Messages

1

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: Yesterday at 15:30:21 »

That is not what I meant, there is nothing faulty with CPU. But that doesn't mean all software can utilize it in same way. How Embree can utilize the hardware depends on many aspects of software stack, from motherboard firmware to OS scheduler. If those things are written for retail SKU, tiny discrepancy can cause misutilization.

Years ago, one of such solutions was upgrading Visual Studio redistributable used for compiling. Just saying it isn't as easy as updating libraries often, though I do hope it is for this particular issue.

Hi Juraj, thanks for your input, we or I am a bit frustrated , spend a small fortune and now this shit, hope the devs solves this soon.

2

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: Yesterday at 13:24:26 »

I hope solution for your problem is found, but I will like to stress that if in some case you have non-retail stepping (ES/QS/etc..), the issue can be with on-chip memory controller which creates certain spiral of firmware/OS issues that can manifest under certain workloads (whether it's scheduler issues, CPU groups, NUMA nodes, etc..).

So if Corona team received fully retail unit (which in 2024 means all-in-one system for most Epyc stuff), they might not be able to replicate your issue.

It's bit risky proposition to build custom multi-CPU servers today, too many variables with zero support. Super hard to investigate and find what can be culprit.

Not saying that's the case, just be prepared.

Nice to know that Corona devs got the machine though.

Hi we have a single retail Epyc 9754 (so no Numa nodes), we ruled out that the processor (and the whole system) is the culprit:

the slow geometry phase is caused by a particular step 'Embree scene calculation'.

The epyc is in the calculation of the 'Embree scene building' step very slow, 10x slower than for example a ryzen 5900x (12 cores)!

So to rule out that the Epyc cpu is slower when it comes to Embree calculation we want to test this slow Embree scene calculation and we tested it with Embree benchmarked software : phoronix-test-suite benchmark embree, the result was :

AMD Epyc 9754                              : 127 frames/sec
 
Compared to
 
AMD Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7995WX  : 116 frames/sec
 

Conclusion the Epyc is a bit faster in Embree calculations compared to a 7995WX (96 cores) so our system is not the issue, could it be the Embree version inside corona ?( Corona using old embree version?)Intel Embree is currently at version 4.3 do you know what version currently is used in Corona 11.1?

3

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: 2024-04-16, 11:45:45 »

We are checking this out :) In fact we just took delivery of a new super high core/thread count dual EPYC machine this week so that we can better investigate any reported issues along these lines.

Great, that would be great, it is also very frustrating to work in interactive rendering(IR): before i can make any change (for example the color materials or move an object) i have to wait until IR finish rendering (max passes) so we put max passes at 5 (btw the thread override IR is set to -16)
We still can use Photoshop and other programs, just max hangs (test this with HF11.1 and 2021.3 and 2024.2)

4

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: 2024-04-12, 13:15:43 »

Hi all, we are a step closer to identifing the problem, the AMD Epyc 9754 has a whopping 128 cores and so 256 threads, in the render phase it is fast but in the geometrie phase it is a lot slower compared to our oldest pc (all the scenes have the same issue so it's not scene releated bort pc corone 11.1 and max 2021.3 and max 2024.2):

old pc (ryzen 5900x) win 11 pro (128 gb), geometry phase takes 15 secs
amd epyc 9754 win 11 pro(384 gb), geomtery phase takes 60 sec!!

The difference is in the Embree calculation time (see corona log file in C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Local\Autodesk\3dsMax\2021 - 64bit\ENU\en-US\plugcfg\corona) and this does not make any sence : this cpu is one of the fastets where it comes to calculating Embree (https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/embree)
So we tested this (the Embree benchmark from github) and we got a nice fast score arround 130 frames per sec: conclusion our pc is fine


So is it possible that one of the core componens of corona render is a bit old?
And does any one have the same problem?

5

Hardware / Re: Dual Epyc 9654 experience?

« on: 2024-03-14, 14:25:16 »

Hi maru, yes we can share this scene, but it happens in all the project i am working on, tested this on 20+ different projects/3dsmax files and in every case it is the same: the geometry phase takes 10 x longer? also compared this with a friend (ryzen 5900x) and his geometry phase was arround 12 x faster (same scenes/projects, tested this with over 10 diff max files) so share?

It would be great to sort it out, and it would help others decide whether to go with 9654/9754. Can you please share the scene with Maru to sort it out?

Yes very happy with it, we use a singel 9754, we did some tests with a double 9654 EPYC, and it turns out that we have an overall speed of 140% compared to a single 9654. With the 9754 we have a speed of 130% compared to 2 x 9654.

6

Hardware / Re: Dual Epyc 9654 experience?

« on: 2024-03-14, 14:19:28 »

Yes, we just did via the ticket.

7

Hardware / Re: Dual Epyc 9654 experience?

« on: 2024-03-12, 14:08:53 »

Hi maru, yes we can share this scene, but it happens in all the project i am working on, tested this on 20+ different projects/3dsmax files and in every case it is the same: the geometry phase takes 10 x longer? also compared this with a friend (ryzen 5900x) and his geometry phase was arround 12 x faster (same scenes/projects, tested this with over 10 diff max files) so share?

8

Hardware / Re: Dual Epyc 9654 experience?

« on: 2024-03-12, 13:41:36 »

Hi Nejc Kilar, we checked it and in de screenshot that was taking during the geomtery phase u see that the core speed is arround 3 GHz and it utilizes 70% of the cores plus the next time we render the same it gets worse, from 0:39 min first time to a stunning 3:05 seconds (after 5 renders same cam) only for the geometry phase!

9

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: 2024-03-11, 17:12:44 »

thanks, i start to meassure this:  in the scene parsing corona does in fact uses only a few cores, but in the geometry phase corona uses arround 70% of the cores. The screenshot was taken in the geometry phase.

10

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: 2024-03-11, 14:48:53 »

Thanks Pokoy, we load the 3dsmax scene on both pc's local from de D SSD M.2 drives, so that is not an issue, the new pc has a single core speed of 3.08 Ghz and the old pc 4.5 Ghz, that could explane the scene parsing perhaps (but still the old pc single core isnt twice faster only 50%).

I benchmarked all different computer parts (memory , cpu ssd, etc etc) and on all benchmarks the new pc is much faster than the 4 year old cheap pc,

But thanks for thinking with me!

11

[Max] Bug Reporting / Very slow geometry phase 10x slower than old pc

« on: 2024-03-11, 13:23:52 »

Hi, i have a new pc and the geometry phase is very very slow, mostly 10x slower than my old pc & and the scene parsing is mostly twice slower???

The new pc is an AMD EPYC 9754 (9004 Genoa) (singel cpu) on a Supermicro board with 384 GB DDR5 and the old pc is an AMD Ryzen 5900X with 128 GB DDR4.

I testted it with 20+ scenes all the same result, and is see the following times:
new pc(max 2021 and corona 11):
scene parsing 52 sec, scene geometry 97 sec, render time 12 minutes @ 850,000 samples/s actual average

old pc (max 2021 and corona 11)
scene parsing 30 sec, scene geometry 13 sec, render time 95 minutes @ 115,000 samples/s actual average

I also tested with the corona benchmark at 31 832 636 (9th place in the ranking) and with Vray benchmark 132950 (5 th place) so both very very fast, I am lost what to do?

12

Hardware / Re: Dual Epyc 9654 experience?

« on: 2024-03-11, 11:49:43 »

Hi, we have a single processor AMD epyc 9754 with a supermicro mobo and 384 GB memory DDR5, it is fast as hell BUT the geometry fase is 10x slower than my old pc (dual intel xeon E5-2699V4 arround 8 years old!!), we are still trying to figure out why, and we render a lot of animation so this phase comes back in every frame, we loose between 60 and 120 seconds per frame!

13

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Corona Interactive rendering with 2D PanZoom Mode of 3ds.

« on: 2020-04-24, 12:02:18 »

+1

14

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?

« on: 2020-04-24, 11:48:29 »

Hi Ondra, and what about real time zoom in interactive rendering, this was such a nice feature in Vray, save us (back in the days) a lot of time in our workflow.

In VRAY it is possible to zoom in a certain area where you expect errors , correct the error and see the change on the fly!!

And with zoom i mean keep the zoomed (area) image sharp

15

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Interactive VFB Resolution size

« on: 2020-04-24, 11:45:22 »

i dont agree, this zoom on the fly in realtime render(and see the zoomed area SHARP) in Vray was amazing!!!!!!

it save errors and a lot of  time.... a lot of time

Our workflow in VRAY was: start interactive render, zoom on every detail where errors are to be expected(and Vray keeps a sharp image because it kept the image sharp!), corrected error realtime (and see the corrected geo directly), then zoom to the next area, and final render.

Now our workflow in CORONA is start interactive render, zoom into areas where errors are to be expected, guess that it is oke (since Corone DOES NOT support zoom in interactive WITHOUT getting blurry image where you see jack), render the final see errors (wait and wait) corrected them, rerender see error , and rerender, take 3 x times longer!



PLEASE implement it like in Vray, many users dont know what they are missing.