Rendering and HPC Benchmark Session Using Our Best Servers
by Johan De Gelas on September 30, 2011 12:00 AM ESTSTARS Euler3D CFD
The STARS Euler3D CFD benchmark got popular thanks to Scott of Techreport.com. It is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) benchmark based on the STARS Euler3D structural analysis routines developed at CASELab, the Computational AeroServoElasticity Laboratory at Oklahoma State University. Since the benchmark has been used for years by Scott, we felt it was a good place to start our HPC benchmarking adventure: we could check if our results are in the right ballpark.
The benchmark is downloadable and described in great detail here. The benchmark score is reported as a CFD cycle frequency in Hertz, with higher results being better.
The Xeon E7 scales quite nicely on the condition that you disable Hyper-Threading. The benchmark is able to take advantage of Hyper-Threading, which can be seen on the dual Xeon system. However, the threads work on the same data grid, so the more threads, the more locking contention rears its ugly head. Here's a more detailed look at scaling with the number of threads:
The Hyper-Threading enabled Xeon X5670 performs worse than the non-HT setup until we run more than 12 threads. Once we do that it can offer a decent performance boost (17%). The benchmark however does not scale enough to take advantage of 80 threads. Hyper-Threading offers better resource utilization but that does not negate the negative performance effect of the overhead of running 80 threads. Once we pass 40 threads on the E7-4870, performance starts to level off and even drop.
Of course, you are probably more interested in the other server result. What happened to the Opteron scores? Why is the 48 core Opteron five times slower than the 40 core Xeon E7? Let's investigate further.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
View All Comments
MrSpadge - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Agreed - performance of a single i7 2600 can be hard to beat, depending on the application. My Matlab code uses all physical cores through the Intel Math Kernel Library, yet is ~30% slower on 2 x X5570 (wich is about the difference in clock speed, incidently).MrS
JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/server-renderin...the core i970 3.2 GHz is included. But indeed, it has been some time since we have used backburner.
Is this the kind of bench you are looking for?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2240/7
Backburner scales extremely well, so I suspect that especially the Quad MC Dell is a very good choice compared to a workstation.
JoeKan - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Yes - the backburner test is it. Although I use different rendering software, that test would be appropriate as the visualization rendering can properly represent real life usage and can stress the hardware at the same time.The test linked uses frames 20-29. I'd like to see a longer frame sequence.
The reason I asked that a workstation be used as a base reference is because that gives us, the readers, a point of reference to compare against. I define a workstation as a single CPU box anyone can build with off the shelf components, like a i7-2600K, or a i7-970 - a performance CPU in the $300+ to $600 range. That allows one to compare performance on a per $ basis.
Not a true 'workstation' as it does not use a Xeon, but it gives the ability to compare 'performance' to 'performance per buck' basis.
By using a $1000+ class CPU for comparison the 'bang for the buck' comparison is distorted.
xxtypersxx - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
I love reading about the high end server hardware, its like F1 compared to road cars.As for benchmarks, may I suggest the linux x64 Folding at Home client? We know it scales past at least 128 cores without issue and as many of us that fold are running server hardware anyway, it will attract a new audience to the reviews.
rehm - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Hello,for CFD benchmarking you could also consider the code OpenFOAM. It scales very well and is gaining a lot of interest in industry and academia. Memory behaviour should be comparable to Fluent and it can be compiled with gcc and icc.
Regards
JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Very nice suggestion... but is there a sample solution/ benchmark we can measure? It is a bit hard for a hardware reviewer to come up with very specialized realworld tests :-).ozztheforester - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
I am currently using a bunch of 2600k's for rendering in the past I used some dual xeon setups but only found those being extremely inefficient on cost/performance ratio. Can you please let us know the cost and power consumption of this system?currently getting around 8.72 points on cinebench 11.5 on a 2600k pc @4.5ghz which is consuming less than 200 watts at full load and costing a bit less than 800usd
also I would suggest using vray for multi thread benchmarks
sicofante - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
Why didn't you set up a scene in Maya or Softimage and then render it with Mental Ray? THAT would be a professional test, Cinebench is not.BTW, no matter how powerful, these Xeon E7 systems are a no-go for studios. They are plainly anti-economical. You can have a much sensibler setup by putting ordinary Xeons or overclocked Core i7s in many racks, i.e., a rendering farm.
(Note: I build rendering farms for studios. Since 3D rendering grows almost linearly with frequency, what matters in the end is Euros/GHz, that is normalized GHz)
Phynaz - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
What studio renders on overclocked desktop cpu's?confusis - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link
My studio does. We can't yet step up to a higher end multi-socket rendering server (finances, start-up company) so we make do with Phenom II x4's. A desktop box is good value for money at our end of the company scale. Once we grow we'll be looking at Interlagos however