Best Platform for Running Maya? 102
Kieckerjan asks: "A friend of mine, who's an architect, has been appointed a research position at a small university. Along with the job he's been assigned
a budget to spend on whatever he thinks is necessary to get the job done. One of the things he needs is a fast machine to run Maya.
As he is fed up with Wintel systems, he's been looking into alternatives. His eye fell on SGI's Fuel workstation, which costs about 15.000 EURO. For that kind of money you can buy a seriously bad-assed pentium-based system, and run Linux on it. His question to me was: is it worthwhile to shell out the extra money for a SGI system? Since I have no experience with modern SGI's, I am in no position to judge about performance differences, but maybe
someone on this forum does."
Case (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Case (Score:2)
And "dago" is just plain wrong. Fuels are not ugly. They're really eye-catching. Better than the sickly green of the Indigo2 or the first-generation Octane, or the now-boring blue of everything else SGI sells.
Dreamworks... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are using high-end nVidia cards
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
Care to elaborate?
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Other advantages...laptops...not for artists, but for executives...how nice would it be to show someone a model of the main character for their new film with the same software your artists are using...
If they move to Linux for all of their *NIX apps, they can save costs on support staff...why keep ppl around that specialize in different *NIX flavors when you can have 1 team that focuses on 1 OS for all of your needs (Web Server, Workstations, Render Farm, etc)...
What if an artist wants to work from home...Linux would make it possible...furnishing an SGI workstation for anyone that wants to work from home would be expensive at best...
I'm sure there are a lot more advantages that I could list, but this should give you some ideas...
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:3, Interesting)
using high-end nVidia cards
That's my experience, too.
The price/performance ratio of Lintel is hard to beat.
I think it depends on your price point and tolerance and desire for reliability.
For seriously high-end stuff, go with the SGI. But if you're budget's not unlimited and you're willing to suffer some hiccups once in a while, you owe it to yourself to see what the "low end" can offer these days. It's not too shabby and beats out a lot of the older SGI hardware.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:1)
I think you'll find that nVidia and ATI both will begin to have better Linux drivers as a result...
And of course, I don't how much more high end you can get than CGI work for a major animated film...
I hear from a source on "the inside" (don't ask me how) that they DO have problems with the setup, but that there is alot more support available, especially from major Linux vendors...and they still have higher production under Linux...
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:4, Informative)
Considerably.
The thing about the big effects houses is that they typically try to spend as little on the workstations as possible, while investing big in the render farm or farms. For example, compositors at ILM use CompTime on things like O2s and cheap Linux machines. You can't do anything in real time at full resolution on those machines; you use proxies for everything, then submit the job to the render farm for full-resolution processing and go on to work on your next shot. The next day, you look at the results of your render in dailies and make changes based on it, repeating the whole process.
That works well in what is basically a factory setting. But it's not right for everyone. If you're working by yourself, like the subject of this discussion will be, it makes more sense to have a computer that's as interactive as possible so you can get instant feedback. Instant feedback at ILM wouldn't help anybody, because you have to take your work to the VFX supe anyway for review. Making the desktop machines more interactive in that setting would just be a waste of money.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2, Interesting)
For the price of 1 SGI box you could probably have at least 5 or 6 dual 2Ghz processor Intel/AMD boxes on a cluster...And I can guarantee you that small render farm is gonna beat out the SGI...
As far as graphics performance...I'm sure the Quadro 900 XGL would be enough power (if it's not beating the V12 in performance) for whatever is needed...the price is a little steep though (~$1000 for a PNY card)...
As far as raw CPU power goes...a dual 2GHz Lintel box just HAS to be beating a 600MHz MIPS...no matter how much better the MIPS processors are...
As far as that goes...I think all you have to read is this article [pennnet.com]...where Vice President of R&D for Pixar said...."This is the platform that will replace SGI in the CG industry. There's been a lot of progress made since last year. Nobody is wondering 'if' anymore."
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
At which point they'll have to start talking about a full-time sysadmin, and that's not cheap.
We're talking about one guy, here, and an architect at that. Don't go designing your dream-renderfarm for him. That won't suit his needs at all.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
And the one person thing lends itself more to using a Lintel box...what happens if his monitor dies...well, he'd have to order one (couldn't go to the corner shop and pick one up)...
And how easily could he find Irix support...certainly not as easily as Linux support...
What happens when this guy's hardware decides to fail? He has to order new parts from SGI...
Now, I'm not arguing completely against servers, but in this case, it just makes sense...
The truth is, given the cost of the SGI and the cost of a high-end Lintel box, I'm sorry to say, the SGI just lost...
And since we're talking about a university, I'd guess that they don't have any SGIs on campus...who knows...they might not even have any Suns/HPs...but it's at least safe to bet that they are primarily a Windoze house...and they most likely have deals with vendors for hardware...
All told, it just seems to me that in this instance, it'ld be better to go with a good Intel/AMD box. The other thing is...my guess is (this being a university) that they probably want to give their students experience on the machines they will most likely be using in "the real whurled" (this would be for students, right?)...and if you were to budget properly, you could even buy multiple systems for the same cost as one SGI...
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
Heh. That's a good one. "Little to no administration." Heh. Now pull the other one.
what happens if his monitor dies...well, he'd have to order one (couldn't go to the corner shop and pick one up)...
Why not? Are they no longer making monitors that take DVI or VGA?
And how easily could he find Irix support...
1-800-800-4SGI (4744). Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Listen, if you don't like the SGI idea, that's fine. But don't suggest that this guy go down the Linux path. That way lies madness. The choice is really between a Fuel and a Mac. Linux... there's just no reason to subject yourself to Linux in this situation.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really...from what I read, the choice was between a Fuel and a Lintel box...the origonal article didn't mention anything about a Mac...
And here's an interesting idea...the companies like Dreamworks and Pixar have their own setups for their Linux boxen...their vendors have all the specs for their systems...why couldn't he contact say Dreamworks and work with them to get a Linux box built to Dreamworks' specs...not only would that be kewl, but I somehow think that some studio is bound to be open to the idea...think about it...at the very least they have a bunch of students that think they're really kewl...at best, they get some good PR and are able to hire students that already have experience on one of their systems...so maybe they don't have the custom internal software, but they would have a system with the exact same specs, distro, etc as a major studio...
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
I think we've established fairly thoroughly that a Linux system is inappropriate for this user. He's not a technical user, so an operating system as complex and challenging as Linux isn't for him. (Linux has the twin faults of being complex to use and poorly documented. IRIX is complex to use but richly documented. Windows and Mac OS X are easier to use, mostly-- not completely, but mostly--obviating the need for end-user documentation.) Since the submitter said that the user was "fed up" with Windows, that leaves IRIX and OS X.
why couldn't he contact say Dreamworks and work with them to get a Linux box built to Dreamworks' specs....
I don't know how Dreamworks works, but at ILM they build their own machines to their own specifications and create their own software distributions for them. This lets them tune every aspect of both hardware and software to suit their own needs. Since their top priority is a balance between quality and productivity, the way they set up their computers is a demonstrable competitive advantage in the market... and the visual effects market is kill-or-be-killed. So doing what you suggest would be, in effect, asking them to give you all their secrets. Probably would never happen.
Too, remember what I said upthread about how studios like ILM-- and presumably Dreamworks as well-- are essentially factories, and design their desktop computers to fit that model. The computers they use at ILM aren't million-dollar monsters; they're really cheap PC-clones or O2s, and the artists do everything with low-resolution proxies or wireframes. The real magic happens in the render farm. So even if this guy got a workstation right out of ILM or Dreamworks or wherever, he'd probably hate it because he'd have to send everything off to render overnight before he could see the results of his work.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:1)
As far as the competitive advantage of the workstation configurations at a place like Dreamworks, studios are happy to share their hardware configs with pretty much anyone - it's the customized and highly integrated software and the movies themselves that are the competitive advantage that no one can really discuss.
Dreamworks's current Linux workstation has been advertised in various venues, as Dreamworks has a vendor relationship with HP [hp.com]. It's the same X4000 workstation that was reviewed in Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com], with 2G of memory, two 2.4G P4 Xeon's, 18G and 36G 10K RPM U160 SCSI drives, with an NVIDIA Quadro4 XGL 900 graphics card running RedHat 7.2 and the publicly downloadable NVIDIA drivers. They aren't exactly cheap, but they're still twice as fast as an SGI that costs twice as much.
My views and opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:1)
Re:Dreamworks... (Score:2)
Now the switch is in the desktop department. It is not unheard of for studios to be switching to linux desktop systems.
Some studios have 2 linux desktops and 1 Mac for every 2 artists. Use the linux system for 3d, the Mac for 2d (photoshop and composites). It is possible that some might make the switch to macs all the way around, but that is one more platform for the big studios to custom code for. The port to the linux systems from the SGI is easier ( i believe) than it is to port to OS X.
-Tim
I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
We run SGI O2s, Octanes and Indys, as well as a variety of Wintel, Linux and Mac systems. IRIX's stability shines by comparison with the rest of them.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:2)
I should have mentioned this in my other post, but you just reminded me of it. I once worked with a Challenge L server with twelve R4400 processors, running IRIX 6.2. That machine never, in the slightly over three years that I worked there, went down. Not even for maintenance. (It already had all the disks and stuff that it needed, so there was simply nothing to be done to it.)
It was under a pretty heavy load, too-- over 100 users logging in interactively to edit and compile software, and it was also the ClearCase VOB-- and it simply never went down. I remember checking the uptime once and seeing that it was over 900 days. Amazing.
For all I know, that machine is still up today, with an uptime pushing 2000 days.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:4, Informative)
Contrary to your opinion, IRIX is one of the most stable and friendly OSs out there. Oh, and it's not "UNIX-based." It's UNIX. SGI has licensed the UNIX trademark from The Open Group for IRIX, so it's a full-fledged UNIX operating system.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:2)
Basically is a default config for everything that comes in the install and any upgrades, etc. Doesn't touch your personal files or your custom installations. Very nice, especially when installing 3rd party software that may or may not be as professionally engineered as you'd like to believe (having payed 100s for it).
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
The machines are pretty rock solid, but from my experience, no more so than any other unix platform.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:2)
And, speaking personally, I've never seen Netscape lock up the X server. It is definitely possible to crash your X server if you're not careful, but that hardly qualifies as a system crash. Nobody but the guy at that head notices anyway, and all he has to do is issue the vulcan death grip and log back in.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
We are getting into what I like to call the "last 10%". Like in street racing. You can spend a moderate amount of money, and have a fairly respectable street racer. But that last 10% of performance, those last few seconds, those will cost a fortune. Probably more than the whole rest of the car cost. It is the same with High-end vs. Mid-range PC's, and it is similar here.
Do you want to spend $5000 on intel/linux machine to run Maya and have 90% of the performance and features of the SGI which costs at least 3 times much? Or, are you willing to spend the bux for that last 10%? In the context of the poster's question, your statements about IRIX being so great are completely off-topic, regardless of the fact that they are true.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:2)
Because you're a idiot?
How the fuck is somebody supposed to answer that question?? I haven't the foggiest clue why you keep rebooting your Indigo 2s. That's between you and your god.
Re:I wouldn't think so (Score:1)
Macintosh! (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, and cheaper than the IRIX box.
-psy
Re:Macintosh! (Score:1, Troll)
Secondly, back up this claim that Macs are "up to 50% DOA". I think Apple would be out of business if that were true; based purely on the cost of swapping out DOA hardware!
Macintosh hardware is, in my considerable experience, better quality than most major PeeCee brands. Based on DOAs and hardware failures.
-psy
-psy
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
50% DOA means 50% of delivered systems are DOA on some models over some finite period referred to by the poster.
So, out of a sample of two, one may have been ("up to") dead...
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
"Some periods" is ambiguous.
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
If you don't have a better argument than that...
Unless you specify the exact model and time period for DOA, and DOA trends in relation to current hardware, the relevance to this Slashdot discussion of if a piece of hardware is worth the cost is highly questionable. At a minimum it is anecdotal evidence without weight.
Remember, you can create almost any statistic by carefully selecting sample size and selection. 100% of people who read this post (within the next 10 seconds) agree.
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
Re:Macintosh! (Score:2)
So quit pretending that this is about some semantic subtlety, it's not.
Dual-G4 (Score:1)
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:2)
Maya for Mac used to be behind the other releases. No more.
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:2)
As a slick general purpose computing platform, MacOS X is tough to beat, and it's enormous savings over Irix.
I have an Irix workstation, and it's a really sweet box, but the OS has fallen behind in a lot of respects. I've played around a little with the Maya Personal Learning Edition on my Mac G4/450 dual processor system (a hopelessly obsolete one now) and it actually runs pretty fast.
To summarize:
LINUX:
* Few software options for general purpose stuff
* The fastest, cheapest hardware
* You might have horrible driver problems.
* No Photoshop/Illustrator/etc
* A drab user interface experience, based largely on Windows
IRIX
* Best performance with Maya
* No general purpose software at all, other than Netscape mail.
* Photoshop and Illustrator are generations old, and horribly expensive to boot.
* A carefully crafted interface I still enjoy working in, but showing its age
MACOS X
* Almost as much general purpose software as Windows
* Excellent support for all video editing and compositing software - Discreet, Final Cut Pro, etc. Thanks to FCP, this is arguably better than Windows
* A slick up to the minute interface you'll really enjoy using
I don't think system performance is going to be much of an issue, but I don't know much about the respective speeds of the platforms. But I can say you'll have the most fun on MacOS X.
Hope that helps.
D
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:1)
With that said, OS X looks like an excellent platform for Maya now that the software has reached feature parity with versions on other platforms.
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:1)
okay first *few software options for general purpose stuff* ? care to elaborate ? that sentance should read "i dont know where to look for apps that work with linux, so i am going to make a very bold a broad statement"
next "horrible driver problems" ? with what ? i have been using linux for 2 years and yeah there used to be horrible issues with SOME drivers but most high end video stuff (what we are discussing) is developped by the company who makes the card ( ie nVIDIA makes there high end [and all for that matter] drivers for linux , so does ATI [low end is handled by the xfree crew , but high end is handled by ATI]).
"no photoshop" use GIMP ! you might not be used to it , but you werent used to photoshop when you started either.
and my favorite part of this post "A drab user interface experience, based largely on Windows" , and what window manager were you using ? i know of about 10, and of those KDE and GNOME are the two that have some features (most) based on windows. try using any type of *box window manager (fluxbox
next time you post something like this either be informed or put something like *mac lover: dont know linux* as the header because those statements you just made are pretty sweeping, very broad and by-and-large WAY WAY off the mark.
i will give mac credit, they have a good GUI and more "default install" software for what this guy is looking for, and if he is a microsoftee he will probally handle that transition much better than the one too linux.
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:2)
Every time I open up a new Linux distro, it looks just like Windows. Yes, it can be changed, if you want to take a lot of time to figure out a lot of software. The problem is that I have work to do, and posts to write, and so on, so I don't have time to monkey with my system to that extent.
I run Enlightenment with the Irix imitation theme. I found that most of the themes that were unique looking were tiring to use because of funky fonts and a bizarre Science Fiction movie look that just doesn't feel right in an office environment.
MacOS X looks stunning right out of the box.
I was relying on the statements of others in this topic when talking about driver problems, so you could be right at this point. Likewise with application software, since I pretty much use xemacs/emacs, gcc and Mozilla/Netscape/IE/OmniWeb.
And yet, with all this mud slung at my opinions, your last paragraph makes me think that at bottom, you agree with me. From the perspective of an end user who doesn't want to spend a lot of time tinkering, MacOS X is better. The time spent trying to get Linux to look and work good would more than pay for the difference in price between a white box system running Linux and a dual 1.25ghz PowerMac G4. At least if you're at my rate.
D
Re:Dual-G4 (Score:1)
i do *on every level* agree that mas OS X is sweet, and a better os "out of the box" (gentoo doesnt come in a box.) especially for people coming from windows.
however for the pure *customization* of the system, linux beats everything else with a bat. (a very BIG bat, with pointy metal objects sticking out of it.) but most people dont care about that. and yes i refer most people i know too mac now. why ? because most of them _get_it_ alot quicker (and hence saves me the "this is linux" ordeal.).
and i do apologize if i sounded like i was mudslinging but i do not appriciate it if/when people say things that are incorect and generally taken from
a. other peoples opinions.
b. popular opinions.
i can greatly appriciate people who critisize (sp?)things because of their own opinions AND experiences. and i even agree that alot ***COUGH ^BITKEEPER^ COUGH**** of things in the OSS world are F.O.S. contradictions.
but so are most people.
so i guess one just reflects the other.
what else will you do with it? (Score:2)
The Fuel system is certainly a nice system, but it looks like the two things it really offers are one thing that is hard to get on Wintel sytems and one thing that isn't offered. The hard to get one is a ph4t professional graphics card, and the other is a huge data bus. (oh yeah, and Unix)
You can buy the ph4t professional graphics card for a PC. The data bus will still be small. Will there be any other work done that involves pushing large data sets around quickly, or will this system spend most of its time being used for other purposes? It seems silly to spend 15,000 of his research budget just to run Maya.
Keep in mind, too, that Linux may not fit his needs. Especially when we're talking 3D modelling. Linux's 3D acceleration support is totally krappo. DRI has come a long way, but I still keep a Windows partition around so I can reboot if I plan to be doing a lot of blendering. Lots of drivers are buggy, no support for professional 3D cards, and Mesa isn't perfect, either.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:1)
The binary-only NVIDIA drivers are excellent - they are extremely stable and I have yet to find any issues with OGL compliance. A solid Linux box with a Quadro is an excellent replacement for an IRIX box.
Our lab has several O2s, a few Fuels, a few Octanes and a couple of Onyx IR3 systems. The only boxes that can keep up with a dual 2GB Dell Linux box in almost all situations are the Onyx or Octane systems. (Our lab does data vis, flight simulators, and we use Maya on both SGI and Linux systems).
If I were given the choice between a Fuel and a Linux box, I'd choose the Linux box in a heartbeat.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:2)
That doesn't add up. Fuel has the exact same graphics as Octane2: V12. (I think you can buy V10 for Fuel, but I'm not positive. Maybe you have V10?) The only real difference between Fuel and Octane2 is the number of processors. If the Octane2 compares favorably to the PC, then the Fuel should as well.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:1)
Ummm - what, exactly, doesn't add up? I was comparing a "dual 2GB Dell Linux box" with our IRIX boxes.
And a high end dual processor Linux box will smoke a dual processor Octane in most situations anyway, except those where massive amounts of data need to be moved across the bus.
The only reason we keep IRIX boxes around these days is because of old code that hasn't been ported to Linux.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:2)
Unless you're not talking about Maya. Which is what this is starting to sound like.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:1)
Did you miss the subject line?
But if you're only talking about graphics-bound situations, then there's absolutely NO contest between a Fuel and a high end Linux box with a Quadro4. SGI doesn't even bother putting Viewperf results on the SPEC site any more because they're so far behind the Intel workstations. In both fill rate and geometry performance, a modern high end PC card will slaughter anything SGI is still offering.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:2)
At NAB in April, I spent about an hour running Maya at the SGI booth on a just-introduced Fuel with V12 graphics. Then I played with the same cut of software on Windows and Linux on various other computers. No comparison. Fully textured and lit scenes were interactive as hell on the Fuel, and chunky on the PCs. Yeah, some of the dual- and quad-processor PCs could do a better job of running real-time dynamics simulations, but for interacting with scenes-- work you'll spend most of your time doing-- the Fuel was definitely the way to go.
Re:what else will you do with it? (Score:1)
But yes, I suppose your 1 hour of experience at a trade show comparing a Fuel to PCs of unknown configuration is more meaningful than our lab's experience with machines that we OWN and use on a daily basis.
Maybe if you compared an IRIX box to a high end, workstation class Linux box with a high end NVidia card (which would be about 1/3 - 1/2 the cost of a Fuel), you would understand where I'm coming from. But, you obviously know everything there is to know, so I'll just shut up now.
Maya and Mac OS X (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maya and Mac OS X (Score:2)
Also true for expanding HD space.
What Macs really need right now is a 3ware ATA RAID adapter. And space for 4 internal ATA drives removable from the front (and still have space for an optical drive).
IMO, anyway.
Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your friend's level of comfort with UNIX? IRIX is a very well documented OS, but there are few places you can go for help if you get stuck. You have to be prepared to sit down and read the manuals (techpubs.sgi.com).
Does your friend want to do anything else with the computer? Like, say, surf the web or read email? If so, he'll be happier with either a Windows XP machine (and you said he's "fed up") or a Mac. Doing basic stuff on an IRIX box-- like word processing or email-- is like chewing on tin foil. Most people I know keep a PC or a Mac next to their SGI system for doing everything other than what they use their SGI system for.
Is a new machine the right answer for this guy? You can get used Octanes pretty reasonably. Fuel comes with V12 graphics (I think V10 is also an option, but I'm not positive), and that's pretty serious stuff, but you can probably get your hands on an MXE or similar system for considerably less than a new Fuel. Consider contacting SGI's remanufacturing division; they sell older systems at a substantially reduced cost. Although I don't know if they sell to overseas customers. Might be US-only.
All in all, I think the best choice is probably going to be a top-o-the-line Power Mac G4 with the fastest graphics card available. Right now, I think that's the GeForce 4 Titanium, for about $400. It's no V12, but it'll do the job. The dual processors are a nice bonus, letting you work at full speed while doing test renders in the background (I use that feature all the time on my dual 1 GHz "Speed Holes" model.) And because OS X is UNIX in all but name, you get all the advantages of running UNIX on your desktop while still being able to run stuff like Microsoft Office should you need it.
I guess what I'm saying is that you should think about the questions I asked, carefully weigh all the factors, and then buy a Mac.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
Re:Depends (Score:3, Informative)
Barely. I'm not going to get into a Linux flame war. Just know that my opinion of Linux as a single-user, general-purpose desktop operating system is not high.
One of the main reasons that the CGI house are going to Linux on the workstation is that they are cheap, compared to SGI machines.
You're sort-of right, but for the wrong reasons. The first Linux box you deploy costs considerably more, in time and energy, than a single SGI workstation. According to folks at ILM, they had to actually go in and do a lot of driver-level work to get the Linux NFS implementation to work reliably for them. So their first Linux box cost them tens of thousands of dollars to deploy.
But their 100th Linux box-- by which time they'd gotten all the bugs worked out-- cost them practically nothing above the cost of the hardware, which is very inexpensive compared to SGI hardware. So Linux as a professional animation or compositing workstation platform makes sense, but only in context of an economy of scale.
This submitter was asking about a single workstation for a single user. I don't think Linux would be a good choice there. It's harder to configure and use than IRIX, and it's less fully featured than OS X. In this specific case, I think Linux would probably be the worst of both worlds.
That's true, but again in a way that nullifies the point. PC hardware improves more quickly than SGI hardware, but the SGI hardware was a hell of a lot better than the PC hardware to start with, so it's a question of catching up. There's no PC in the world that can match the capabilities of an Octane2 or a Fuel*. Someday the PCs will catch up, but not for a while yet.
The implication of this fact is actually a pretty good thing for the owner of the SGI gear. Like Macs, SGI workstations keep their value much longer than PCs do. Last year's top-of-the-line PC is worth a couple hundred bucks now, at best. Last year's Mac or SGI can be sold for 80% of its list price. So if you buy a Mac or an SGI, your investment may possible be greater (in the case of an SGI, definitely so) but it'll be protected longer.
* Of course, if you don't need those particular capabilities, the Octane2 or the Fuel would be a big waste of money for you.
I second this (Score:1)
Or get the bigest most memory laden Mac G4 with the high end video card option and two 23" TFT screens.
You will be much more productive than on SGI for less money. The extra cash can be thrown at a Linux render farm...
Re:Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving aside a moment that actual merits-- or lack thereof-- of your comment (how do you define "proprietary hardware platform" anyway?), what would you suggest? Is Linux the only acceptable answer to any question of the basic form, "What's a good alternative for x?" Because you know that Maya only runs on IRIX, Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X, right? Since Windows is "Microsoft crap" and OS X is "crippled FreeBSD," does that mean you're okay with the IRIX alternative? Seeing as how SGI hardware is far more proprietary than Apple hardware, I don't see how you could be. So what you're really saying here is that Linux is the only politically acceptable answer, right?
I think that's about enough of that attitude. Use the right tool for the job. If the right tool happens to be "a proprietary hardware platform running a crippled FreeBSD," then bully for you.
Ask the manufacturer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ask the manufacturer (Score:2)
Re:Ask the manufacturer (Score:2)
classic. Does Sam's publish a "Learn Web Typing in 24 Hours for Fun and Profit!!"
Re:Ask the manufacturer (Score:2)
The SGI advantage has gone when it comes to workstation class graphics. PC cards outperform their systems in important areas and $15k could get you at least 3 top of the line PCs. Check out the specbench.org viewperf results if you want to see what the performance is like. There are a lot of systems and configurations there to choose from.
Re:Ask the manufacturer (Score:1)
Has it occured to you that many of us aren't high school or college kids, and many of us have years of experience that might be helpful. Disregarding the fact that usenet is the correct place to ask questions like this because you'll get a more targeted audience, there's an excelent chance that an ask slashdot question will recieve a few truly insightful answers from people who do something like this for a living, and know what they're talking about.
If you don't like Ask Slashdot, there's a nice checkbox that'll remove it from your front page.
Re:Ask the manufacturer (Score:2)
This question should have gone to the manufacturer or, as you pointed out, a specialized group on Usenet or another forum.
Why Not Wintel? (Score:2, Interesting)
an SGI is still an SGI... (Score:3, Informative)
There is that cost premium with them. And support. Neither of which are cheap. And at this stage in the game, I don't know how worthwhile it is.
Our studio switched from an SGI only house to some blend of Linux/IRIX. We are moving towards Linux only on the desktop, but it is possible for us to get some OS X boxes for compositing.
Depending on the level of work your friend is doing and how much raw power he needs, the choice can change. I assume that he would mostly be doing single frame renders. And if they are at high quality, he will need some serious horse power. Will he be using the Maya renderer or another one?
Our switch to Linux was decent since we came from a unix back ground. The users were used to the IRIX desktop and it did not take long for them to feel comfortable using gnome.
The OS X solution is extremely valid. I would have laughed at it a year ago, but having used Maya a bit on it and seeing just how well respected OS X is in the industry, I don't feel it is a bad way to go.
When there is only a few artists and not a big support staff, you have to go with a name brand system. It is unfortunate that a premium like that must be payed, but downtime is a big killer. When it can take a day or so to render and your system is down 2 days before something is needed, the preasure to get it going again is imense.
-Tim
Re:an SGI is still an SGI... (Score:2)
--buddy (nullset)
I/O is most important (Score:5, Informative)
I work for a used SGI reseller [mashek.com]. You need to go SGI if you need I/O bandwidth. The bus on Intel-based machines doesn't cut it, no matter how fast the mhz. Pay for I/O performance, not fast, but mostly useless CPU speed.
-BrentRe:I/O is most important (Score:2)
This is excellent advice. You can get a 2nd hand entry-level Octane for around EUR 1200 (say 256M RAM, 4 or 9G UW-SCSI disk, SE graphics, single 250mhz R10K). The beauty of this system is it's upgradeability... you can go up to 2G RAM, 3 9G disks, add TRAM (hardware texturing) or a VPro graphics card, dual R12000 processors.
Integer CPU performance of the first system is on the order of a 400-500mhz PII, which doesn't sound like a lot, but you can sustain peak computation power on an SGI for far longer than you can on a PC, because of the bus issues. The Octane has a switch, like a mainframe. I would taker a slower-CPU, faster memory bandwidth and disk I/O SGI (or Sun) over a fast PC any day. Doesn't do so well on a 1-minute benchmark, but in the real world it gets the job done.
Maya update - Linux Journal October 2001 (Score:1)
has a good description of Maya on Linux "from the source"
"My installation won't be on the typical Red Hat but rather on Debian Woody with kernel 2.4.7. My hardware configuration is a homebrew Athlon 1.2GHZ, ASUS A7A266 motherboard, 256MB DDR, with 100GB of 7,200RPM IDE disk drives. For graphics we're running XFree86 4.1.0 with its accelerated open-source DRI driver on an ATI ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON. Building and installing 4.1.0 with the accelerated RADEON driver is a story of its own--to be covered next month. "
" What that means in English is that it has every feature you can think of for an animation package and then some. "
That's why he needs it.
rcb
Re:Maya update - Linux Journal October 2001 (Score:2)
You'd think that "the source" would be able to purchase a more impressive system, even in 2001, huh.
RADEON ALL-IN-WONDER, is that a budget concious video capture tool? Export your video to TV then 'capture' it with a VCR/TiVO?
Maya 4 and AMD/Intel systems (Score:1)
Maya 4 and SSE-2 optimisations [aceshardware.com]
AMD also makes a comparison here [amd.com], but Intel's benchmarks didn't include Maya.
No brainer. (Score:2)
ILM uses Linux on SGI, but that's only cuz they have the boxxen allready from the Irix days that where only a year ago or so before they migrated.
x86 is the cheapest and most tested HW platform. Period.
If you're box doesn't get a hold of the renderers load you get a second one (or a third and fourth) to do it and still turn out cheaper.
If that still ain't enough you can get some Xeon workstation for the extra system bandwidth along with a rocketdrive if your models load to slow.
Anyway you look at it there's allways a cheaper and more hassle free solution on x86 below the bottom line.
Best platform for Maya: Linux on x86 - really a no brainer.
Go for second user SGI (Score:2, Informative)
An earlier poster stated that his SGI Octane workstation kept up with his dual processor P4. That's quite impressive for an out of date machine.
The thing about SGI machines is their bus bandwidth. It's all very well having several gigahertz at your disposal along with a top of the range graphcis card, but a PC just does not have the ability to connect them at a fast enough rate. An SGI octane uses the same design as the supercomputers - a crossbar switch. The XIO bus in an Octane can have multiple 1.6GB/s streams. Add in the power of multiple MIPS processors and MXE graphics and you have a powerful setup.
Octanes are available second hand from lots of places, such as SGI themselves, Ebay and others.
Steve.
solutions may be complicated (Score:2)
then theres the mac, maya rund on my G4 400, slowly but i think thats more my rage 128's fault. I hear its awesome on the newer G's though. THe problem is the graphics card, there are no DCC (digital content creation)class graphics card available. sure you can get a GF4TI4600 but, it lacks the developers of a quadro card, or fire gl card. OSX has all teh apps though.
wintel/lintel boxes are cheap, run reasonably well and will rovide the best bang for the buck. I would get dual processors at least to speed up rendering and look into using xeons for the multithreading capability. you can also get DCC cards, like Quadros, wildcats and fire gls that support things like hardware overlay planes and other advanced features. unfortunately your left to decide between Windows and Linux. I dont know about linux, but we all know how windows is. you may have drivers problems in linux though, but nVidia might have a nice developer solution for that. Windows has all of the commercial software you need and linux has oss, just like the SGI.
these are your options as i see it, i hope it helps.
Watch out for bandwidth on x86 (Score:2)
So I'm gonna assume you will be using this machine for the next 3 years. So you can probably spend your money up front on an SGI machine or get 3 upgrades over that timespan.
In terms of Mac, I wouldn't recommend it. The advantage of x86 over SGI is the fact you can upgrade components easily. Upgrading Mac components can be somewhat of a challenge.
SGI vs Dual Xeon (Score:1)
Possibilities. (Score:1)
est price: $ 5,000
you could get a Sun Blade 2000. [price/config [sun.com] ]
which would TOAST anything else people have brought up in I/O , and pure CPU power.
est price: $ 20,000
you could go the mac route mac [apple.com]
which is the best combo of price/usability (ie you get all sort of cool little apps to run and can use it has a full desktop system, and be "cool")
est price: $7,000
and of course the SGI which you already have priced/configured. i know enough about SGI to know that they are very solid boxes, but i have a hard time thinking that a single (or dual) 600Mhz Mips would beat a dual 1Ghz Sparc. of course i dont have either one here to benchmark so i maybe wrong.
to be honest i would go with the sun box. if for no other reason than it has the most powerful overall setup. bar none. Solaris is not a "fun and cuddly" OS but it wont EVER crash and it has a very high end graphics card (if you choose it in the "config").
the Lintel system will be the cheapest hands down since you wont have any "extra software tax" (obviously maya still costs $$$)
i also think *not sure* you could probally get the sun box down to 15,000 with cutting some stuff out of the config and haggling the sales rep.
Ooops. (Score:2)
The other thing that made me wonder was what experience you have with high-end x86 solutions... We're not talking about the x86 PCs you pick up in kit form from the local hardware shop - we're talking about well supported high end hardware. This guy earns his living using this stuff, so he's going to want support contracts and on-site replacement agreements. Your PC retailer doesn't do that. High quality workstations these day do use good quality components, and are a lot more reliable than their reputation suggests. In fact, it's Sun hardware (don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a Sun fanboy
Of course, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the matter in hand, since, as I said, Solaris won't help you at all in running Maya.
WHOOPS (Score:1)
but I'll put some serious money on it if you think you can build ANY x86 dual proc. system that would beat a sun blade 2000 in any damn thing. the Sun Blades might not be as good as the SGI's (or they may be, but like i said - i dont have the hardware to test it with.) but x86 is on the bottom of any pile as far as computation goes. and yeah rendering (depending on what type of rendering) is a CPU heavy thing. and damned to hell if the dual p4 XEON system all these x86 people keep recomending can even come close to touching the sun blade 2000.
hell if you wanna get technical you could put linux on the sparc hardware. (and yes it runs just fine i have a dual proc sparcstation right next to me and everything works under linux BETTER than it works under the newer versions of solaris)(and yes the hardware is rather slow)
Re:WHOOPS (Score:2)
Normally this wouldn't matter, if it were not for the fact that this whole thing was about running Maya. This akes your whole post (entitled, pretentiously, "Possibilities" - which was a shame since one of the three you mentioned was everything but a possibility...) It wasn't a UNIX box pissing contest. You could put what you wanted (OpenBSD, Linux, NetBSD) on the sparc box, but it won't run Maya.