Larger System Recommondations
Moderator: MADRIX Team
Larger System Recommondations
I am setting up a couple PCs for some moderately sized systems. Initially they will be about 170x550 (2D) with about 2700 RGB lights (no DVI). The plan is to add some vertical lights in the near future which would require us to go to 3D and will take a lot more processing power.
After reading through other posts it sounds like basic rule is:
3.3GHz or more per core and the more cores the better?
Obviously there is a benefit of being able to do multiple Xeon processors on 1 motherboard but are there any other benefits to them (e.g. With Madrix, is a 6 Core Xeon 3.5GHz better or equal to a 6 Core i7 3.5GHz)?
Is there a general rule of thumb for the ideal number of cores (e.g. You should have at least 1 core for every X Voxels in your patch OR 1 core for every X Fixtures)?
Also, I have heard different advice on video cards. At one point I was told to get a video card with as much memory as possible but other posts make it seem like that isn't as important if you're not using the DVI output.
After reading through other posts it sounds like basic rule is:
3.3GHz or more per core and the more cores the better?
Obviously there is a benefit of being able to do multiple Xeon processors on 1 motherboard but are there any other benefits to them (e.g. With Madrix, is a 6 Core Xeon 3.5GHz better or equal to a 6 Core i7 3.5GHz)?
Is there a general rule of thumb for the ideal number of cores (e.g. You should have at least 1 core for every X Voxels in your patch OR 1 core for every X Fixtures)?
Also, I have heard different advice on video cards. At one point I was told to get a video card with as much memory as possible but other posts make it seem like that isn't as important if you're not using the DVI output.
Re: Larger System Recommondations
Hi!
To answer your questions:
- '3.3GHz or more per core and the more cores the better?' Yes, that sounds right.
- Xeon: putting multiple CPUs on one board would be the main advantage.
- Xeon vs. i7: Base clock speeds tend to be 2 to 3 GHz for Xeons and 3 to 4 GHz for i7s; probably with similar ratios for Turbo Boost. As such, an i7 with the same amount of cores will probably win.
- We tend to gain a good grasp of what installation would need which computer specs, but it heavily depends on a range of factors. As such, no general rule for core/fixtures or core/voxels is easy to find.
- High-performance gaming cards are the best, especially when using 3D. They tend to come with large memory as well and when using DVI this often means that the 2D pixel resolution gets up high really quickly, where a fast card also helps. (Recommendations tend to be NVIDIA GTX 960/970/980 or the new models 1060/1070/1080).
.
But in your case, I am hesitant to give a recommendation at all because you want to mix 2D and 3D in the future. That is possible with MADRIX, but the higher the 2D resolution, the more difficult it becomes to realize.
.
If you already have 170 x 550, that could easily expand to 170 x 550 x 32 or similar, which is huge. This would be an extreme resolution. It may sound like much, but it is:
.
170 x 550 x 1 = 93,500
170 x 550 x 32 = 2,992,000
So this would be a factor of 32 right out of the box.
.
One could minimize the issue, by patching the vertical lights as 2D as well. Than it could be 202 x 500 x 1, for example.
.
Thanks!
To answer your questions:
- '3.3GHz or more per core and the more cores the better?' Yes, that sounds right.
- Xeon: putting multiple CPUs on one board would be the main advantage.
- Xeon vs. i7: Base clock speeds tend to be 2 to 3 GHz for Xeons and 3 to 4 GHz for i7s; probably with similar ratios for Turbo Boost. As such, an i7 with the same amount of cores will probably win.
- We tend to gain a good grasp of what installation would need which computer specs, but it heavily depends on a range of factors. As such, no general rule for core/fixtures or core/voxels is easy to find.
- High-performance gaming cards are the best, especially when using 3D. They tend to come with large memory as well and when using DVI this often means that the 2D pixel resolution gets up high really quickly, where a fast card also helps. (Recommendations tend to be NVIDIA GTX 960/970/980 or the new models 1060/1070/1080).
.
But in your case, I am hesitant to give a recommendation at all because you want to mix 2D and 3D in the future. That is possible with MADRIX, but the higher the 2D resolution, the more difficult it becomes to realize.
.
If you already have 170 x 550, that could easily expand to 170 x 550 x 32 or similar, which is huge. This would be an extreme resolution. It may sound like much, but it is:
.
170 x 550 x 1 = 93,500
170 x 550 x 32 = 2,992,000
So this would be a factor of 32 right out of the box.
.
One could minimize the issue, by patching the vertical lights as 2D as well. Than it could be 202 x 500 x 1, for example.
.
Thanks!
Re: Larger System Recommondations
Thanks, that's great info to have.
I will probably see if we can get away with collapsing the 2D map when we add the 3D features.
Are there any PC settings that I need adjust to make sure that Madrix uses the CPU and GPU resources optimally?
I will probably see if we can get away with collapsing the 2D map when we add the 3D features.
Are there any PC settings that I need adjust to make sure that Madrix uses the CPU and GPU resources optimally?
Re: Larger System Recommondations
Please check out these instructions, especially regarding PC power management:
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... ation.html
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... ement.html
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... dows_.html
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... ation.html
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... ement.html
http://help.madrix.com/m3/html/madrix/h ... dows_.html
Re: Larger System Recommondations
I built a new PC for my upcoming job using the new Intel i7-6800K (6 cores @ 3.4), 16 GB memory, and a GTX 1060 (6 GB) video card. With this setup, I am only getting benchmarks in the mid 30,000's.
I have 2 older jobs running older quad-core Intel processors and smaller video cards. One site benchmarks just under 50,000 and the other is over 57,000.
Any ideas as to why my new, larger setup performs so much worse than my other systems?
Thanks
I have 2 older jobs running older quad-core Intel processors and smaller video cards. One site benchmarks just under 50,000 and the other is over 57,000.
Any ideas as to why my new, larger setup performs so much worse than my other systems?
Thanks
Re: Larger System Recommondations
Hello audio,
.
The Benchmark in MADRIX give you only a statment about with how many voxel the Previews in MADRIX can work in 3D. This Benchmark give you no statment about how good is the performance of the PC for MADRIX in general.
.
We think the worse benchmark comes because of Windows 10, other drivers and so on. On the 2 other systems I think you will not have a Windows 10 OS.
.
What you can do to increase the performance of the benchmark is:
1.) Disable the V-Sync option on the NVidia control panel. Therefor please open the NVidia Control panel andgo to 3D Settings on the left side. Now please search in the list on the right side "Vertical Sync" and change it to "Force off".
2.) Install Windows 7 and all necessary. Now please try the MADRIX Benchmark again.
.
The Benchmark in MADRIX give you only a statment about with how many voxel the Previews in MADRIX can work in 3D. This Benchmark give you no statment about how good is the performance of the PC for MADRIX in general.
.
We think the worse benchmark comes because of Windows 10, other drivers and so on. On the 2 other systems I think you will not have a Windows 10 OS.
.
What you can do to increase the performance of the benchmark is:
1.) Disable the V-Sync option on the NVidia control panel. Therefor please open the NVidia Control panel andgo to 3D Settings on the left side. Now please search in the list on the right side "Vertical Sync" and change it to "Force off".
2.) Install Windows 7 and all necessary. Now please try the MADRIX Benchmark again.