Rendering software supporting windows processor groups >64 and win 10 for workstation

Discussion in 'Software Stuff' started by squidman, Nov 17, 2017.

  1. squidman

    squidman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    I use mostly adobe, where this just doesn't apply! But I also use Maya, vray, and may have to go over to Arnold...

    As we all know, since a long time, any more threads than 64, and windows automatically defaults to the next windows processor groups. Well since quite a few years ago, we've gone long past 72 threads (my workstation, at 18 threads x2 x2 =72!) quite a long time ago, especially with the xeon platinum series (28? threads?)..

    For the 3d creatives..and TD's etc and those in that business..

    As far as I've been able to figure out, Arnold supports more than 64 threads in a processor group, (256 last i checked) although VRay I'm still not sure about.

    Wondering iff the newly released Windows 10 for Workstations will enable greater than 64 threads in applicatons (most likely not!), and why is the point of it.

    More to the point, those of us working as creatives, or in 3d, vfx, compositing etc etc are EVER going to see this restriction on using more than 64 threads resolved. As it stands, I can't see that it has. Solution has been to pipe workflow to renderfarms with less than 64 threads.

    Just wondering, with xeon platinum now at 28 cores, how they are going to resolve this?

    I tried! so very hard to like windows 10 for workstation so very much as well, but can't say it did anything for this limit. Of course the fatal update killed both my workstation and laptop, so it was over and out (as many others experienced, both smb and larger businesses!), BSOD, BSOD/GSOD loop, reinstall everything, lose all current data..not a happy experience!
     
    #1
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  2. T_Minus

    T_Minus Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    I'm pretty sure starting with win7 MS supports up to 256 cores on 2 physical sockets.

    Maybe I'm not understanding your question though?
     
    #2
  3. squidman

    squidman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    It has to do with the software and windows supporting more than 64 cores per processing group. So lets's say, you even have and 18! core processor and 36 threads available, and dual socket workstation, that would be 72 logical cores, and Windows basically (unless the software is specifically designed to address this issue! ) divides into several logical processing units...each having a max of 64 cores/ (per processing group if you want to get specific!).

    But of course we're already WAAY past 64 threads already in the prosumer space! So a lot of us in prosumer limbo, and probably a lot in smb (small medium business) limbo are also sitting here wondering..well, we jut purchased the most expensive chips intel had to offer, and weell we¨re getting around 50-70 percent cpu utilization. Which is A BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL!!! A LOT of money, time etc etc out the window!

    Because of aforementioned limit: you can only go up to 64 threads on windows (depending on program! but most programs), after that, windows decides...(well dude you had too many cores/threads! gonna have to shift other things over to the 2nd cpu which is watching game of thrones!)..

    Tired here, but (google and ye shall find! intel processor groups etc!), it appears SOME Linux versions, and SOME Windows server applications support more than 64 logical numa cores...but windows doesn't support it natively. Or back in the bad old days, you had to do it via command-line or something according to MS technet articles.

    So the 64$ dollar question (apart from do I even need to register windows, apart from iff I even want to customise my stupid workspace?),

    Windows 10 pro Worksation: currently an upgrade for me for around cough cough 3700 NOK or USD 449':

    1;DOES it help with the 64 thread problem?
    2: What is going to happen with already REFS systems?
    3; ETC etc..

    have a good one T_Minus!
     
    #3
    T_Minus likes this.
  4. T_Minus

    T_Minus Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    Ah, ok thanks for clearing that up!
     
    #4
  5. squidman

    squidman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well after some research, at least on maya, Arnold render supports almost unlimited threads regardless of windows processor groups. Vray, uncertain. Adobe AME and premiere, after effects..probably not. (I loved Sony Vegas back in the day, they could make a killing by bypassing
    adobe and enabling more than 64 threads! but sadly noone uses it anymore!)...otherwise..well with uhd and 4k rendering isn't gettin any faster! At least for h.264! Sooo...will have to go back to disabling cores in bios so am back to 64 threads...bummer...!

    Guess it is pretty much up to the developers to enable more than 64 threads and be group aware etc so that we can start taking advantage of more than 16 cores/32 threads per processor (for typical dual xeon workstation)! We can hope!

    The best rendering time I can do in Premiere uhd in h.264 is still around real-time, maybe a bit slower...1.5x slower maybe. Yet to test out 3d applications. Transcoded footage to DNxHR in Resolve goes a bit quicker..a bit faster than realtime. But huge file sizes, and of course waste time on transcoding to DNxHR. No win here either way...
     
    #5
  6. squidman

    squidman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sorry my bad pretty much as clear as mud!

    Sooo..if you have more than 64 threads...basically in Windows 10 (or earlier) only one processor will be used..the other one will go puttering on at say 10-30% utilization. Depending on app. So anyone with more than 16 core xeons on a dual workstation (like me with 18 core xeons), we have to turn off a lot of cores to see full utilization. Annoying!

    Some programs/rendering engines etc are windows processor group aware (such as Arnold) and will use all threads available (in my case 72 threads, e.g. 2 x e5-2696/2699), and this also works in Cinebench r15. But NOT in most apps unfortunately.

    But in most programs, such as most of Adobe CC..not the case...they just revert to seeing the one processor, and 100% on that one processor, while the other one sits idle.

    The original idea of this thread was (has windows 10 workstation fixed this? as is supposed to support 4x processors etc! with waaaay more threads than 72!) and so on. Pretty sure it has not fixed it! So will be sticking to windows 10 pro for now...vanilla version. After reinstall and catastrophic reinstall of both workstation and laptop on win 10 pro. Uhhm yes I could have been on windows insider on both, don't go there!

    Hope this helps those out there...but yeah..insider is absolutely! NOT a good idea apart from your experimental pc or whatnot! Got burned well and good there like all those others after update!
     
    #6
  7. i386

    i386 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    327
    Same here.

    Maybe it's a silly question but why is the software not using the gpu(s)?
    I thought with cuda and quadro cards (and the amd equivalent products) software would take advantage of gpu(s).
     
    #7
  8. squidman

    squidman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    4
    For adobe, GPU is used for certain GPU accelerated plugins and the like, but not rendering. But absolutely, if doing a lot of AE or Premiere, you need pretty much an Nvidia GPU to accelerate certain things (helps with playback too). Unfortunately, once it goes to render, GPU is out of the picture. And Adobe is still notoriously poor at utilizing cores...still flattens out after around 16 logical or something (Puget system has a series of blogs on this).

    For 3d rendering, obviously you have pure gpgpu renderers like Octane etc, and several renderers like VRAY and ors (fuzzy ball?) use a combination of both, which can speed up things tremendously. Unfortunately, so far the pure gpgpu renderers like Octane, and those that use both CPU and GPU (Vray RTand ors, redshift? many out there) are not really (as far as I understand! caveat..out of the game a bit here..a few years since did 3d at school!) what they call '¨production ready'....so a lot of textures/materials/etc not to mention particles can only be rendered via CPU. Production ready renderers like Vray without gpu component, Renderman (not sure here, check it), ors, use CPU only. So the more cores the better. Unlike Adobe, most of the current cpu only renderers can take advantage of all the cores you throw at them, even in win 10 pro. Have tested Vray and Vue, can confirm they go full tilt on all of my 36 cores/72 threads...

    OpenCL the open source alternative to CUDA, which AMD is much better at, never really took off...more's the pity. In any case, AMD is so much better at mining, most of those cards are currently made of 'unobtanium' as it is...

    Like I said, been out of the game for a while, so check the latest VFX/CGI blogs etc.
     
    #8
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
Similar Threads: Rendering software
Forum Title Date
Software Stuff Suggestions for expandable backup box with vms for rendering May 12, 2018
Software Stuff Blender network rendering w/ OpenCL Oct 8, 2015
Software Stuff Starwind Virtual San/ESX Software Raid Nov 4, 2018
Software Stuff Preferred Enterprise Backup Software Solution? Sep 11, 2018
Software Stuff Software Defined Storage Jul 30, 2018

Share This Page