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."

12 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Dreamworks... by OneFix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uses Maya on Intel boxes...they are currently one of the many graphics houses in Hollywood that are switching over to Linux...

    They are using high-end nVidia cards ...and all told, the advantages of using Linux just far outweighs the advantages of using SGI hardware.

    1. Re:Dreamworks... by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      using high-end nVidia cards ...and all told, the advantages of using Linux just far outweighs the advantages of using SGI hardware.

      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.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    2. Re:Dreamworks... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Informative

      And of course, I don't how much more high end you can get than CGI work for a major animated film...

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Dreamworks... by OneFix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets see...they aren't tied to any hardware manufacturer...they can use SGI/Sun/IBM/HP systems...they can even use commodity (Intel/AMD) hardware. They can upgrade hardware much more easily...for instance whenever the GeForce 5 comes out, they don't have to take anyone's system from them...it should be nothing more than a hardware switch. And if the unthinkable were to happen and say SGI/nVidia goes under, they don't have to redesign all of their custom software...If they need more power, they can easily upgrade systems without artists having to learn a new interface (artists aren't always the most tech savvy)...

      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...

    4. Re:Dreamworks... by OneFix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The choice is really between a Fuel and a Mac.

      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...

  2. Re:I wouldn't think so by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your experience is not typical. In the absence of a serious hardware fault, IRIX never crashes. And the only way you can "screw something over so bad that you'd need to reinstall the OS" is by doing something incredibly dumb. My personal favorite happened once when I was trying to change the ownership of an entire directory of files. I typed "sudo chown foo.foo ." The only thing is, the period and the slash keys are, like, right next to each other. So I ended up typing "sudo chown foo.foo /". By the time I slammed control-C, it had already made it through /bin and was working on /dev. I could have fixed it, but it was just easier to boot miniroot and reinstall the base OS pieces to reset the permissions and ownerships.

    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.

    --

    I write in my journal
  3. Depends by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Depends by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ohhhh-kaaaay. (Backs away slowly and looks around for a rock.)

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Depends by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Informative
      So Linux would seem to be a better choice as you can do normal stuff with a Linux box(web browsing and email).

      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.

      ...the preformance growth curve over time for PC hareware is way steaper than for SGI hareware.

      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 write in my journal
  4. Ask the manufacturer by Katravax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. an SGI is still an SGI... by tolldog · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?
  6. I/O is most important by bmetzler · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    -Brent