Would the 2.8ghz imac be able to support modeling and rendering well with programs like rhino and solidworks? I have been holding out for the Mac Pro update, but now I'm being pushed into a corner because of it.
It should do ok performance-wise. A quad would be better but it depends on how complicated your lighting is (GI, radiosity etc) and also if you're doing animation. I'm not sure how much heat a sustained render would generate. I'd personally look for a good deal on a Mac Pro but they are hard to find. More than a few people have found themselves in this same corner because Apple refuses to cater for an ever widening market and their Pro updates are so slow. There's little choice but to suffer out the iMac.
It should do ok performance-wise. A quad would be better but it depends on how complicated your lighting is (GI, radiosity etc) and also if you're doing animation. I'm not sure how much heat a sustained render would generate. I'd personally look for a good deal on a Mac Pro but they are hard to find. More than a few people have found themselves in this same corner because Apple refuses to cater for an ever widening market and their Pro updates are so slow. There's little choice but to suffer out the iMac.
Update, ending up getting the 2.8ghz Imac the other day and I'm pleasantly suprised with it. As long as I'm not rendering a detailed engineering model, things run fine
Update, ending up getting the 2.8ghz Imac the other day and I'm pleasantly suprised with it. As long as I'm not rendering a detailed engineering model, things run fine
Did you get 4 GBs of RAM? What's the problem with a detailed CAD file anyway? Once I plunk down my money for the top tier iMac, I want to make sure it can handle complex 3D models, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic Express and Final Cut projects... any opinions on this?
Dude, you're fine. I used to render multi-million poly stills on what is considered today "shit hardware." My current renderer is a 2.1GHz iMac G5. It works great with EI. Moreover, Solidworks models don't tend to be high-poly subdivision solids, so 4G of RAM will be more than adequate.
Computers are all overpowered these days. You need to get pretty advanced at 3D modeling and animation before you need to start thinking about getting a dedicated box for rendering. I've even stopped using texture & bump maps in favor of modeled-in detail, and it's not a problem.
Computers are all overpowered these days. You need to get pretty advanced at 3D modeling and animation before you need to start thinking about getting a dedicated box for rendering.
You keep saying this but if you render an animation that is maybe 30 seconds long and your render time is say 20 seconds per frame if you're lucky (this is for a fly-through), your render time is 30 seconds x 25 frames per second x 20 seconds per frame = 4 hours and you likely won't render the thing just once.
Then there's compositing on top of that, which could take half an hour for that length of animation depending on what's done to it.
If you have deadlines that are 1-2 weeks, you can't afford to settle for old hardware.
In no way whatsoever are computers today overpowered for high end rendering. Macs today aren't overpowered for anything, even word processing.
Still renders, I'd say they are acceptable but it depends on how you render and what lighting you use. Some people like to use spectral rendering engines for architectural models and I've seen people waiting 20 hours+ for a single image. I personally think it's ridiculous to do that but if there is a process that someone needs done and it takes an inordinately long time to do it then whether or not a computer does what you need doesn't generally make it overpowered for all needs.
I'd say that when a computer can handle today's 1 minute per frame renders in a reasonable time then computers will be fast enough. So today, a 1000 frame animation at 1 minute per frame = 400 hours or so. If Intel deliver us 80-core CPUs within 5 years then that might get down to about 5 hours and no doubt software algorithms will have improved.
There are always ways to get nice results quicker and games like Crysis show that close to photorealism is achievable in real-time so if processes are moved more and more to the GPU then maybe we'll reach a plateau sooner but I really don't think we're there yet.
I am in somewhat the same boat. From what I've been told, I'm really holding out until January when all the new Apple products will be announced. What I would REALLY like is a NEW Apple 22 or 24 inch Cinema display and a much updated Mac Pro (including case re-design).
I do rendering using Poser 7 and some touchup in Coral or Photoshop for post work. The bottom line I feel about 3D programs like this is you can never have too much storage, memory or processor power. Your output files can be quite large depending on project, memory and CPU help speed your renders. You don't want to wait 15+ minutes to see your final cut that's why I always get close to the best CPU and at least 4GB RAM for todays 3D tools.
It works well. I do single renders on hyper shot and I haven't had a single crash yet. My computer at work, a dell workstation with dual 3.2ghz dual cores and a 256 graphics card crashes all the time when i bump up quality settings halfway. The mac can can take max quality seetings in the render program and it renders in an acceptable amout of time.
Maybe it is the fact that i switched over to a mac, but I like this computer better than my work machine. Way more stable
It works well. I do single renders on hyper shot and I haven't had a single crash yet. My computer at work, a dell workstation with dual 3.2ghz dual cores and a 256 graphics card crashes all the time when i bump up quality settings halfway. The mac can can take max quality seetings in the render program and it renders in an acceptable amout of time.
Maybe it is the fact that i switched over to a mac, but I like this computer better than my work machine. Way more stable
This is actually pretty weird. I wonder what keeps the mac from crashing? I'm glad, though, that it worked out for you. The iMac is a great machine, easily the best deal in the mac line.
I dare say if you're just learning 3D and not a full time pro, then the iMac is just fine. It would have been cutting edge just over a couple of years ago. Not that long ago...
I can't stress this enough: buying Electric Image is cheaper than buying a faster computer, and it has a profound affect your render times. It also can handle more polys than anything else, so in the case where you have very detailed scenes, you don't have to make multiple passes.
[QUOTE=Lemon Bon Bon.;1177959]I dare say if you're just learning 3D and not a full time pro, then the iMac is just fine. It would have been cutting edge just over a couple of years ago. Not that long ago...
Have a cup of tea and your render may be done...
Lemon Bon Bon.[/QUOTE
I've been in using 3d programs for 3 years now professionally. The imac is way more capable than i thought it would be. The renders actually finish in less than a minute, although time is all based on what program you use.
You keep saying this but if you render an animation that is maybe 30 seconds long and your render time is say 20 seconds per frame if you're lucky (this is for a fly-through), your render time is 30 seconds x 25 frames per second x 20 seconds per frame = 4 hours and you likely won't render the thing just once.
What you seem to be forgetting is that anything worth rendering is worth spending time on. If you check out Pixar (you know, that company that does all the modeling work in disney movies now?), they take an average one 6 hours per frame to render, sometimes up to 90 hours per frame. Multiply the average (6) by 25 fps and you have 144 hours to render one second of video. That means a 2hr movie takes 17,280 hours, a little under a year, to render. And that's after all the modeling, set dressing, lighting, and quick-rendering to make sure everything works out.
Not to say you cannot have a nice computer to use, just letting you know: "You can't rush art."
What you seem to be forgetting is that anything worth rendering is worth spending time on. If you check out Pixar (you know, that company that does all the modeling work in disney movies now?), they take an average one 6 hours per frame to render, sometimes up to 90 hours per frame. Multiply the average (6) by 25 fps and you have 144 hours to render one second of video. That means a 2hr movie takes 17,280 hours, a little under a year, to render. And that's after all the modeling, set dressing, lighting, and quick-rendering to make sure everything works out.
Not to say you cannot have a nice computer to use, just letting you know: "You can't rush art."
The art is already done, the computer is simply number-crunching. Anyway, Pixar have a huge render-farm that isn't accessible to most people. When they say 6 hours per frame, they can render 1,000+ frames at the same time. They are also rendering in 2k format or more.
The whole art team doesn't just take the year off while the thing renders and the render-times are just as frustrating for them. This is why some companies are experimenting with GPU-accelerated rendering. Hopefully we will be able to use the new Nvidia chips to do something similar even if not at the same performance.
Comments
It should do ok performance-wise. A quad would be better but it depends on how complicated your lighting is (GI, radiosity etc) and also if you're doing animation. I'm not sure how much heat a sustained render would generate. I'd personally look for a good deal on a Mac Pro but they are hard to find. More than a few people have found themselves in this same corner because Apple refuses to cater for an ever widening market and their Pro updates are so slow. There's little choice but to suffer out the iMac.
That was my initial thought
Update, ending up getting the 2.8ghz Imac the other day and I'm pleasantly suprised with it. As long as I'm not rendering a detailed engineering model, things run fine
Did you get 4 GBs of RAM? What's the problem with a detailed CAD file anyway? Once I plunk down my money for the top tier iMac, I want to make sure it can handle complex 3D models, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic Express and Final Cut projects... any opinions on this?
Computers are all overpowered these days. You need to get pretty advanced at 3D modeling and animation before you need to start thinking about getting a dedicated box for rendering. I've even stopped using texture & bump maps in favor of modeled-in detail, and it's not a problem.
Computers are all overpowered these days. You need to get pretty advanced at 3D modeling and animation before you need to start thinking about getting a dedicated box for rendering.
You keep saying this but if you render an animation that is maybe 30 seconds long and your render time is say 20 seconds per frame if you're lucky (this is for a fly-through), your render time is 30 seconds x 25 frames per second x 20 seconds per frame = 4 hours and you likely won't render the thing just once.
Then there's compositing on top of that, which could take half an hour for that length of animation depending on what's done to it.
If you have deadlines that are 1-2 weeks, you can't afford to settle for old hardware.
In no way whatsoever are computers today overpowered for high end rendering. Macs today aren't overpowered for anything, even word processing.
Still renders, I'd say they are acceptable but it depends on how you render and what lighting you use. Some people like to use spectral rendering engines for architectural models and I've seen people waiting 20 hours+ for a single image. I personally think it's ridiculous to do that but if there is a process that someone needs done and it takes an inordinately long time to do it then whether or not a computer does what you need doesn't generally make it overpowered for all needs.
I'd say that when a computer can handle today's 1 minute per frame renders in a reasonable time then computers will be fast enough. So today, a 1000 frame animation at 1 minute per frame = 400 hours or so. If Intel deliver us 80-core CPUs within 5 years then that might get down to about 5 hours and no doubt software algorithms will have improved.
There are always ways to get nice results quicker and games like Crysis show that close to photorealism is achievable in real-time so if processes are moved more and more to the GPU then maybe we'll reach a plateau sooner but I really don't think we're there yet.
I do rendering using Poser 7 and some touchup in Coral or Photoshop for post work. The bottom line I feel about 3D programs like this is you can never have too much storage, memory or processor power. Your output files can be quite large depending on project, memory and CPU help speed your renders. You don't want to wait 15+ minutes to see your final cut that's why I always get close to the best CPU and at least 4GB RAM for todays 3D tools.
If you have deadlines that are 1-2 weeks, you can't afford to settle for old hardware.
In no way whatsoever are computers today overpowered for high end rendering. Macs today aren't overpowered for anything, even word processing.
This dude is an amateur. Otherwise he wouldn't be asking these questions ? he'd already know the answers. So, once again, you are missing the point.
I ended up buying the top of the line imac.
It works well. I do single renders on hyper shot and I haven't had a single crash yet. My computer at work, a dell workstation with dual 3.2ghz dual cores and a 256 graphics card crashes all the time when i bump up quality settings halfway. The mac can can take max quality seetings in the render program and it renders in an acceptable amout of time.
Maybe it is the fact that i switched over to a mac, but I like this computer better than my work machine. Way more stable
Quick update.
I ended up buying the top of the line imac.
It works well. I do single renders on hyper shot and I haven't had a single crash yet. My computer at work, a dell workstation with dual 3.2ghz dual cores and a 256 graphics card crashes all the time when i bump up quality settings halfway. The mac can can take max quality seetings in the render program and it renders in an acceptable amout of time.
Maybe it is the fact that i switched over to a mac, but I like this computer better than my work machine. Way more stable
This is actually pretty weird. I wonder what keeps the mac from crashing? I'm glad, though, that it worked out for you. The iMac is a great machine, easily the best deal in the mac line.
The iMac is a great machine, easily the best deal in the mac line.
It is good vfm. I have been tempted by the 24 incher. But with Penryn imminent and a better GPU hopefully...soon then...
...and with Mac world?
Fingers crossed*
The iMac runs City of Heroes very well in Vista/Bootcamp. Was getting 30-50 fps even in native resolution. It won't run crysis. But what does?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Have a cup of tea and your render may be done...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Have a cup of tea and your render may be done...
I can't stress this enough: buying Electric Image is cheaper than buying a faster computer, and it has a profound affect your render times. It also can handle more polys than anything else, so in the case where you have very detailed scenes, you don't have to make multiple passes.
Have a cup of tea and your render may be done...
Lemon Bon Bon.[/QUOTE
I've been in using 3d programs for 3 years now professionally. The imac is way more capable than i thought it would be. The renders actually finish in less than a minute, although time is all based on what program you use.
You keep saying this but if you render an animation that is maybe 30 seconds long and your render time is say 20 seconds per frame if you're lucky (this is for a fly-through), your render time is 30 seconds x 25 frames per second x 20 seconds per frame = 4 hours and you likely won't render the thing just once.
What you seem to be forgetting is that anything worth rendering is worth spending time on. If you check out Pixar (you know, that company that does all the modeling work in disney movies now?), they take an average one 6 hours per frame to render, sometimes up to 90 hours per frame. Multiply the average (6) by 25 fps and you have 144 hours to render one second of video. That means a 2hr movie takes 17,280 hours, a little under a year, to render. And that's after all the modeling, set dressing, lighting, and quick-rendering to make sure everything works out.
Not to say you cannot have a nice computer to use, just letting you know: "You can't rush art."
What you seem to be forgetting is that anything worth rendering is worth spending time on. If you check out Pixar (you know, that company that does all the modeling work in disney movies now?), they take an average one 6 hours per frame to render, sometimes up to 90 hours per frame. Multiply the average (6) by 25 fps and you have 144 hours to render one second of video. That means a 2hr movie takes 17,280 hours, a little under a year, to render. And that's after all the modeling, set dressing, lighting, and quick-rendering to make sure everything works out.
Not to say you cannot have a nice computer to use, just letting you know: "You can't rush art."
The art is already done, the computer is simply number-crunching. Anyway, Pixar have a huge render-farm that isn't accessible to most people. When they say 6 hours per frame, they can render 1,000+ frames at the same time. They are also rendering in 2k format or more.
The whole art team doesn't just take the year off while the thing renders and the render-times are just as frustrating for them. This is why some companies are experimenting with GPU-accelerated rendering. Hopefully we will be able to use the new Nvidia chips to do something similar even if not at the same performance.