Render performance systems

[Steveclocks]

Hi, Just wondering what recommendations people have for CPU based rendering hardware?........ what today's performance, density value equation looks like?

I assume LGA 2011 v3 LGA is the way to go. Either 1 or 2 processor motherboards is what I have concluded. Peripheral features like card slots etc are not relevant at the moment (I don't think) as GPU rendering is not used at present, however features like RAM connection to processor to influence speed might be relevant....(although is is just a nano second difference?!)... GPU might come into play in future so it is a lesser consideration.

The main question is which CPU to go with, as there are such variety of cores vs GHz available at various wide ranging prices, and I am unsure as to what the stats online at benchmark ( ) mean in real terms?

For instance listed on https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Here are a few cpu options.

8Core:
i7 5960X : 3.0 - 3.5 GHz : scores 15974 : power 140W : Price £840.
E5 2667 v3 : 3.2 - 3.6 GHz : scores 16274 : power 135 W : Price £2114.
E5 2640 v3 : 2.6 GHz : scores 14072 : power 90W: Price £856.
E5 1680 v3 : 3.2 - 3.8 GHz : scores 17166 : power 140W : Price £1533.

10 Core:
E5 2687W v3 : 3.1 - 3.5 GHz : score 17734 : power 160W : Price £1775.
E5 2650 v3 : 2.3 - 3.0 GHz : score 15230 : power 105W : Price £964.
E5 2660 v3 : 2.6 - 3.3 GHz : score 16194 : power 105W : Price £1188

12 core:
E5 2670 v3 : 2.3 - 3.1 GHz : score 16686 : power 120W : Price £1316.
E5 2697 v2 : 2.7 - 3.5 GHz : score 17469 : power 130W : Price £2327.

14 core:
E5 2697 v3 : 2.6 - 3.6 GHz : score 21964 : power 145W : Price £2214.
E5 2695 v3 : 2.3 - 3.3 GHz : score 20711 : power 120W : Price £1962.

16 core:
E5 2698 v3 : 2.3 - 3.6 GHz : score 22309 : power 135W : Price £4157.

18 core:
E5 2699 v3 : 2.3 - 3.6 GHz : score 20594 : power 145W : Price £4109.

Prices are approx and inc. VAT.

So anything from score 14072 to 22309..........but what difference is there in real terms render time performance between those scores?

Perhaps another way to put it; what performance difference is there between 8 core score 15974 and 16274, and 12 core score 16686 and 17469, and 14 - 16 cores that score 20594 and 22309?
(The 18 core seems to score lower and yet cost more........ also drawing more power, so why would one buy it? Perhaps I have missed something or cpubenchmark source is an error?)

Any advice would be helpful in terms of real world results for rendering on these types of machine. Budgets run from £1500 - £4000, so unless the expense is not as many times as fast then it may not make sense to spend more, although higher density would be a consideration.

Are there any better sources of real world processor render performance?

I included quite a few processors in the list as 1. there is an issue of availability and 2. to illustrate the wide range to consider........ it might be helpful for others also asking themselves the same question.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Steveclocks]

thanks Idleman...... new poster so wasn't sure. Obviously not by name by nature in your case .

Steve

 

[Steveclocks]

Hi, thanks for your advice everyone.

It is just CPU rendering. It's 64 bit based and can use all cores thrown at it, one render project took 10G ram on 6 core single processor system (used the 12 threads), so chucking more ram wouldn't increase speed....... it's the processor number crunching ability that is the crucial factor.

The developer is not taking it to GPU - at least currently. It maybe a background consideration that perhaps a grapchics card could be added on a system in future if it were to go that way, especially as Intel are not increasing speeds but efficiecncy now.

A board considering would be small as possible, such as ASrock x99 4 Extreme, so to get as small as possible machine for the price, not having huge SLI graphic capcity, as opposed to a larger board with SLI. (the risk being if in future the number of ports restricted a future upgrade.) So maybe a MSI X99A RAIDER USB 3.1 Motherboard, would be safer, with larger GPU and RAM capacity. The other option would be the dual CPU boards, less space, but far more expensive currently - and little in the way of reviews apart from dissapointing - although I think people's expectation might be a little high to start with.

joejojo, yes pinch of salt with some quoted stats is why I posted the question - i supppose I was hoping for some definitive "time taken to render a frame by a range of processors"......... and then thus be able to work out the best for price point/density, as you suggest.

So clock speed * number of cores really works for comparison between the processors? I assume this will not work comparing cheaper old processors in the family as newer chips will have a gained speed beyond the GHz rating - or are they comparable too - this would change the price factor a bit (although Intel have not dropped the price of older CPUs much!)

Cheers
Steve

 

[Steveclocks]

Thanks.

Quixote, I've not found it easy to find cinebench 15 scores, those that I do have a "score", but I don't know what this means in real terms.......... I wish they just quoted the time taken to render the frame!!

Any pointers would be appreciated.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Steveclocks]

Ha yeah, so no one knows! Which is what I've found......... it's amazing that in the google age such a seamingly simple thing (to enable one to make an informed choice) is not reported accurately.

FPS is about display I take it, which is not relevant to rendeirng with CPU surely.

Thanks for your input.

If anyone else can shed some light on it, it would be grately appreciated.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Steveclocks]

Thanks Quixote,

I'll try and find relative scores.

Cheers
Steve