My i7 2011 27" iMac at home was a really great computer, but it could take me 8 hours to render a 30 second animation. Yeah, it's definitely a tough choice to make. I haven't tested the same scene on my new 2015 5k iMac at work, but I should, just to test out the speed difference. On my old 2011 iMac, it would have taken hours to render that same animation. I also put an Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti in the tower, but the GPU will not have much impact on 3d renders done with C3d.
#CINEBENCH FOR MAC MOVIE#
I rendered a 16 second movie in under an hour last week. I bought them off of Ebay for $200 total. Which are the top Xeon chips you can put in these. I bought a used 2012 8-core and updated the stock Xeon chips in it to dual 4-core (8-core) 3.46ghz X5690's. So it's a lot easier to upgrade them.Īny reason you aren't looking at the 4,1 model? The newer models (5,1) don't need to be de-lidded. The earlier models are harder because the chips need to be de-lidded.
#CINEBENCH FOR MAC UPDATE#
Personally, I'd go for any of the 2010+ models with the dual CPU trays and then update the CPU. The 2010 models are nearly identical to the 2012 models. The problem with the pre 2010 models is that the firmware isn't easily updatable to run the newer Mac OS's. I can run Cinebench later and post the score. I can tell that the souped up Mac Pro I have at home now is for sure faster than any other Mac I've owned. I also put an Nvidia GTX 1080 FE in the tower, but the GPU will not have much impact on 3d renders done with C3d. I bought a used 2012 dual 4-core (8-core) and updated the stock Xeon chips in it to dual 6-core (12-core) 3.46ghz X5690's. You can look here to see some benchmarks. I'm pretty sure Martin says that C3d can use all the cores. So sometimes the higher MHz helps and sometimes the multi-cores help. Sometimes it can depend on the software and how well they utilize the multi-cores or not.
0 kommentar(er)
