Forums
You are not logged in.
#1 2010-05-13 23:59:24
- MonteNero
- Member
- Registered: 2009-10-01
- Posts: 120
core i7 8 or 4 threads?
Hello guys!
As far as I know core i7 process has 4 physical cores and 4 logical.
That is quite noob question but does 3delight consider core i7 as 8 thread thing or 4 thread? So if I want to use all cores of core i7 do we have to rebuy unlimited license???
"я сам себе и небо и луна"
Offline
#2 2010-05-17 08:20:44
- olivier
- 3Delight Developer
- Registered: 2007-01-09
- Posts: 1939
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
Things should be faster with 8 threads instead of 4. Not 2x faster of course as you'll be running two threads per physical core (that's what hyperthreading does). Exactly how much faster will depend on what you're rendering.
Offline
#3 2010-05-17 12:06:41
- ken
- Member
- Registered: 2008-02-27
- Posts: 183
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
generally whats the speed variation if its 1.5x atleast then I would go with only i7 processors in future...
Offline
#4 2010-05-19 12:05:09
- MonteNero
- Member
- Registered: 2009-10-01
- Posts: 120
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
Hello, thinking about buying a couple of core i7s nodes...
I heard that it is better to use same architecture processors for distributed rendering. So will I have some notable miss-correspondence if i render the sequence with core 2 quad and core i7???
"я сам себе и небо и луна"
Offline
#5 2010-05-20 00:23:50
Offline
#6 2010-05-20 09:19:05
- MonteNero
- Member
- Registered: 2009-10-01
- Posts: 120
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
thanks
"я сам себе и небо и луна"
Offline
#7 2011-06-06 13:36:05
- ctedin
- Member
- Registered: 2011-04-08
- Posts: 11
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
Anyone here running 8 thread licenses on an i7 machine? Not that it's accurate, but does the task manager show 100% cpu usage? Mine shows 50% with a 4 core license, which was what I purchased.
Offline
#8 2011-06-06 21:47:27
Re: core i7 8 or 4 threads?
Hello Guys,
I think it is time to say something about that CPU usage in multi-threaded application. Many of our users look at the CPU usage as an indication of multi-threading performance. This is inaccurate. For example, a badly written application might take 100% of your CPU because of bad synchronization between threads (spinlocks will take CPU time without producing any useful work, for example).
To measure the performance of a multi-threaded application, simply divide wall clock time it takes to render your image using N threads by the wall time it takes to render your image using 1 thread. The highest the number you get, the more efficient your program is. If the number you get is N (the number of threads itself) then you have a linear performance increase, and that is a maximum for normal programs. This maximum performance increase is seldom seen in real word programs (I am not talking about a Mandelbrot drawing application or some other marketing experiment) and the reason is a) bad design and b) synchronization or both. Synchronization can even be necessary at the kernel level (think about 2 threads waiting for some I/O) so it might be very difficult to augment threading performance in some particular contexts (it will be pegged at a lower level on your system).
Now, to achieve the linear performance increase, your program has to be pegged to 100% all the time, so high CPU usage is already a good indication but it is really only half of the answer. In other words, it might be possible that a program A will run faster at 50% CPU usage than a program B running at 100% CPU usage, and producing the same result. So caution is advised when measuring performance in multi-threaded applications.
How does that affect your daily work ? Were you about to buy twice as many cores to render twice faster and deliver that project right on time? That might be slightly optimistic :)
-- aghiles
Offline

