Author Topic: Too slow to render for animation  (Read 696 times)

2019-03-26, 12:00:15
Reply #15

Bzuco

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
    • personal web page
The xeon E5640 is 9 years old architecture @2.8GHz.  2x E5640 is still slower than one 8core Ryzen 2700x (300€). You will be still waiting days, days and days to render 3000 frames.
Interior animation with just 2 windows is not easy task when you dont want to spent a lot of money on renderfarms.

2019-03-26, 12:10:23
Reply #16

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
How can this with 2x Xeon and 24gb not be any quicker than what I got now? Corona benchmark says it took 2 min to render the benchmark scene

2019-03-26, 12:23:15
Reply #17

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Any suggestions to a good workstation I could pick up second hand that isn't complete dog sh!t?

 I don't have the money to spend £30,000 on a nuclear powered computer seemingly needed to render a simple white box with some simple moving square tiles.

So that Xeon in eBay is no better than what I got now?

2019-03-26, 12:24:55
Reply #18

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 5593
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
2 minutes on your I5?! Can you tell what exactly CPU this is? The best score on I5 i can find in the benchmark, is 2:46, not even close to your claimed 2 minutes. Maybe you're confusing the benchmark with the obsolete alpha4 benchmark?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.

2019-03-26, 12:34:44
Reply #19

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
2 minutes on your I5?! Can you tell what exactly CPU this is? The best score on I5 i can find in the benchmark, is 2:46, not even close to your claimed 2 minutes. Maybe you're confusing the benchmark with the obsolete alpha4 benchmark?


No I meant for x5650 I looked it up on the benchmark you linked and a similar system with same ram as the one on eBay (below) was around 2min 2:40 or similar don't have it in front of me right now.

The system I'm looking at now is this one
Intel Xeon X5650 @ 2.67GHz x 2
24GB of Triple Channel DDR3 @ 664MHz
Asus NVIDIA Geforce GTX 960
240GB Samsung SSD

I need to know if this is going to be better than an i5 40somthing with 8gb Ram otherwise it's a waste if money.

I need to know if this machine Will reduce the render times from 8min a frame to something reasonable or its a waste of money. I'm not spending 1000s on this I only do this for a bit of extra cash


2019-03-26, 12:38:14
Reply #20

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
What does the benchmark mean exactly I assumed it give an indication as to how long a system would take to re set that scene with the tank in it. If a system could render that in 2min it would render my interior scene (3 white walls,1 with some tiles 2 windows naff all else) in seconds.


2019-03-26, 12:48:54
Reply #21

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
What does the benchmark mean exactly I assumed it give an indication as to how long a system would take to re set that scene with the tank in it. If a system could render that in 2min it would render my interior scene (3 white walls,1 with some tiles 2 windows naff all else) in seconds.

You need to compare how fast your current machine is on the benchmark - down and run it from https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark, and then you can compare that to the 2 minutes you found for the machine you looked up, e.g. your machine takes 4 minutes, then the machine you are looking at will be twice as fast. Let us know what your current machine benchmarks at, cheers!

2019-03-26, 12:58:03
Reply #22

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
What does the benchmark mean exactly I assumed it give an indication as to how long a system would take to re set that scene with the tank in it. If a system could render that in 2min it would render my interior scene (3 white walls,1 with some tiles 2 windows naff all else) in seconds.

You need to compare how fast your current machine is on the benchmark - down and run it from https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark, and then you can compare that to the 2 minutes you found for the machine you looked up, e.g. your machine takes 4 minutes, then the machine you are looking at will be twice as fast. Let us know what your current machine benchmarks at, cheers!

Ok thanks I believe mine is a i5 4460 with 8gb Ram I've looked this up on benchmark and it has a time of 39min 57 sec

2019-03-26, 13:27:55
Reply #23

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Thing is, every machine will vary - you really should run it on your own machine to see what your machine achieves (motherboards, BIOS, all sorts of things will mean one machine's performance will vary from another). That way you would know for sure how your specific machine performs (which is what the benchmark is all about :) )

2019-03-26, 13:41:47
Reply #24

Bobbysmith05

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Thanks I'm going to run it when I get chance and compare that to the eBay machine. I think it Will definitely be a quicker machine question is how much

2019-04-01, 14:31:56
Reply #25

JoachimArt

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
    • JoachimArt
I usually do Rebus farm for animation rendering, works very well with corona.
If the jobs don't justify render costs, then I would consider reducing quality level based on budget. Low pay = low render quality. No raytraced renderer (gpu or CPU) can be done in super speed. ie. Either investing in tons of cores or a lot of gpus, getting render time down to 2-3 minutes per frame, it still takes up a long time for a lot of frames and a lot of electricity cost, hardware cost, or renderfarm cost. I would say the best option for budget rendering is realtime, either Unreal or Blender Eevee.