- This topic has 32 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
my company is thinking about buyimg a flame system (or a shake cluster). However we have some doubts, one being buying an sgi irix machine. we know sgi is migrating to liux and intanium processors. does anybody know when is discreet migrating to the altix system.
eltopo wrote:my company is thinking about buyimg a flame system (or a shake cluster). However we have some doubts, one being buying an sgi irix machine. we know sgi is migrating to liux and intanium processors. does anybody know when is discreet migrating to the altix system.hello,
sgi is not migrating to linux. the run mips and itanium until 2006 (end of mips roadmap) and then
a completely new architecture will come. you can expect they will cut both until 2007 in favor of
the new platform.I think you should at least wait until NAB to make any decision.
Remember that discreet is already selling Smoke for Linux (on Intel boxes) and Burn for Linux (also on Intel).
Burn, as you may already know, is a background render cluster for FFI. This means that they already have the code to render Flame stuff on Intel/Linux.
I let you draw your own conclusions as to what is the next logical step for Discreet… 🙂
— Xavier
Xavier wrote:I think you should at least wait until NAB to make any decision.Remember that discreet is already selling Smoke for Linux (on Intel boxes) and Burn for Linux (also on Intel).
Burn, as you may already know, is a background render cluster for FFI. This means that they already have the code to render Flame stuff on Intel/Linux.
I let you draw your own conclusions as to what is the next logical step for Discreet… 🙂
— Xavier
hello,
did you use smoke on linux? do you know somebody using it?
i don’t think so.
however, even articles on ‘standard’ websites confirmed that smoke linux is not reaching
the sgi combo in many ways. and it’s not significant cheaper!
also have a look at the burn article on this site. proccessing is one thing. interactive working
with uncompressed material is a whole other issue.
i hope discreet will focus on quality and not on trends…however, it’s quite simple: if you have the money discreet/sgi is the one and only choice.
look, i’m so hip – i’m using linux 8)
Foetz,
Why all the hate? Did a Penguin attack you as a child? 🙂
I’m not saying Discreet will dump SGI hardware all together. But I think it’s a good thing they are not keeping all their eggs in the same basket anymore.
>>did you use smoke on linux? do you know somebody using it?
No I don’t. Do you?
If you have first hand experience, please share with everybody.
If you have insightful links to some articles, please share as well.Anyways, the current incarnation of Smoke on Linux has one severe crippling factor: it can’t do HD I/O. No matter how good, fast and cheap discreet makes it, as long as it can’t do HD I/O I have no clue why an editor would want it over Avid or FCP.
Flame is another story. Even crippled, I see lots of reasons to use it instead of Shake, After Effects or Fusion.
>>However, even articles on ‘standard’ websites confirmed that smoke linux >>is not reaching the sgi combo in many ways. and it’s not significant >>cheaper!
So what is your point exactly? That I should wait an extra six months until the next round of upgrades from Intel? Don’t keep your head in the sand! With PCI-X, 800+Mhz front-side buses, dual 3+GHz CPUs, “cheap” HD I/O cards and AGP 8x 512MB graphics cards PCs (and Macs!) are quickly erasing any speed advantage that SGIs may still have.
SGI designs are beautiful (the crossbow is a marvel of engineering) but there is only so much you can do with 600MHz CPUs. Ask any G4 user. 🙂
>>also have a look at the burn article on this site
As for Burn, I did read the article here… but I don’t need it to make an opinion for myself because I have been using Burn for the last month in HD 12bits for lots of renders!
While Burn is very far from perfect, it is simply amazing how “cheap” PCs can hold their own towards a 4 CPU Onyx2.
With 8 burn nodes ***over 100 base-T ethernet***, we can get near Onyx2 performance from most Batch setups in HD. I can’t wait until our sysadmin installs GigE to see how much speed we’re wasting on our slow little network.
>>proccessing is one thing. interactive working
>>with uncompressed material is a whole other issue.True.
However, do you have any evidence a fast PC chokes on uncompressed material?
According to Apple, a dual G5 can playback 7 streams of uncompressed NTSC in real-time with an xServe RAID. Also according to them, a dual-Xeon can do 5 streams. Show me that on an SGI using smoke or fire.
I bet that a beefed up dual Xeon with a fast *local* fibre channel disk array can hold it’s ground against an Octane2 and even possibly a dual CPU Tezro.
>>look, i’m so hip – i’m using linux
Using Linux has nothing to do about being “hip”. Porting stuff from IRIX to Linux is way easier than from IRIX to Windows.
As a Mac user, I would have loved discreet to move to OS X instead of Linux, but I sure as hell like Linux better than Windows!!!
If SGI died tomorrow, on what platform would *you* like Discreet to move to?
As an inferno user, I am very excited to see discreet add Intel/Linux to their product line. You should realise that it can give the average flame users lots of “Good Things” like:
— Cheaper seats, meaning possibly more post-houses with Flame thus more work for flame users. Have you looked at the job boards on vfxpro recently? Do you notice the ratio of Shake vs. Flame job offers?
— Faster hardware, more often. Discreet stopped optimizing flame for performance long ago, so might as well get faster CPUs more often.
— Easier hardware access for sparks developpers, meaning less drooling over the latest/coolest AfterEffects plug-ins and waiting and hoping for a flame port.
— Cheaper access to peripherals. (The “Mac Tax” is annoying, but the SGI tax is just ridiculous. 1200 SGI dollars for a 200$ network card, WTF?)
So what are YOUR arguments for NOT adding Linux/Intel to the line-up?
Best regards,
Xavier
eltopo wrote:Very interesting point Xavier. I also heard sgi’s ceo about refocusing the company to it’s original aim (scientific machines for NASA, CIA, Lockheed-Martin, etc.) so it’s very worrying to spend that kind of money on something that has one foot in it’s grave…hehe, i hear those stuff since 1998 😉
Quote:Is Flame is so much better than Shake that it justify the investment?yes 😀
Xavier wrote:Foetz,Why all the hate? Did a Penguin attack you as a child? 🙂
hehe, not that dramatically
Quote:I’m not saying Discreet will dump SGI hardware all together. But I think it’s a good thing they are not keeping all their eggs in the same basket anymore.never said this would be a bad strategy
Quote:Flame is another story. Even crippled, I see lots of reasons to use it instead of Shake, After Effects or Fusion.interesting! why?
Quote:>>However, even articles on ‘standard’ websites confirmed that smoke linux >>is not reaching the sgi combo in many ways. and it’s not significant >>cheaper!So what is your point exactly? That I should wait an extra six months until the next round of upgrades from Intel? Don’t keep your head in the sand! With PCI-X, 800+Mhz front-side buses, dual 3+GHz CPUs, “cheap” HD I/O cards and AGP 8x 512MB graphics cards PCs (and Macs!) are quickly erasing any speed advantage that SGIs may still have.
ehm, no.
look at the techspecs of the components you mentioned.
however, working as an admin and artist for years i came to the conclusion that x86 is
just cheap. not more. that’s the reason it’s so popular. ask somebody what kind of machine he would like to have if money is no issue 😉Quote:SGI designs are beautiful (the crossbow is a marvel of engineering) but there is only so much you can do with 600MHz CPUs. Ask any G4 user. 🙂really?
maybe you never saw a tezro beating g5 with mentalray?
saw the saphire tests here?
tried seti?
worked with stuff bigger than the x86 cpu cache?
and-so-on…Quote:>>also have a look at the burn article on this siteAs for Burn, I did read the article here… but I don’t need it to make an opinion for myself because I have been using Burn for the last month in HD 12bits for lots of renders!
While Burn is very far from perfect, it is simply amazing how “cheap” PCs can hold their own towards a 4 CPU Onyx2.
c’mon. onyx2 is 7 years old.
Quote:>>proccessing is one thing. interactive working
>>with uncompressed material is a whole other issue.True.
However, do you have any evidence a fast PC chokes on uncompressed material?
According to Apple, a dual G5 can playback 7 streams of uncompressed NTSC in real-time with an xServe RAID. Also according to them, a dual-Xeon can do 5 streams. Show me that on an SGI using smoke or fire.
according to any comapny their product can do everythin 😉
Quote:— Cheaper seats, meaning possibly more post-houses with Flame thus more work for flame users. Have you looked at the job boards on vfxpro recently? Do you notice the ratio of Shake vs. Flame job offers?ah, see what i mean?
Quote:— Faster hardware, more often. Discreet stopped optimizing flame for performance long ago, so might as well get faster CPUs more often.wow, i’ll take this as a rumor…
Quote:— Easier hardware access for sparks developpers, meaning less drooling over the latest/coolest AfterEffects plug-ins and waiting and hoping for a flame port.yes and no.
more soft is always nice. but if i would start talking about crashes, unforced errors and some
‘it just doesn’t work’ stuff with wintel we would be here for weeks 😀
and this is it! x86 is just not prof. equipment. not for real important or big stuff. but i have no
intention in rolling up all the x86 vs. risc or opensource vs. commercial discussions.
ever noticed that nearly nobody using the big irons cares about x86 and/or linux? 😉Quote:— Cheaper access to peripherals. (The “Mac Tax” is annoying, but the SGI tax is just ridiculous. 1200 SGI dollars for a 200$ network card, WTF?)aha, once again the price…
however, as always the best solution is that everybody is using what he likes most so we’re
all happy…The deal is as follows…
intel hardware is not the solution… fact is getting a intel box up to normal mac specs ends up costing you more than the mac.
as far as sgi goes… it really does the job.
If you want xraid speed… simply add 4 channels of fibre to the raid.
its that simple.. and yes i have tested it. that will get you the same speeds as the other platforms. the only thing that i really like about using macs for video.. is the pixlet compression. it rules.
PC’s and video just seem to get bogged down or crash or something… that is why our company had so many issues with the DS solution and almost none with the FCP and Discreets solutions. For those cheapskates who think you will save money on intel hardware…. your not going to.
If you like linux… buy a mac.
If you like irix.. good… the two go great together.
linux will be the solution one day… but not yet for HD.
netviper wrote:The deal is as follows…Intel hardware is not the solution… fact is getting a intel box up to normal mac specs ends up costing you more than the mac.
I find this sentiment about intel’s apparent limitations really surprising. Since when do current PC’s lack bandwidth? It comes down to the design of the hardware and the way the software utilises it.
For those who remember Cyborg (by 5D) this 3 year old peiece of hardware (BOXX HD system) and softrware used to handle HD with ease. It played back 2K (8bit) and 1080 at 10bit. The I/O card it used (from DVS) was incredible. Needless to say, it held it’s own with most Inferno systems in the I/O stakes at a much cheaper price.
As for the G5, the stability advantages have as much to do with FCP software as anything else. Much easier to keep a system stable when you are 100% guaranteed of the hardware config.
If Smoke does indeed drag it’s feet on Linus, I’d say it has as much to do with discreet’s port and the particular intel box it runs on.
netviper’s last sentence is quite accurate.
maybe one day home user stuff will reach a level where it might be equal for workstation apps
but the big machines also don’t stop their development. so in the future there maybe better
pc components but also better big stuff so you can expect there will always be a level like finalcut, shake etc. and also a level like inferno and fire.i’m interested in the best stuff out there and not in bringing low end stuff to the high end levels
we had 4 years ago.
this is regressive!Pavlov wrote:I find this sentiment about intel’s apparent limitations really surprising. Since when do current PC’s lack bandwidth? It comes down to the design of the hardware and the way the software utilises it.right. exactly this is why netviper said it.(and me, too).
Quote:For those who remember Cyborg (by 5D) this 3 year old peiece of hardware (BOXX HD system) and softrware used to handle HD with ease. It played back 2K (8bit) and 1080 at 10bit. The I/O card it used (from DVS) was incredible. Needless to say, it held it’s own with most Inferno systems in the I/O stakes at a much cheaper price.you know the boxx prices?
what software do they have? premiere? after effects?
well, this is miles below…Quote:As for the G5, the stability advantages have as much to do with FCP software as anything else. Much easier to keep a system stable when you are 100% guaranteed of the hardware config.oh, this is VERY different from my experiences.
this is one of the pro-sgi arguments 😉Foetz,
First of all, if everytime someone raises a pricing argument your just gonna dismiss it as a “cheapskates” argument, you are ignoring a very big part of the picture.
You seem to be very lucky to work in a company that buys you all the toys you need.
However it’s not true for everybody. Lots of people just don’t consider FFI at all because its way too expensive (for them at least). As an Inferno user, I see that as bad news for my beloved product because less customers means less places that can hire me, and less R+D money for discreet.
>>Flame is another story. Even crippled, I see lots of reasons to use it instead of Shake, After Effects or Fusion.
>>interesting! why?As I said earlier, the strongest point for Smoke + Fire is uncompressed HD I/O and playback. Take that away, I don’t see why an Avid or FCP editor would switch.
FFI, however, has LOTS of strong points besides realtime HD I/O capabilites compared to competitive products.
Namely:
– A desktop with editing capabilities.
– A player!
– Action.
– Modular Keyer.
– Master Keyer.
– Batch (better than AE and combustion, but tied with shake I guess…)
– Wire
– Clip Library
– Decent Gmasks
-… your favourite flame goodie here.You want proof there is a market for a crippled Flame: it’s called Flint. 🙂
>>look at the techspecs of the components you mentioned.
What’s wrong with the components I mentionned? I *know* numbers are not a very good way to compare systems, but if you insist that I look at tech specs:
PC: 2×3.2 GHz Intel CPU
Tezro: 2x or 4x 800 Mhz MIPS CPUPC: PCI-X I/O
Tezro: PCI-X I/OPC: 512 MB TRAM
Tezro: 128 MB Graphics, 104 MB TRAMPC: Real-time HD I/O with Decklink or other card
Tezro: Real-time HD I/O with SGI cardPC: FibreChannel RAID
Tezro: FibreChannel RAIDPC: GigEthernet
Tezro: GigEthernet (or HiPPI but practically same speed)PC: 1920×1200 display
Tezro: 1920×1200 displayPC: 4 GB RAM Max / G5s can do 8 GB Max.
Tezro: 8 GB RAM Max (inferno can’t address more than 2GB anyways)PC: $$$
Tezro: $$$$$$So, again, where does the Tezro have a distinct clear advantage? Possibly by being able to have 4 CPUs. However, looking at the CPU usage on my Onyx2 while rendering, I can see that a lot of CPU power is wasted because the multithreading is not super efficient in inferno. Plus, 2×3.2 = 6.4 GHz. 4×800 = 2.4 GHz (Yeah, yeah, OK, I know about the MHz myth…)
>>ask somebody what kind of machine he would like to have if money is no issue.
Well, actually, if available technology wasn’t an issue, I would rather have Flame on a souped up G5 than on an SGI. This would enable me to quickly switch to Photoshop, Shake, Combustion, Commotion or After Effects for those little things that make you go “ARRGGH!” in Flame! Bonus points for QuickTime codecs that aren’t 8 years old, burning DVD dailies with iDVD, access to Office, recent web browsers, FileMaker (in house databases), a non-prehistoric GUI and UNIX underpinnings.
>> saw the saphire tests here?
Yeah. A G5 beat the crap out of a Tezro. And a PC either beat it or wasn’t far behind. Don’t get me started with CPU-only operations! A SGI doesn’t hold a candle when it’s “almighty” graphics card is left idle while the CPUs are doing all the work. Copied from the sapphire sparks tests thread:
_______________/ pc ________/ flame _____/ G5 ___/ Tezro _____
RDefocus || 0 min 8.5sec || 0 min 25 sec || 3 sec || 5.0 sec ||
EdgeRays || 0 min 20 sec || 1 min 26 sec || 4 sec || 30.5 sec ||
WarpDrops || 0 min 31sec || 1 min 09sec || 21sec || 26 sec ||
—Glows— || 0 min 7.5sec || 0 min 18 ec || 4 sec || 7.0 sec ||
AutoPaint || 0 min 10.5sec || 0 min 34sec || 9 sec || 12.0 sec ||
________________________________________________________________>>maybe you never saw a tezro beating g5 with mentalray?
>>tried seti?WTF!? I thought we were debating non-SGI hardware for interactive compositing work. Please bring your alien-searching software topics in another thread… As for 3D rendering, how many companies still render 3D on SGIs??? Everybody uses “cheap” PC clusters these days!
>> c’mon. onyx2 is 7 years old.
Good point. It is a testimony of how good a machine the Onyx2 is. It is truly amazing that I am working “comfortably” on a 7 year old design. Wow.
HOWEVER, we benched a new 4 CPU Tezro against our “old” 4 CPU Onyx2s and could only beat the Onyx2s by a hair (a few seconds on multi-minute renders).
This says a lot of things:
1- The Onyx2 was really ahead of it’s time.
2- It’s amazing how much punch a “small” machine like a Tezro can achieve.
3- It’s amazing HOW SLOW SGIs EVOLVE!!!Could you imagine barely beating a Pentium 90 MHz with a 2×3.2GHz Xeon??? That’s how “little” the Tezro has achieved! Of course it’s an unfair comparison, because the Onyx2 has a way bigger footprint than the Tezro… but remember Onyx3 isn’t leaps and bounds faster than Onyx2 or Tezro (for Inferno work, that is).
>>according to any comapny their product can do everythin
Yes, of course. But if **APPLE** says ***PCs*** can do 5 streams of uncompressed NTSC, I would think they would not exagerate the speed of their competition… 🙂
>>wow, i’ll take this as a rumor…
This is not a rumor, it’s a fact. Name me 2 modules or nodes that render faster in Flame 8.5 than 8.0 or 7.6. It sucks, but it’s true. Until (happily!) proven wrong, I keep assuming that discreet put optimization on the back burner (no pun intended!).
>> x86 is just not prof. equipment.
Dude, c’mon! Don’t you know that all generalizations are false? 🙂
Windows sucks. True. I don’t argue. But x86 is as good as anything else (but I like PPC better). Unfortunately, Windows software running ON TOP of x86 is definitely not bullet-proof. But Linux IS NOT Windows and UNIX is not DOS… even on x86.
If discreet sold a pre-packaged configuration of Intel/Linux boxes with carefully selected hardware components, I think we would face the best of both worlds.
>>however, as always the best solution is that everybody is using what he likes most so we’re all happy…
Very true. I definitely agree with that.
Don’t get me wrong, I like SGIs a lot. I love the design of the hardware. But while x86 and PPC worlds keep getting faster and faster, I feel SGI is not doing much for the graphics crowd recently. After all, they did change their name from Silicon Graphics to SGI (apparently meaning “Servers Graphics Insight”), because they sell a lot more servers without graphics than they sell workstations!
I mean the Octane2 didn’t even have an optical drive standard! We’re far from the standard DVD burners in the G4/G5s!
>> I’m interested in the best stuff out there and not in bringing low end stuff to the high end levels we had 4 years ago. this is regressive!
I agree 100% with that. You feel SGI will still be the top box forever. I don’t. We’ll see what happens. 🙂
Either way we both win, cuz if Tezro2 is 10 times faster than whatever PC/Macs are out there, then discreet will use it, my company will buy it and I will laugh at the poor suckers using “slow” G6 hardware. 🙂
And for everybody who says that AE, Shake, Premiere is miles below Discreet stuff… I AGREE GOSH DARNIT! But the keyword is *DISCREET* not *SGI*. That’s why I’m so excited to see DISCREET software being available OUTSIDE SGI BOXES!
Xavier-give-me-my-OSX-Flame-already
ok. here we go again.
it’s beginning to be fun 😉Xavier wrote:However it’s not true for everybody. Lots of people just don’t consider FFI at all because its way too expensive (for them at least). As an Inferno user, I see that as bad news for my beloved product because less customers means less places that can hire me, and less R+D money for discreet.clear. i didn’t ignore that. i just can’t stand inferno vs pc comparisons. they’re ridiculous.
Quote:What’s wrong with the components I mentionned? I *know* numbers are not a very good way to compare systems, but if you insist that I look at tech specs:PC: 2×3.2 GHz Intel CPU
Tezro: 2x or 4x 800 Mhz MIPS CPUgood. but what does this say?
cray also have “only” 800mhz!Quote:PC: 512 MB TRAM
Tezro: 128 MB Graphics, 104 MB TRAMtrue. but what kind of ram?
ever did big frame/texture work?
i would always prefer 128mb v12 ram.
and don’t forget 48bit desktop standard . (beautiful view using the discreet player).Quote:PC: Real-time HD I/O with Decklink or other card
Tezro: Real-time HD I/O with SGI cardmade terrible exp. with hd on x86 and mac.
Quote:PC: FibreChannel RAID
Tezro: FibreChannel RAIDwait!
on sgi we have xio!!!Quote:PC: 4 GB RAM Max / G5s can do 8 GB Max.
Tezro: 8 GB RAM Max (inferno can’t address more than 2GB anyways)there is no inferno for tezro.
let’s stay with workstations. inferno/fire is another world 😉Quote:So, again, where does the Tezro have a distinct clear advantage?above…
Quote:Possibly by being able to have 4 CPUs.e.g.
Quote:However, looking at the CPU usage on my Onyx2 while rendering, I can see that a lot of CPU power is wasted because the multithreading is not super efficient in inferno.what version do you run?
Quote:>>ask somebody what kind of machine he would like to have if money is no issue.Well, actually, if available technology wasn’t an issue, I would rather have Flame on a souped up G5 than on an SGI. This would enable me to quickly switch to Photoshop, Shake, Combustion, Commotion or After Effects for those little things that make you go “ARRGGH!” in Flame! Bonus points for QuickTime codecs that aren’t 8 years old, burning DVD dailies with iDVD, access to Office, recent web browsers, FileMaker (in house databases), a non-prehistoric GUI and UNIX underpinnings.
Quote:_______________/ pc ________/ flame _____/ G5 ___/ Tezro _____RDefocus || 0 min 8.5sec || 0 min 25 sec || 3 sec || 5.0 sec ||
EdgeRays || 0 min 20 sec || 1 min 26 sec || 4 sec || 30.5 sec ||
WarpDrops || 0 min 31sec || 1 min 09sec || 21sec || 26 sec ||
—Glows— || 0 min 7.5sec || 0 min 18 ec || 4 sec || 7.0 sec ||
AutoPaint || 0 min 10.5sec || 0 min 34sec || 9 sec || 12.0 sec ||
________________________________________________________________well, you started with mhz.
i think this is not bad thinking of the mhz diffs.
but take burn for cheap cpu speed and sgi for working.Quote:>>maybe you never saw a tezro beating g5 with mentalray?
>>tried seti?WTF!? I thought we were debating non-SGI hardware for interactive compositing work. Please bring your alien-searching software topics in another thread… As for 3D rendering, how many companies still render 3D on SGIs??? Everybody uses “cheap” PC clusters these days!
sure, was just an example. but in this case you have to take out your in house db, office etc., too.(above)
Quote:>> c’mon. onyx2 is 7 years old.Good point. It is a testimony of how good a machine the Onyx2 is. It is truly amazing that I am working “comfortably” on a 7 year old design. Wow.
HOWEVER, we benched a new 4 CPU Tezro against our “old” 4 CPU Onyx2s and could only beat the Onyx2s by a hair (a few seconds on multi-minute renders).
interesting!
Quote:>> x86 is just not prof. equipment.Dude, c’mon! Don’t you know that all generalizations are false? 🙂
Windows sucks. True. I don’t argue. But x86 is as good as anything else (but I like PPC better). Unfortunately, Windows software running ON TOP of x86 is definitely not bullet-proof. But Linux IS NOT Windows and UNIX is not DOS… even on x86.
i’m sorry but this is my result after years.
Quote:>>however, as always the best solution is that everybody is using what he likes most so we’re all happy…Very true. I definitely agree with that.
cool.
Quote:>> I’m interested in the best stuff out there and not in bringing low end stuff to the high end levels we had 4 years ago. this is regressive!I agree 100% with that. You feel SGI will still be the top box forever. I don’t. We’ll see what happens. 🙂
i can’t see the future. but for now and maybe the rest of the year nothing could divide me
and my sgis 😀Quote:Either way we both win, cuz if Tezro2 is 10 times faster than whatever PC/Macs are out there, then discreet will use it, my company will buy it and I will laugh at the poor suckers using “slow” G6 hardware. 🙂hehe, sure 😉
Quote:And for everybody who says that AE, Shake, Premiere is miles below Discreet stuff… I AGREE GOSH DARNIT!yeah!!!!
Quote:But the keyword is *DISCREET* not *SGI*. That’s why I’m so excited to see DISCREET software being available OUTSIDE SGI BOXES!sure, like i said.
as long as sgi delivers stuff like onyx it’s my only choice. i also love prop. unices.
but this could change and then we’ll see.Foetz,
Indeed, it is becoming interesting.
>>>clear. i didn’t ignore that. i just can’t stand inferno vs pc comparisons. they’re ridiculous.
They *were* ridiculous. With PCI-X and fast front-side buses, PCs finally got the last piece of the puzzle in place: bandwith.
FFI on Intel/Linux vs. FFI on Tezro or Octane are totally legitimate discussions.
Please do not mistake me with some punk that says “Flame sucks cuz my After Effects is so much better and cheaper”. We are having a much better discussion than this.
>>good. but what does this say?
>>cray also have “only” 800mhz!Man, you’re the one that insisted that I should “look at the specs”. Cray computers do not run compositing packages, BTW.
>>true. but what kind of ram?
I don’t know. You tell me. Why is the Tezro’s 104MB so much better? Please, enlighten me.
>>ever did big frame/texture work?
Not on a PC, no. Why? Because I like FFI and it doesn’t run (yet) on a PC. On Onyx2, plenty. Can I choke IR3 graphics easily? Hell yeah. Is a PC any worse with a “big” gfx card? Maybe, but I give it a chance until proven otherwise.
Can I remind you that what we consider “big” frames is small fries in the print industry. And that 6K+ images are being dealt with on PCs and Macs everyday in Photoshop and nobody is running out buying Onyxes to touch up pimples on the nose of models.
Latest digital SLRs produce 4K+ images that Photoshop handles quite well…
>>i would **always** prefer 128mb v12 ram.
Then an Octane2 will be your workstation for the rest of your life. Have a nice career.
>>and don’t forget 48bit desktop standard
If you are referring to the 10 bit DACs on V12 graphics, then many PC cards can output 10bit per component graphics as well. As for the “beautiful discreet player”, FFI on Linux would probably be no less beautiful…
May I remind you that IR3 graphics have only 8 bit DACs and CAN’T display more than 8 bits per channel on the graphics monitor (much to my dismay…).
>>made terrible exp. with hd on x86 and mac.
Well, if you want me to recollect all my terrible experiences on Discreet/SGI, then the thread will be *very* long. All products have problems, and yeah HD on PC/Mac is not as mature than SGI. But give it another 6 months… or a year… From your comments, I believe you are thinking PCs are evolving at a turtle pace like SGIs!
>>on sgi we have xio!!!
True. But why should I care if PCI-X is faster than the RAM feeding it? Or the RAID attached to it? Or if the CPUs cannot render fast enough to fill that beautiful awe inspiring bandwidth?
>>there is no inferno for tezro.
>>let’s stay with workstations. inferno/fire is another worldI can’t see the difference (the logo and the “motion” node — that’s all). *Flame* on Tezro beat (barely) *Inferno* on Onyx2. Remeber my last post? Who cares what box is downstairs in the machine room, if I can’t make the difference when I’m driving the box. You wanna bring the Onyx3/Onyx4 in the discussion? Fine by me. The more expensive the SGI hardware, the more sense the PC makes. I’ll keep repeating that for 5% of the price (of an Onyx), you can get at least 85% of the performance with a fast PC (or more! cuz you’re still stuck with those slow MIPS CPUs — see sapphire speed tests).
>>what version do you run?
Inferno 5.5. Multithreading is quite difficult to manage, so I don’t expect discreet to do miracles. But for interactive stuff, 2 big CPUs is better than 4 smaller ones. On old Onyx IRs, our 8 CPU machine did not feel significantly faster than it’s twin 4 CPU box. For giggles, run gr_osview -a while rendering a big batch setup.
>>well, you started with mhz.
>>i think this is not bad thinking of the mhz diffs.Sure, not bad, if you like lose. But the bottom line is that on some tests, the Tezro is the 3rd fastest.
Well, while you wait with that warm fuzzy feeling of “gee whiz the tezro is awesome with it’s little 800MHz CPUs and can even compete with dual 2.0 G5” G5 owners will be home having a drink because their shots are done. But I know that feeling, I’m a Mac head, remember. Steve Jobs filled my head with “megahertz myth information”, while my PC friends rendered Photoshop files faster than me. After all, even with megahertz myth and all, when you’re outclocked 2 to 1, the other guys better be damn sloppy to lose.
>>but take burn for cheap cpu speed and sgi for working.
Why? If it’s faster (see Sapphire speed tests), why bother with the SGI?
>>sure, was just an example. but in this case you have to take out your in house db, office etc., too.(above)
Sure, fair is fair. However, there is a good chance your average compositor will use Office before SETI though. Anyhow, you asked me what is the best “money is no object” system, I told you which one and why.
>>I’m sorry but this is my result after years.
Dude, get with the program. I wouldn’t have had this argument with you a year ago, let alone 2 years ago. I would have been “on your side” back then, because Linux was laughable, G5 weren’t out, I wouldn’t have known what the heck is PCI-X, 64 bits on PC was a pipe dream and 256 MB gfx cards weren’t yet available IN FRIGGIN LAPTOPS. “Years of experience” to evaluate new technology is (almost) worthless, if only to put things in perspective.
>>i can’t see the future. but for now and maybe the rest of the year nothing could divide me and my sgis
Probably me neither. But a year is *long* time in computer/Visual Effects world. A year ago Smoke on Linux wasn’t announced, Burn wasn’t announced, FFI was resolution-locked per project (ok… a little more than a year ago), FFI didn’t have divide in the Logic Ops… 🙂
>>as long as sgi delivers stuff like onyx it’s my only choice.
You’re probably not the one paying the bills (electricity, cooling and rent) at your company, are you? 🙂
— Xavier
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.