Slashdot Mirror
Best Platform for Running Maya?
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."
Ugly color. O2 where much nicer.
#include "coucou.h"
Uses Maya on Intel boxes...they are currently one of the many graphics houses in Hollywood that are switching over to Linux...
...and all told, the advantages of using Linux just far outweighs the advantages of using SGI hardware.
They are using high-end nVidia cards
I haven't worked with the newest SGI's, but if the circa 2001 models I have worked on are any indication, he will get a much better bang for his buck if he goes with an Intel or AMD machine and linux. The SGI has a certain prestige associated with it of course, and perhaps marginally better support, but is that worth $10k+?
Get a dual 1.25Ghz Mac. Cheaper than the IRIX box. More friendly than Linux. Better build quality than most PeeCees.
Oh, and cheaper than the IRIX box.
-psy
Don't forget, Maya runs on Mac OS X ...
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
What are you going to be doing with the system other than running Maya?
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.
Maya in Mac OS X is a nice solution. Get the fastest available Powermac G4 and max out the RAM. Result: You have a very nice setup for using Maya.
The right answer here depends on a lot of stuff that you (the submitter, that's right, I'm talking to you) didn't tell us.
;-)
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.
I write in my journal
Has it occurred to you to ask the manufacturer (Alias|Wavefront) rather than asking a bunch of high school and college kids on Slashdot? You're going to spend tons of money on the software, but then ask a bunch of beginners and web typists for advice on the hardware? Please.
I suppose a dual P4, 1GB RAM and an ATI Radeon 9700 based graphics card and Windows 2000 Professional will do very well and it will be cheap enough.
A dual-CPU-timex sinclair with a weitek math coprocessor. Your results may differ.
but...
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
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
I work for a used SGI reseller. 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.
-BrentLinux Journal October 2001 GFX column
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
We create our society every time we interact with each other. What kind of society did you create today?
It's a bit dated, but here is an interesting article from Ace's Hardware describing performance on AMD/Intel systems for comparison:
Maya 4 and SSE-2 optimisations
AMD also makes a comparison here, but Intel's benchmarks didn't include Maya.
/.
Since she's only three, platforms are a bit much for her at this point. We find "keds" brand sneakers are more appropriate for running.
--Charlie
Linux on x86 of course.
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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I recommend going for a second user SGI system.
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.
A latent existence
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.
I want 2D games back.
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.
Just make sure the platform doesn't tip over on you. I hear Maya is a pretty heavy piece of software.
If you do not have a back end render farm to support you, you just might want to go with the SGI. As it was already mentioned the bus bandwidth is a huge factor as well as the 64bit.. think painting with 55gallon drums vs quarts. If your friend will be working with global illumination, volume lighting and on a hdtv or higher resolution, 1 frame may take you 20 minutes+, at 30 frames per second the render time adds up fast. I'm running a Dell PowerEdge 2500 with dual PIII Xeons and a Dell Precision 530 Dual Xeon with a WildcatII video card at my desk. The Precision is my modeling box and the Poweredge is my local renderer. I can get all four processors running at 100% for 20hrs just to get 2 minutes final rendered architectural walkthough. With the cost of my desktop set-up the SGI's are not unreasonable, and more will be more stable. On a pc always render to individual images and compile them later because if you render to .mov and it crashes 18hrs into it.. it's all gone.
one possibility is a pimped out linux box. obviously you will NOT find the same quality hardware for a intel based box as you would for a try "heavy duty" unix box.
est price: $ 5,000
you could get a Sun Blade 2000. [price/config ]
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
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.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
While your answer is insteresting in that it is the only one that mentions Sun hardware running Solaris, there is a damn good reason it is the only one. Maya doesn't run on Solaris. Ooops. I don't think you've ever been near Maya, let alone that you are in much of a position to offer advice.
:-) )that's been going down the swanny. At one point their workstations would blow away x86 in terms of hardware and construction quality, this is definitely not the case with the Sun Blade. Sun has, over the past few years steered towards commodity hardware, to keep their costs competitive, and this has certainly levelled the playing field in favour of x86 vendors like HP or even (gulp!) Dell! While technologically offering a lot of things that aren't available on x86 (in particular high bandwidth stuff), I don't think the build quality and component quality stacks up as an argument in favour of Sun anymore. I have little experience with recent SGI hardware so I don't know, but they seem to have continued much more down the high quality/high price road, where Sun has long since decided to take a shortcut.
:-)
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.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
You can get second hand O2s in Europe. Get two: one for design and the second as a renderer. You only need one screen and a KVM.
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...
realkiwi
okay i didnt know maya didnt run on solaris. sue me.
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)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein