Digital Art Zone

Is anyone using Carrara 8 Pro on a computer with the new AMD FX8150 (8 core)CPU?  If so, do you get 8 rendering blocks or 16? What’s the best video cards to get the best and fastest renders of animations on that platform?  Are there any other advantages or problems using Carrara on that platform?
                      Thanks for your consideration of this question,
                        Steve Clerkin
                        .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Im using that chip after upgrading from a phenom quad core. I reduced a test scene I had from 24 to 10 minutes to render.
It has eight buckets as AMD do not do hyperthreading, you get eight real cores.
I had to upgrade my motherboard for the new socket so got a mid range ASUS one and eight gig of 1800 memory.
Then I let the motherboard setup screen auto overclock the chip to 4.2ghz, coupled with a solid state hard drive its super fast and silent.

Carrara runs smoothly, but I’ve never really had a problem on Windows 7 Pro 64 bit.
I run an old Radeon 4850 HD on dual screens and openGL performance is also rock solid.
I can’t comment on animation as I have’nt done any in years but I mostly do Architectural Visualisations with full GI and the speed increase was worth the money.

thanks for the speedy reply woodscreation   Sounds like the FX8150 only produces 8 rendering blocks but still renders twice as fast as the quad core (Intel i7 1.7).  In the system I’m looking at, the FX8150 runs at 3.6 and can be overclocked to 4.2 (though I don’t know how to do that)  and it comes with 32 gigabytes of RAM, so I guess that too will significantly enhance performance.  Looks like it would worth the money.  Thanks again.

woodscreation wrote:

Im using that chip after upgrading from a phenom quad core. I reduced a test scene I had from 24 to 10 minutes to render.

Would you mind doing a test for me? That same render that took 10m on this system—what does it take if you turn off multiple cpus? (menu: File/Preferences, ‘General’, uncheck ‘Use Multiprocessors’).

I just tested on a Xeon 6-core and saw improvement of about x6—to be expected because it has six cores even though the operating system reports 12 due to hyperthreading being enabled.

The thing with the new AMD architecture is that while it is heavier than hyperthreading each ‘core’ is not complete: they are grouped in pairs with two cores sharing an FPU. Performance improvement will depend on how FPU dependent the Carrara renderer is, and is something I’m interested in knowing. What is in the scene and render options may affect that as well (e.g., even if the renderer is overall integer bound it might use the FPU for caustics—I have no idea).

So if you don’t mind I’d appreciate timings for same-setting renders of the same scene with and without multiple cores.

For the record, these were my results (I’m rerunning the single threaded as until the last render I had a VM allocated two cores running which is very likely why it exceeded a six-fold improvement)

I just did a very quick test by turning off the use multiprocessors check box, and, erm it only uses one of the cores for the rendering. Sorry but I was not going to sit around for that to complete.

Right I’m off to watch the opening of the Olympics.

Well, that was the point but I completely understand you not wanting to wait. If you do get the time (perhaps overnight if you have no other renders?) I would appreciate seeing the speed up ratio.

CPU reviews of the amd bulldozer like the New 8-core fx series were negative, I only looked at the cinema 4d benchmarks, whiched showed about 6x speed increase over single core renders, roughly the same performance as the old phenom x6 when overclocked to the same 4ghz level.
Intel sandybridge had the same rendertime with 4 cores due to higher efficiency.
If you are on a budget, Google some more and go bargain hunting for a phenom x6 CPU.

Edit, found the link with the cinema 4d multi core render scores, should be very similar to Carrara:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345
What the chart is missing is that Intel overclocks higher, extending the lead over amd, but best performance/dollar is phenom x6 with a old am3 mobo.

3drendero - 27 July 2012 04:31 PM

CPU reviews of the amd bulldozer like the New 8-core fx series were negative, I only looked at the cinema 4d benchmarks, whiched showed about 6x speed increase over single core renders, roughly the same performance as the old phenom x6 when overclocked to the same 4ghz level.
Intel sandybridge had the same rendertime with 4 cores due to higher efficiency.
If you are on a budget, Google some more and go bargain hunting for a phenom x6 CPU.

Edit, found the link with the cinema 4d multi core render scores, should be very similar to Carrara:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345
What the chart is missing is that Intel overclocks higher, extending the lead over amd, but best performance/dollar is phenom x6 with a old am3 mobo.

Why do you say the cinema 4d render scores will be similar to Carrara’s? Having read the early reviews I saw that different render engines gave different results. Reviewers were certainly negative, but it was clear that it depended on the application and instructions used. Which is only to be expected given the design. Which is why I’m curious about how well these AMD cpus scale for *Carrara’s* render engine.

It is an educated Guess that Cinema 4d and carrara render engines are similar since they use the same algorithms that are FPU intensive.
Until someone actually does a benchmark for you.

The Point is that Phenom x6 is just as Good as fx81xx, but cheaper and Intel is faster and more expénsive.
Intel also has proper AVX instruction support, if carrara 9 or 1O gets AVX support, you Will need to upgrade again….

Checked thé pov Ray charts, same story, Phenom x6 is exactly as fast as fx 8150, Clock for Clock, they overclock to 4ghz, no advantage for thé fx there either.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40

3drendero - 28 July 2012 02:49 AM

It is an educated Guess that Cinema 4d and carrara render engines are similar since they use the same algorithms that are FPU intensive.
Until someone actually does a benchmark for you.

Sure, thanks. I had a suspicion it was fpu intensive but I’ve never seen that stated anywhere. I would not expect it to scale with the number of “cores” in the CPU then. When I actually have the money to get a new system I’ll check the current state of affairs, obviously, but it is nice to have an idea of the basics. I surely wish I’d been in the market for a computer when amd had their first 12-core CPU some years ago. That was a beast and could be put in a two-way configuration…

You can check eBay for the fun of it, if there are any 12 cores out there for a cheap price. Usually the mobo price kills the budget plans, but if someone is upgrading you may find a bargain. Otherwise, check any local auction stores or sites, many quad core Dells are sold for nothing, they are not overclockable though.

Still think a New Intel like 2500k at 4.9ghz kills a an old 12core amd, maybe not a 2*12 rig until the new AVX instructions are going to be added.

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/4058/

I’m still getting things (runtimes mostly) setup with my dual 12-core machine.