X4 Ray Tracing - Optimal CPU

[Ian Pellant]

marty,

Same type of result that we got on an i7...

It is very good to see that late model machines are showing speed improvements.

Except for ray tracing my old P4 is fast enough with Chief X4 for any normal production purpose. (I'm modeling single storey houses, not commercial buildings with Chief.) Ray tracing bogs it down.

We bought the i7 only 3 months ago and it tests at around 1:40. That's a "professional business" computer from TechBuy.

The Xeon takes more like 13 minutes (it's a 3 year old HP workstation). It contains two sessions of the ray tracer, one within each core and does not cross-thread.

The difference between the Xeon and the consumer i7 series is a surprise. The CPU core is believed to be from the same design series.... but obviously the core to thread design is very different. The Xeon I am sitting in front of reports that it has 2 cores, 2 threads... and according to the latest (aka downloaded today) Intel CPU ID Utility, the Xeon does NOT support HyperThreading Technology. Ummmm... the threading model is what lets the i7 down in a consumer CPU. (Xeons are marketed for server and high performance workstations.)

Which still leaves me with the big unknown:
Does the AMD FX8xxx series handle cores and threads more like the Intel Xeon or the Intel i7 ?

I am beginning to suspect that the AMD FX8xxx is more like the Xeon... but I'l never know until it's tested in two session mode.

Cheers.

[Ian Pellant]

marty,

ah well.... the absurdly long time it takes to send an elevation / section to Layout is another monster altogether in X4. It's an order of magnitude longer than it takes with Chief 10.

[Doug Park]

If you are running two instances of Chief and seeing improvements it is probably because to don't have "Optimize for Ray Tracing" selected in preferences. With two cores your result is expected if you have "Optimize for Chief" selected.

Longer send to layout times are due to several things. One is that in version 10 the algorithm would give up when it couldn't figure out how to sort surfaces. This would result in a number of odd line artifact issues. The other is that the model in X4 is often quite a bit more detailed. The good news is that this operation is also multi-threaded in X4 so if you have more cores it will go faster.

So while it may take longer to send to layout you shouldn't need to spend as much time manually cleaning up elevations as in the past.

For anyone that does find issues that need to be manually cleaned up please send them to support so we can resolve them. Surprisingly few of these ever get reported. Most of the cases reported have been corrected.

[SkagitDesign]

Since you asked about two instances using an 8 core AMD (8120 at 4 GHZ).

I opened a second instance of the program and a copy of the file. Raytracing both with preference set to Raytrace it was almost exactly double the time for two. Or, exactly the same time for one, however you want to look at it.

Thanks Doug and Chief. I really appreciate how you guys are so active in making this program better.

I was happy to learn about the optimize for Chief setting. Since I can set aside one core to work, and 7 to raytrace that means I can be faster than the whimpy 6 cores machines, since my percentage of cores taken out of the loop is smaller... Hah, theoretically true, but if money were less of a factor, I would still buy full boat i7.

As far as overclocking to 5GHZ. Yeah right...Would you run your commuter car on Nitrous all the time? 4 ghz seems stable and "normal" for me. Beyond that, I would buy something else.

Here is a version of that Raytrace. I only changed it to High Quality.

4 hours... Which does not include the at least couple of hours it took shooting photons. The shadows are softer, but I don't see a great advantage other that that.

Cheers.

[Ian Pellant]

Thanks Doug,

I had forgotten to check the Ray Optimization on the Xeon. It was turned off... so turned it on an ran the tests again.

The results from the HP Workstation with Xeon processor:

***************************
Ray Trace Opimisations Off
Single session
Xeon 2.53GHz 12:56

2 simultaneous sessions
Xeon 2.53GHz 12:54
Xeon 2.53GHz 12:54

4 simultaneous sessions
Xeon 2.53GHz 24:48
Xeon 2.53GHz 25:48
Xeon 2.53GHz 24:48
Xeon 2.53GHz 24:54

***************************
Ray Trace Opimisations On
Single session
Xeon 2.53GHz 6:08

2 simultaneous sessions
Xeon 2.53GHz 12:50
Xeon 2.53GHz 12:37

Indications are that Ray Trace Optimizations are effective with a single session. Simultaneous sessions drop back to double time.

X2 Send to Layout introduced a lot of artifacts compared to CA 10. I had logged a sample plan with CA Support - typical problem was inner wall faces in external wall corners appearing in the Layout, but were not seen in the plan vector view. This has mostly been fixed in X4. (Artifacts still occur - am trying to isolate them to log for you). Increase in process time is related to reduction of redundant overlapping lines - which simplifies manual clean up... sort of... Ideally the aim is to have WYSIWYG between plan vector view and what is sent to Layout.

Cheers.

[Max]

Question to those of you truly into machine specs and premium performance.
I am a long time builder of my own machines but am tired of messing with it. At this stage all I want is a solid machine that offers mutliple options for what ever I may care to do during the life of that machine and not just running Chief.
That said, I have been interested in the all in one machines that Apple offers even though they are quite expensive (around $2600.00 for bare bones top end I-Macs).
The one I really like ended up quoting at $3668.00 with the following configuration:

3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5

It also comes with an optional Thunderbolt Raid external drive setup which holds 4 TB for an additional $1150.00 and 12 TB for $2500.00 (Wow!)
You have to buy a Thuderbolt cable for this option which adds yet another $50.00. (Just money is all)

Obviously this is a pipe dream as I am too conservative to ever spend the bucks for something like this which WILL be outdated in a year or so.

The specs I AM looking at:

3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5

This setup takes the cost back down to $2680.00 which is still extreme but doable. I figure the cost of a good box will run $1500.00. A good 27" monitor is going to be another 4 or 5 hundred so we are already at the $2000.00 mark. The difference gets me two OS systems and everything combined not to mention a great looking machine backed by an extremely reliable warranty and service package along with an out of the box setup. So I figure I will end up spending about 8 hundred more than I would on the standard machine type I have used for years.

I really thought about a laptop. The Asus machines have some really great specs and are truly desktop replacement machines. The one thing about this I don't care for is they are still laptops. I hate how the track pad can get in the way of typing (how many times have I wiped something due to an accidental brush of a finger on the trackpad). Mavis Beacon I am not! Too small for everyday use too.

Getting to my question, does anyone have any experience using an apple I-Mac machine dual booted for Windows 7? I really do like the idea of getting rid of all the various paraphernalia spread out over and under my desk. The I-Mac is a truly beautiful machine with everything all in one package. Another obvious advantage is being ready for the Chief version for Mac! (I would bet that isn't too far off). My wife has a MacBook Air and really loves it after years on Windows based laptops.

Any input?

[Ian Pellant]

Max,

I don't know if Apple support dual boot for Windows. I have no idea what CPU they use. Traditionally, Apples used Motorola, then IBM PowerPC for the CPU and never used an Intel CPU common to Windows. As a result, an emulator software was needed to provide an abstaction layer between Windows and the Apple hardware so that Windows thought it was running on Win-PC hardware. Emulators usually add overhead that can reduce performance by 10% or so.

If you can get Chief and ray tracing running on a Mac.... please report the results. I doubt that they will be quick.

What a difference a week can make.

The Intel i7 3770 was released end of April. It went on sale in Australia last week. Am ordering one for the new system. Gave up on AMD.

The i7 3770 clocks about the same base and turbo clock speeds as the i7 2600, but it is on finer wafer die which reduces power consumption and heat and reputedly runs about 10% faster than the i7 2600.

The i7 2600 chip architecture was called Sandy Bridge. The new i7 3770 chip is called Ivy Bridge. While it is socket compatible with the previous chips, it needs a BIOS upgrade and new Win 7 drivers. All of which Shuttle have... so it's a Shuttle barebones to build into.

If you want a good looking desktop look at micro-ATX form factors instead of the traditional ATX PC boxes. The Shuttle is approximately a 12 inch cube. All aluminium. Liquid cooling (which is now fanless). I have built up 4 of them. As luck would have it, the first (the one I'm sitting with now) uses an Intel P4 Prescott CPU that is the hottest (as in temperature) Intel released before cutting the speed and going multi-core in 2006. The other three Shuttles I built a year later all used AMD Athlons - which were faster and a lot cooler than the Pentium.... and if anyone didn't guess... one reason for starting this thread and asking is the AMD chip faster at ray tracing than the Intel was that in 2006/2007 the answer was in favor of AMD.

Cheers.

[lbuttery]

Macs can use Bootcamp to dual boot to Windows

I would recommend a Mac PRO if you want to run windows and chief

also be sure to get a video card that supports OpenGL
and has 1 GB+ of video ram

Lew

[Ian Pellant]

Lew,

Any idea of the relative ray tracing performance?

Cheers.

[lbuttery]

Ian:

no clue

I don't use a Mac

and I don't do raytraces

Lew

[Doug Park]

The iMacs actually are a pretty good value. Some of the earlier large screen iMacs have a higher than average failure rate, but Apple has been good about fixing them.

The iMac definitely has the eye candy appeal.

They do work well in a dual boot situation.

The video card is in general a pretty decent performer for Chief, but not top of the line and you don't get the option of upgrading it later.

If you want more flexibility then the Mac Pro is the way to go.

If you want a super ray trace performer the 12 core Mac Pro is a beast. But you will be into that for more than $4000. One thing that can save money is to buy your memory separate. After market memory for a Mac is less than half what Apple charges and just as good. The Mac Pro case is well designed so putting in memory is easy.

Think of an iMac as a closed system, like a laptop. While there are a few things you can do but getting inside the case is not something that you generally want to do.

While in theory any video card is compatible with a Mac Pro from a hardware standpoint the real issue is drivers. Apple sells some higher end cards for the Mac Pro but they are pricey.

[marty]

Hi Max

A high spec machine must have a SSD drive for the main operating system in my opinion. It doesent need to be massive as it just needs to run the os and programs along with current projects - data files and older projects can be on a standard drive.

I find the speed difference noticeable particularly with elevations and sections.

[virtualhuck]

FYI for those interested...

I used Ian Pellant's ray-tracing test file. I ran it after a restart but didn't close any background programs. My rendering time was 2:31. I added another CPU and with no other changes, the rendering time went to 1:16 (way faster than I expected!).

Dell Precision T5400
CPU: Xeon E5430 (2.66 GHz quad core) (now x2)
Memory: 8 GB
Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
Hard Drive: WD Black 7200 RPM 1TB
OS: Win 7 Pro 64 bit SP1
Chief: X4

I have ordered another matched pair of CPUs in the same family (Matched Pair Intel Xeon 3.16/12/1333 SLANP Quad-Core Processor X5460), but are faster. I will let you know if that change affects rendering time. I'm also going to switch to a solid state drive (Mushkin Enhanced Chronos MKNSSDCR240GB 2.5" 240GB SATA III MLC Internal SSD) and will find out if that lowers the rendering time as well.

[evergreen]

I ran the benchmark on my system - 3.09 minutes
I bought my box from Best Buy in 2010 for a grand
Lets see; Windows 7, 64 bit (x4, 64 bit)
Hardware; intel core i7, 8 meg ram, 1 meg ATI Radeon

[hanconone]

I have just completed build on long awaited EVGA SR-X build. Ran benchmark test: total time 0:00:24. Not sure I can rationalize the cost but it is very fast...

W7 Prof 64 bit
Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680 processors
48GB Corsair Vengeance 1333
2 EVGA GTX 690 SC graphics cards SLI