Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core
by Brian Murphy on Aug 29, 2014 at 3:36:40 am
Hey guys, a little detour here but still involving Cinema 4D.
I own a 12 core Mac Pro (16GB RAM) from around 2009 and it has saved me in my projects.
A new 12 core Mac Pro (the cylindrical trash can) was just purchased for me at the office. It is also a 12 core with 16GB RAM and I was really excited thinking this thing would just own all of my renders for now on.
I was REALLY shocked and disappointed to see the new Mac Pro only beat out my older model by 3 seconds on a render that took 1 min. 26 seconds, my older one took 1 min. 23 seconds.
I thought this thing was supposed to be 50% faster!! New chip, right?
Can anyone offer any personal experience or input as to how I may have to optimise this newer machine to see much faster render times.....I was really let down by that time difference.
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Brian Jones on Aug 29, 2014 at 2:27:16 pm
curious, don't have one yet but followed some of the thread on CGTalk, where some voices I trust were talking impressive performance, more info please - what is the speed of the '09 machine and does it support hyperthereading? For the new Mac Pro is it 12 cores physical/24 hyrperthreaded (therefore 2.7 Ghz) or 6 physical cores/12 core hyperthreaded (therefore 3.5 Ghz)?
Is the render something that has extensive single-core calculations first?
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Brian Jones on Aug 29, 2014 at 10:41:52 pm
hmm so the old machine is 8.5% faster in Ghz and both are 12 core hyperthreaded. It's hard to know without knowledge of your test file if it's likely to get optimal results. Have you run Cinebench on both machines?
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Ryan Paterson on Aug 30, 2014 at 12:02:41 am
So you're running the test on basically 2 identical systems... why would you expect it to be faster? The speed is in the GHZ, not in the model of the chip. Also just a side note you should probably get more RAM. Mac Pro's are capable of 64GB, there is absolutely no good reason you shouldn't be taking advantage of that, esp if using for high-end graphics.
Your new mac pro should offer significant speed increases while working within Cinema too, due to the graphics card (depending on which one you opted for). I have a maxed-out cylinder at work, and that thing flies
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Brian Jones on Nov 16, 2014 at 8:51:18 pm
you are not running a Mac (or you are still running on a 32 bit version of C4D). It's all 64 bit now so you are running a 32 bit PC OS or an _old_ Mac. 64 bit can take as much memory as you have available.
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Brian Jones on Nov 16, 2014 at 9:19:07 pm
hmmm.... with 16 and Yosemite you can't even run C4D in 32 bit mode (which was possible in earlier OS's). Perhaps you just have not needed more than 3GB? If you take a sphere, make it editable, do a Matrix Extrude (in poly mode), then do a matrix extrude on that, then put the result in a Subdivision Surface that should take something like 2GB copy/paste it 3 times and you should be taking over 4GB (don't ask me why it's not linear) or paste it more just for fun.
Re: Cinema 4D with new Mac Pro (Cylindrical design) vs. older Mac Pro - both 12 core by Manel Menano on Nov 16, 2014 at 11:08:31 pm
Thank you! I did as you suggested, pasted it 5 times, got to use a bit over 5gb. It's better, but there's still room to improve. Maybe the tasks I have been doing don't require much ram. The processor is always maxed out though, that's a good sign.
I have a new Mac Pro with 3.5GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor, 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory and dual AMD FirePro D500 with 3GB GDDR5 VRAM each. I would upgrade the RAM but I haven't even tapped to the 16gb I have so it wouldn't make sense now.
Is there anything wrong with my memory configuration? Maybe it can improve if I tweak it, I'm not sure I understand these settings properly (if I render to picture viewer should I have more RAM for the renderer or for picture viewer?