I buy this thing called modo 201...?
|
|
10/20/2005 - 4:35 AM
|
|
|
Dublin
6265 posts
|
Lightning fast dudes...grand job. :)
Message edited by Philip Lawson on 10/20/2005 - 5:22 AM
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:22 AM
|
|
|
Berrien Springs, Michigan
207 posts
|
Hey Allen, shoot me a copy of 201 and I'll see what kind of time I get on my Dual-core X2 4200+...you know...for um...testing purposes.
I'll go wait by the mailbox...
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:52 AM
|
|
|
belmont, ma
132 posts
|
There wouldn't happen to have been a Quadro card in that test mac, would there? Any comments on the relevance of Quadro features to modo?
Specifically:
1) will modo take advantage of hardware antialiasing, clipping planes, etc., to make the experience better (and how much better?)
2) do you forsee a time when modo would require a Quadro (or FIre/Wildcat/whatever) card for some functions -- say, something like realtime preview of anisotropic reflections; some "extra" benefit from having such a card.
Any thoughts?
Evan
http://angstrom3d.com
|
|
10/20/2005 - 8:37 AM
|
|
|
Seattle, WA
259 posts
|
Quote from Allen Hastings :
Yes, that PNG is the exact image saved by modo on the quad Mac -- no scaling or postprocessing was done.
I just tried this scene on my home Dell 530 workstation, and I'm afraid it was beaten by both Macs. Here are the results so far:
Any chance of trying that on Opterons? I'm curious as to whether or not it will perform better than Xeon to begin with (likely), but also whether or not the 64-bit version can extract more performance than the 32-bit version.
Part of this is because I am debating getting XP64 for my laptop, but part of it is because I have my eyes on that IWill dual Opteron SFF :)
|
|
10/20/2005 - 9:15 AM
|
|
|
165 posts
|
So what's a Quad G5 going for these days?
|
|
10/20/2005 - 9:51 AM
|
|
|
Fort Myers, FL
469 posts
|
just over 3 grand. really not to shabby for apple's normally above-average pricing....
i suppose the popularity of the ipod is helping drive down desktop/mobile prices for apple since more people are buying
meloncully
MODONAUT :D
|
|
10/20/2005 - 10:28 AM
|
|
|
Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah, USA
756 posts
|
According to the Apple Store, 2.5 GHz, Quad: $3299. For Educational pricing: $2999
Message edited by Bob deWitt on 10/20/2005 - 10:34 AM
|
|
10/20/2005 - 10:31 AM
|
|
|
San Antonio, TX
1037 posts
|
$7,547.00 for:
2.5GHz Quad-core PowerPC G5
4GB 533 DDR2 Non ECC SDRAM (Seriously...512MB!?!?!)
500GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm (Probably could get by with 250GB)
QUADRO FX 4500 512MB SDRAM (Probably could get by with GeForce)
Dual 20" Apple Cinema Displays (Cheaper than one 30")
Edit: Oh, does anyone have any spare change?
Paul
Message edited by P. Ham on 10/20/2005 - 11:07 AM
|
|
10/20/2005 - 11:06 AM
|
|
|
Avon, Indiana
39 posts
|
Price as configured for me would be $5148:
Dual DC 2.5
1 GB RAM (non-ECC)
FX 4500
Single 250 SATA drive
Airport & Bluetooth
I will keep my existing 30" Apple Display
It is ALWAYS cheaper to buy extra RAM from other than Apple, and it is cheaper to buy extra HD's from other sources....
|
|
10/20/2005 - 11:18 AM
|
|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
Quote from eingersoll :
There wouldn't happen to have been a Quadro card in that test mac, would there? Any comments on the relevance of Quadro features to modo?
Specifically:
1) will modo take advantage of hardware antialiasing, clipping planes, etc., to make the experience better (and how much better?)
2) do you forsee a time when modo would require a Quadro (or FIre/Wildcat/whatever) card for some functions -- say, something like realtime preview of anisotropic reflections; some "extra" benefit from having such a card.
Any thoughts?
Evan
For modo 201, there are a few things to look for in a graphics card. First and foremost is VRAM - the bigger the VRAM the more textures and VBOs (meshes) you can keep on the card at one time. This is for general usage. If you want to see realtime effects like BUMP, LUMINOUS, SPEC, etc in OpenGL (our Advanced OpenGL Viewport), you'll have to have ARB_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM support (I think these days virtually all card have this). I should point out that you can always see these effects in the interactive Item Preview Viewport no matter what kind of card you have. Normal color map painting is also card independant. In general, NVIDIA cards tend to favor texture resolution (max 4096) over number of texture units (4) on the card (think how many textures you can draw in a single pass) whereas ATI cards usually have lower texture res (max 2048) but more texture units (8). If you like having lot's of paint effects (say a few alpha blended color maps, a spec, a bump, a luminous, etc) you'll need more texture units (rule is one per unique image map). If you're doing really hi-res stuff, you might sacrifice number of realtime effects for greater resolution (above 2K) of tex maps.
|
|
10/20/2005 - 11:31 AM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
Man that's fast! Great job Allen
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
10/20/2005 - 1:44 PM
|
|
|
LA & LV
397 posts
|
Exactly Bern,
I always recommend purchasing your RAM and HD's from other vendors. They're always cheaper as they cater to both the PC & Mac crowds since the hardware is the same.
Always get the minimum RAM & HDD from Apple, and then upgrade them yourself from an online dealer or Frys or something.
It can be wise however, just as Bern has obviously done, that you purchase around a gig of RAM with your system so that you can be fully functional until you're able to upgrade the components yourself.
Quote from bern :
Price as configured for me would be $5148:
Dual DC 2.5
1 GB RAM (non-ECC)
FX 4500
Single 250 SATA drive
Airport & Bluetooth
I will keep my existing 30" Apple Display
It is ALWAYS cheaper to buy extra RAM from other than Apple, and it is cheaper to buy extra HD's from other sources....
- harlan -
One more medicated, peaceful, moment
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:03 PM
|
|
|
LA & LV
397 posts
|
Quote from meloncully :
just over 3 grand. really not to shabby for apple's normally above-average pricing....
i suppose the popularity of the ipod is helping drive down desktop/mobile prices for apple since more people are buying
What are you talking about? They're the same price the PowerMac's have always been (well not always, but for several years anyway). Apple tends to update the hardware while keeping the same price point as the previous generation components.
The notion that Apple products are so much more expensive than a PC is nonsense - to get a comparable system from a manufacturer like BOXX or so, you'll spend right around the same amount of money. I'm not being argumentative or anything, just trying to correct a c ommon misconception. Sure you can build your own PC system and save a couple of pennies, but I'm comparing fabricated systems from a Manufacturer as that is what you're purchasing from Apple.
- harlan -
One more medicated, peaceful, moment
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:06 PM
|
|
|
LA & LV
397 posts
|
Now to get back on topic. My apologies for steering off course slightly.
That render is quite impressive Allen, thanks for sharing. I'd be curious to know what GPU you had in the Quad box you were testing. Was it the Quadro, the 7800 GT, or the stock 6600? How was the GL performance?
Thanks,
- harlan -
One more medicated, peaceful, moment
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:08 PM
|
|
|
Berrien Springs, Michigan
207 posts
|
"Sure you can build your own PC system and save a couple of pennies"
This is true...in my case it saved me 96800 pennies to build it myself.
Wow, those pennies sure add up!
|
|
10/20/2005 - 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
