Xeon vs. Pentium
tring01
Posts: 305
I'm building a new rig and am looking at two different routes for the CPU. I can get an i7 with 6 multi-threaded cores running at 3.3 Ghz, or dual Xeons with 6 cores each running at 1.6 Ghz. without multi-threading. The i7 has some render testing benchmarks and beats many single Xeon rigs, but I can't find anything comparing it to a dual Xeon rig. There is no doubt that the i7 would crush one of the Xeons I'm looking at, but dual Xeons provide double the number of true cores and different mobo architecture - more independent memory channels and such.
Anyone have any experience with comparing these two scenarios?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The benefits to Xeons are they will last a lot longer; they are designed for sustained use. EEC memory may be of benefit to you, perhaps, but it's of limited use in rendering so likely not.
They are different, and for different purposes. So they may be a benefit, and may not; if ;you are a gamer at all - an I7 would be a better choice, maybe.
Apples and oranges, and then some.
Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you will find a head-to-head comparison between a dual Xeon system and an i7 system at all, much less the specific systems you are considering, IMO. The best I believe you will do is to find comparative benchmarks of systems using a single i7 vs a single Xeon, and then make your assessment based upon dual Xeons, bearing in mind that not all performance metrics will double with two. Your propblem in comparing the systems is exacerbated by the fact that they are different generations and therefore different architectures. I am assuming that you are looking at a dual Xeon E5-2603 system (the only 6-core Xeon running at 1.6 Ghz that I know of) vs. the i7-980x Extreme Edition? If so, then right away you are going to suffer a dual whammy with the Xeons. Not only are the processors running at half the clock speed, but the processors do not support hyperthreading, while the i7 does. So it is twelve actual cores at half the clock speed versus twelve virtual cores at twice the clock speed. If the Xeons supported hyperthreading (as many do) and you were using the machine for rendering or other tasks that benefit from more cores, you may gain something from the dual processor configuration that trumps the increased clock speed of the i7, although by how much is difficult to say given all the variables involved.
Not much help, perhaps, but as I said earlier, try to find a head to head benchmark for single processors and that may be the best you can do.
(BTW, i7's are not referred to as "Pentium" processors. The Pentium brand is only used to refer to low-end, crippled Core processors nowadays)
First and most important Question -> Iray ord 3delight ?
While Iray also benefits from CPU power, I`d say, it isn`t as important as a powerful GPU. I use a dual Xeon Rig, but I mainly render with 3delight.
My Specs: 2x X5650 -> 2x 6 Cores/12 Threads with 2,93 GHz. Before that, I rendered with an overclocked 4 Core 2500k Non-HT @ 4,4 GHz.
I "benched" both configurations, with rendering of a scene, that I built with the 2500k some time ago. (Complex light/shadows, 3 Charakters, hair, some reflections etc)
I can say that, for the scene @ 1280x1024, my 2500k 4C/4T@ 4,4Ghz used roughly 35 minutes ... my 2xX5650 12C/24T@ 2,93GHz used roughly 13 minutes.
For 3delight, the major point is -> the more Cores/Threads, the better. But only when it comes to the render engine! After I changed the Rig, I noticed, that the actual performance while working/composing in the DS Viewport, significantly decreased. Thats because the DS software itself is limited to a specific number of cores, while the render engine uses all cores/threads it can find. Here, the Core Clock matters the most!
Considering, that you would work in DS with a clock of 1,6Ghz, I would strongly recommend to choose the i7, insted of the Xeons.
1.) I guess, the actual working in the DS viewport would be a pain in the a**, with 1.6Ghz
2.) rendering times wouldn`t be that much faster to justify the laggy/poor poerformance in the viewport. I`d rather say, that 6C/12T @3,3Ghz is even faster than 12C/12T @ 1,6Ghz.
yes, I have both machiens are about 5 years old and they are stripped down as rendering boxes
my i7 4/8 windows renders CPU very quickly
my dual xeon blows 8/16 it out of the water
Thanks much to everyone.
My hope is to build a rig that can render both IRay and 3Delight. Toward that end I'm going to install an Nvidia 980Ti for the IRay stuff.
One of the comments gave me another idea. I could build the dual Xeon box with 32Gb of RAM and nothing but motheroard graphics for 3Delight renders. I might be able to build that box for around $1,200.
I can build a much cheaper i5 based platform with 8Gb of RAM and the 980Ti to do IRay renders and play games on. Maybe for around $1,500.
The cost of building a single machine to support both engines is at least $2,500 - so, hmmm.....
Perhaps two machines, one for each render engine, is the way to go? That way I could build the dual Xeon now and the 980Ti later - since I will be doing most of my renders in 3Delight for the immediate future.
Hmmm.... That's some food for thought there.
maybe you want to look for used rigs. I bought my dual Xeon rig for around 400 €. I upgraded the RAM for 24GB and changed the GPU for an stronger one. All in all, I payed 600 € for the whole system.
It`s a HP z600 workstation. I live in germany, and there is a big ebay shop, that sells old, used CAD workstations, which have been replaced by newer/more powerful systems.
I own the z600 from HP. Its the mid-class version of the CAD workstation-family of HP these days. there is also the bigger z800 and the weaker z400 ( not recommendable, because it works with a single CPU mainboard )
It was released somewhat around 5-6 years ago and it is based on the 1366 socket. The socket is pretty old, but the CPUs for that socket are quite powerful. These CPUs gain hotter and have a higher power consumption than newer Xeons these days. But they aren`t that much slower. My 2x X5650 12C/24T @ 2,93 Ghz is even one of the smaller family-members. The strongest version is the X5690 with the same Cores/Hyperthreading but 3,7Ghz. I am very happy with it. The only downside is, that it can make a lot of noise if you stick with the default cooling. ( It`s difficult to change cooling because desktop coolers doesn`t fit on the mainboard )
I agree with Escobar87
You can pick up fairly cheap HP Xeon rigs, and even more up to date Xeon servers that can be used as a workstation (Tried & tested the server as a workstation BTW and it's kicks ass)