Ok, Here's the dilemma. I'm going to buy a new computer. These are the options that I'm debating. 1.) Single CPU 32 bit. 2.) Dual CPU 32 bit. 3.) Single 64 bit. A.) I know option 1 will work and that I'll get serious use out of it. B.) Option 2 can be used by Carrara. It will beat on two cpu's to render. I don't know how it will work/interface with network rendering. If I made a dual headed machine a render node, does that mean it would take up two nodal slots? I have no idea! C.) Windows doesn't have a 64 bit OS out yet. Carrara isn't 64 bit yet. If I'm going to upgrade 18 months from now again, will I be able to use the 64 bit technology on the next upgrade better than waste it now? Seems like 64 bit is cool but not really useful. It's just not mature yet. I'm really looking at this from a Carrara point of view so keep that in mind when I'm assessing these possibilities. Thanks, -Kix

mmh, i'm not an expert of PC, why don't you buy a Mac? Eheh, no, no, Julien haven't still converted their plug-ins. Buy a PC, ehehe. BTW, option 2 e 3 are better for me. -TOXE p.s. maybe a ZX spectrum 48 Kb?

It really depends. As it stands with Carrara's low end system req's the easiest and cheapest would be obviously option 1 (and pound for pound an AMD rocks better clocks than a pentium in most benches). If you are looking to the future (to have the computer still running in about 3 or 4 years where you might think about upgrading parts rather than the whole thing), then 64 bits is prolly a good choice as Win64 should conceivably out next year and lots of migration will be that way. A dual 32 bit system would be my last thought, as it is a cute thing for rendering, I'd rather shell out the bucks for a single processor running at blazing speeds. As I am in the market soon after I get married to get some new hardware over my dilapidated Athlon 1.1 GHz, I have already set my mind that this machine has got to be built with forward thinking in mind, so I'm thinking of getting and AMD64 4000+ (or so) when I finally have the cash to get it. Hope this helps, Trothgard

good thread,cause i want to buy my third pc and i dont know which one,32 or 64,amd or again intel or a mac!!

Message edited on: 11/04/2004 14:43

I am with Trothgard. Single 32 bits processor is alot cheaper at good speed. I would wait for 64 bits cpus whenever win64 and Carrara64 is out. I probably would buy tyan quad opteron 64bits if Carrara will use all of its resources. Someone else suggested that if you buy two separated 32bits system for $300 and it doubles the renderer. I have not tested this renderer brenchmark with 64 bits yet. I am not sure if GHz really matters with renderer brenchmark. Here is my worksheet: 2 X 2.8ghz = 5.6ghz plus double room for GUI processing and 2mb cache and 1600mhz fsb That is for $300 dollar so I say what the heck why not. So I can purchase 6 renderer farm for $1800 so I get 16.8 ghz, 6mb cache, 4.8 ghz fsb and 6-times GUI processing. You would need a decker with special power supply and network bootable harddriver and hub to split the framework for renderer.

well.. being a mac guy i'd say get a Mac, and macs are 64 bit processors :)

... but.. since you're stuck on win/crash OS >:)

with all you do in carrara the second processor is a VERY big boast to rendering...

doing tests my dual 1.8 (again mac but still) blows most single processor PC's away so if you got the 2.5 duals is going to be WAY faster than a single, mostly with rendering only....but think of it this way... if a 5 hour render only takes 2 or three hours... you have those other hours to do with the computer what you want.. and anything that doesn't use both processors... probably isn't very noticable loss... make sense?

Message edited on: 11/04/2004 17:53

It would be nice to have multiple CPUs on board for main use PC. But if you want render-farm, get cheap ones and may be cheaper than M-CPUs on board. Always do your homework before you buy for main use PC and/or render-farm. I want to hear renderer brenchmarks on AMD opteron or 64bits.

I'd go Pentium actually. You could do a dual system, but I'm not sure if its worth it, especially if you are building it, there are many compatibility and hardward issues to overcome with dual chipsets and boards. And I'd avoid the 64 bit unless you want to spend a fortune on the system, in order to get a powerful chipset thats on par with the current highest 32 bit systems you'd have to go AMD's FX (correct me if the naming is wrong) chipset, which is quite a hefty price.

I've done some tests on some pentium 3.0+ hyperthreading computers and the speed of rendering is incredible. And thanks to Carrara's multiprocessor support, the rendering functions like Multi-processor system due to the nature of hyperthreading and it does shorten the rendering time in comparision with a comparable AMD system. If you are on a really tight budget then a 3200+ AMD is a good choice. Get lots of RAM and a nice Video Card, geforce variety of some sort.

Brian

Message edited on: 11/04/2004 23:15

Some more water into the mill. I'm thinking about getting a new computer too. I've used both PCs and MACs and, personally, I think I prefer PCs. That is, on the whole. I've only used Carrara on MAC. If I really had a choice, I'd get Linux for OS. But what can you do with it when there are no programs for it. :) So, to the point. I'm trying to select the most suitable CPU for modelling and rendering. Where can you see those benchmarks someone mentioned? Do those benchmarks test renderings time or are them those that test gaming abilities? Someone told me that Pentiums have had better results with graphics but here I find opposite information. Correct me if I've misread. -HK

AMD is known for better raw processing power, but I feel that has shifted. With the hyperthreading chipset from Intel I've noticed a significant change in performance, especially with rendering time. The Water Caustics wizard ,for instance, the rendering time was about 30-40% faster with a comparable Intel with hyperthreading technology. Unfortunately I don't have the "benchmarks" I'd run some tests but I do not have both machines available anymore.

I just put together a new system (mainly for video editing but I always keep Carrara in mind). Anyway, I went with a P4 3.0GHz, 1GB of dual-channel memory, 2 Western Digital SATA hard drives (160GB and 250GB), Plextor 12X DVD burner and a 128MB ATI 9600XT video card. I have been very haapy with the render times compared to my previous PC (a PII-350). If I get a chance this weekend, I'll post some render times from the included sample Carrara files. Maybe some other people can do the same for comparison.

None of my scenes go over 5 minutes for a frame otherwise I would get irriated!! ;)

I am getting a dual G5 as soon as I can muster the mulla. At least on a Mac, dual processing is = to almost having two computers, while it renders, you can still use your computer without missing a beat. Probably the rendering will take a bit longer, but I can still be productive doing other stuff. OS X is the best operating system with NO viruses or trojan horses today. It is a modern OS that uses memory and processing power extremely efficiently. Today we had our venerable Windows XP machine crash with a horrible blue screen once more. This time it seems at least legitimate since it appears the HD is toast, but I have already had to install the OS at least 3 times. This is not required with a Mac. Actually the one I am typing this on has never had a kernel panic nor the equivalent of a blue screen. Sure applications crash, but they never bring down the system. Once you go Mac, you never come back.

Message edited on: 11/05/2004 17:57

Its weird. I've been running PCs for 15 years. And I've rarely gotten a blue screen of death. I'm not sure what everyone else is doing. Oh well.