Processor Core Usage In Chief ?

[Dennis_Gavin]

I'm looking all over the control panel but cannot find monitor utility.

Maybe I should leave well enough alone?

[HumbleChief]

[HumbleChief]

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-031089.htm

 

BTW Dennis I know nothing about the Turbo Boost monitor - I'm just googling the term.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=intel%20turbo%20boost%20monitor

[Dennis_Gavin]

OK, looks like it is on by default.  Thanks jon & Larry. 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Agree with other posters that overclocking is a real mixed bag of results and you may end up frying your chip. Also, from my investigation into this it appears to be a very poor return on investment. The problem is that it is not as simple as just increasing the processors clock rate. The other components in your system also have to be able to handle this increased input/output capability of the processor. Is the memory fast enough, can your graphics board keep-up, I/O controllers, etc.. The cost can really add up by the time you spend money on fixing all of these things and in many cases it's all for a 10% or less performance improvement.

 

Graham

[HumbleChief]

I've overclocked almost all of my recent (last 5 years) machines with no problems whatsoever. It's not a simple task but I'm not the brightest bulb and got it done by doing a lot of research and investigation. The speed benefits were well worth it and if you have a good cooling system and keep the overclock conservative it's a no brainer and well worth the effort - or just buy a faster chip. (and overclock that )

[TheKitchenAbode]

Very interesting Graham. I've got a Q6600 on an older machine and remember when it was the bomb, now it's more like a bomb.

 

Just tested on a random RT with the Xeons, not the previous test RT.

 

12 cores 4:46

24 cores 3:30

 

Hi Larry,

 

Bought this back in 2006, Dell Precision T3400 workstation. Paid about $2,600 at the time. Not the fastest compared to what I could get today for the same money but have to admit it's been real solid, all original except for the graphics board which is now a GTX 650Ti.

 

I'm definitely envious of you Xeoner's but if I maintain a reasonable perspective the Raytrace times from my old hoarse & buggy aren't too embarrassing. Especially if I avoid those point lights.

 

Please keep posting those results, I know these will be very useful to others when the time comes to figure out what system to purchase and what one can expect for the money spent.

 

Many Thanks,

Graham

[HumbleChief]

I never intended to get a Xeon let alone multiple Xeons but found a builder (have always built my own machines) from this forum and told him what I really wanted and that the CPU was the biggest bottle neck for Ray Tracing.

 

I of course wanted the latest i7 but he had a couple of Xeons around and ran some tests for through put and found that these 2 relatively low range Xeons when OC'd slightly out-performed the then current i7 crop. $2500.00 all in so I went for it. It was not for the faint of heart.

 

When the machine arrived (HUGE case) with the cooling fans connected the stress from shipping had wrecked the MB and that had to be replaced. I had had a lot of experience building so it was not that bad but if you didn't have that experience then it would be no fun at all.

 

After it was all said and done I'm very happy and feel pretty lucky to have gotten the deal I did.

 

I'm not sure when I'll upgrade again (or what I'd upgrade to) and having a machine that's fast enough is a very rare experience as all of us know.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Today's processing bang for the dollar is well represented when you look at what $2,600 buys today versus 8 years ago. Especially when you consider the other system components Drives, Graphics Boards, Memory and so on. I believe Scott put his recent build together for about the same money.

 

As this industry goes there will always be something faster tomorrow but with systems like yours or Scott's you'll likely have to wait 3-5 years before the gain will be worth the expenditure. Especially now as it appears that chip manufactures are putting most of their efforts into the laptop/netbook/mobile chip market.

 

Graham

[TheKitchenAbode]

Here are my results on the Riverstone Bathroom for my ThinkPad T420s.

 

Intel I5 vPro 2540M CPU 2.6 GHz, 8 GB Ram, Integrated Graphics HD3000

 

10 Passes

 

4 Cores - 8 minutes 23 seconds

3 Cores - 9 minutes 16 seconds

2 Cores - 10 minutes 38 seconds

1 Core   -  19 minutes 45 seconds

 

Not much difference between 2, 3 or 4 active core/threading. Definite penalty with only 1 core/thread assignment.

 

Graham

[Kbird1]

Did you repost the Riverstone Plan you mentioned on page 7 Graham ? or is the Plan you posted a few pages back Ok after all? 

 

M.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Thanks for the reminder Mick.

 

Here is the plan, textures should be in there now.

 

Graham

Riverstone_Abode.zip

[Kbird1]

Thx Graham , I wanted to play a bit with this RT and it's settings . more for the Image then as a performance comparison, but wanted to play comparing Apples to Apples.

 

M.

[Kbird1]

Hi Graham , you only zipped the Plan file , you actually need to do a Backup Entire Plan from the file menu, and then zip that Folder, this Plan is full of missing textures too. 

 

Thanks again.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Had to strip down the file as it was to large to upload. Here is the texture file.

 

Graham

Abode_Riverstone_Textures.zip

[TheKitchenAbode]

Here is the plan it saved during Backup Entire Plan.

 

Graham

Abode_Riverstone_Plan.zip

[Kbird1]

Thanks Graham ..did not realise that plan was so heavy on textures , but once I unzipped both files to the same folder , there are no more error messages and I do see differences in the Camera View like the Picture over the Bathtub. dried plants in the Vase and the Towels etc. 

 

***It looks like once CA loads the textures once , it "has them"  , I ran the plan file from post #162 above again and it loads fine too now . ( I did close CA and reopen in between)

[Rich_Winsor]

Interesting, I guess my CPU is having a good

day. I reran the ray trace using all the textures

this time and it beat the previous (no Textures)

version by a second.

[Kbird1]

Graham , Are the settings you posted on Page 6 Jintu's recommended one's by chance?  they seem familiar , I think he liked 60-62% contrast on the Tone Mapping too, which I happen to like too, looks a little "sharper".

 

For some reason even when I make a new RT Profile it never seems to "save"  for the next time  I play with RTing , or are they only saved per plan perhaps?  

 

10 passes with your settings:

 

Run 1 was 6 of 8 cores and was 4:12

Run 2 was 8 or 8 cores and was 3:54

 

that's on an old overclocked i7-950. , so is actually better than I thought compared to some hardware here. My 2nd Comp. has a q6600 actually which used to OC just fine but these days I use it for Office Work so it's back on standard settings as those 775 motherboards are hard to find now at a reasonable price.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Mick,

 

The settings for contrast and the such are just what I used for this scene. Usually play with them a bit just to give the scene a bit more pop. If it needs more I will use Photoscape or PhotoShop.

 

As far as I am aware the Raytrace settings are plan associated only. They are saved with the plan.

 

Looks like you are getting some decent times. I am compiling these results in a spreadsheet and will post them shortly. Hoping more members will post.

 

Graham

[Kbird1]

Thx G .

 

As a test I ran it at 1920x1080 (x300ppi) since that is my monitor/TV size 

 

standard settings  was 6.23    so about 55% longer   (3:54)      (the settings we are using seem to be Jintu's Exterior ones)

 

with Jintu's Interior Settings at 1920 x1080 (see attached)   it was 12.37  as he uses Photons and Caustics on , he also recommends a slightly yellow/orange light , which looks good in this case due to the Cedar interior. I assume if  I did 20 passes as he suggests, it would look really good...not quite so "muddy"

 

 

Ray Trace Notes from Forum

Raytrace Settings-Forum Notes.pdf

 

 

 

 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Hi Mick,

 

By changing the screen size you have demonstrated another factor that is highly impactful on Raytrace times. Just upping from 1781 x 805 to 1920 x 1080 increased the time to Raytrace 55%. This was mentioned by Doug earlier on. As you do I usually run the size according to my Window Size. The size in the plan file was suggested by Jon so we have kept this in order to have comparable Raytrace times. On this note, I found that the ppi had no impact on times for a given screen size. This setting determines the actual output image print size in inches, 1920/300ppi X 1080/300ppi. Given this the Raytrace engine is processing the same number of pixels regardless of the ppi setting.

 

The built-in adjustments for contrast and the such are very basic but they do allow you to tweak the image a bit without outputting to another image editor. There are no fixed rules here, just adjust according to your personal preference. Some of those sliders are a bit over responsive so you need to be careful not to overdue it. Also need to keep in mind that if you are sending these renders to clients that their monitors may be way out of wack concerning color calibration. What looks great on your screen may be way overblown on theirs, especially if you are really upping the saturation which is often done to punch the image up. I personally prefer a more natural look but again this is just my preference. Getting that clarity, reducing that muddy look, is the most difficult thing to rectify. Definitely running more passes will help but at the expense of time. As the number of passes increase the visual impact lessens. Have had times when 50 or more passes are needed to really clean it up. On my system that's just to much waiting. 

 

Graham

[Kbird1]

Thx for the extra info G.

 

I have only played a bit with the General Contrast setting , not the Tone Mapping Contrast as I am not familiar it it's effects , I just saw Jintu recommend 60-62% Contrast in   one of his posts a while back , possibly in the a Thread about Blender in the Chatroom?, when    I tried it a while back.

 

Actually the settings here are pretty good for Client views , are quick enough and nicer looking that the regular .jpg .

 

As a test I opened the Shower door in the 3D view and with Jintu's settings (Photons etc) I stopped it after 12 mins as the angled glass looked like H*** and still wasn't half done.

 

On a side note , when RTing, it pays to orientate my two brushed Stainless Textures to get the best look , eg the bathtub hand rail should be vertical as should the Towel warmer at the end of the room .

 

M

[mrscott]

A silly fundamental question for you guys...I cannot locate the "Shiny Stainless.jpg" denoted in Graham's file (see attached). I am also questioning my the whole texture thing. I can locate a material Metal Stainless, (Rough, Brushed and Polished) but when using them they look more "Black than the SS appliances in my home. When I check my system Texture folder it is empty except of the "Metal001" that was in Mick's folder. Is this how it is supposed to look? The loading and use of textures and materials does not appear to be working as smooth and as automated as I think it should.

 

 

[Dennis_Gavin]

Chief's native  SS has no texture.  It is just gray with properties assigned to it so in standard render it is dark.  Some of us have gotten textures of SS from the web and us those, stretched to fit usually and assigned properties for emmisiveness etc. to get the look we want.  I have attached a couple here you can make a material from and experiment.