At a bare minimum for example if we have a program like Clarisse running an incredible environment and we have Houdini that does an incredible explosion and we have Nuke that ties everything together in compositing and lighting. Can we run all this simultaneously together if we have 64-128 GB of RAM inside the computer? With a graphics card what are the differences we will see in performance if we have 12GB, 24GB, or 48GB of DDR6 RAM? Can you compare and contrast what you will be able to run simultaneously depending on how much RAM we have in the computer and on the graphics card? Thank you

You can't run them at the same time and do highend work. There are many smaller companies now that use artists workstations on their render farms and it a degrading experience for the artist.

Please provide the exact details about your task (RAM usage listed by application, processor - both CPU and GPU - drain listed by application, IO bandwidth usage listed by application) and your available hardware (especially IO throughput capabilities).
Please provide a scientific definition of “incredible environment” (I am most interested in a reliable explanation of “incredible”).

Else it doesn't make sense to ask for crystal ball readout. Except if you want to read “yes, you can, but it won't be much fun” (you didn't ask whether it's FEASIBLE, you only asked if you CAN).

An answer to your question that matches the quality of your current problem description would be: Of course you can, as long as your ogloophoom-conversion is tightly encrypted in reverse contradicting selfprovisions of artificial RAM usage predictions, your core processing unit has a vapor-inverter that reduces steam induction on catalized memory ions and your user is politically incorrect.


Marc Albrecht

We are putting together a system and we want to make sure we have enough power to support what we want to do in software. We are getting ready to buy 3 computers we will have Motion Graphics software on one, the effects software Houdini on another, and Nuke on the third. So if we are working on one project how do we combine all 3 to work together simultaneously? We are trying to see right now what is the best hardware to compliment the software.

Hi malbrecht I get the point which is to be more specific. However we are trying to setup a workstation and obviously wouldn't be able to know the exact scene information without having created it yet. Which is why I'm asking a more broad question of how you could work between all 3 simultaneously in a given scenario, and what hardware would be required to do so

“We are getting ready to buy 3 computers we will have Motion Graphics software on one, the effects software Houdini on another, and Nuke on the third.”

Well if you have a workstation for each software then it's not a problem to run all 3 ‘simultaneously’. But, reading between the lines I'm gathering your ‘real’ question about a possible scenario would be something like:

Ok…the Houdini machine has 128GB Ram…and the Nuke station has 64GB.

So one does simulations in which on the Houdini machine you find you are maxxing out on memory(just enough to get the job done)…but once one exports the image sequences to Nuke…will one have enough memory on that machine to do the comp work? Same story for taking what the Motion Graphics workstation and passing on or receiving from Houdini workstation, etc. etc.

But I guess too that all depends on what one actually does in each of those programs….some things can be ‘light’ on system resources while at others pushed to the limit.

Really hard to say except that maybe it needs to be said what type/degree of work is planned for each software being used and take it from there.

I would add, and you've probably already thought of this, but some local networking set up would be good between the three machines too.

My remark above may seem sarcastic (because I often am), but it holds my true opinion: Of course, you can RUN those programs simultaneously, but without any definition of “incredible scenes”, without ANY data to base assistance on, even the best support can only say “erm”.

From experience, I can say that Clarisse can eat up A LOT OF RAM and then some. So can Houdini. My personal “experimental” system only has 64GB, that is maxed out almost all the time, running ONLY Houdini (and maybe Visual Studio). 128GB RAM does not seem like a lot for simulation and it surely isn't a lot for “Clarisse typical scenes”, read LOTS of points.

In short, if I was asked that question without ANY proper data (the kind I asked about above) I'd say, you are talking about “starting machines” for “entrance level work” in those programs (Nuke may be less hungry in “normal” usage, though). Simultaneous work? Usually not, except for setting up some more or less simple tasks.

If you don't have any experience (and it sounds like that, apologies) with the software you are asking about, I recommend talking to some studios that do similar jobs to those you want to do and ask them about typical requirements on their hardware. This may sound like a completely off-the-board question in this industry (while it is pretty normal in other industries to talk to people), but, again, speaking from experience: Asking politely, talking to the right people and not being a German Jerk actually will get you answers.

(Then there's the fact that almost no software is bug-free. Running different BIG TOOLS simultaneously feels like asking for trouble to me, but that's a different topic, that is NOT hardware related.)


Marc Albrecht

I love Houdini, I really do, but when preparing data for Clarisse (terrains, point cloud for some specific scattering needs, vdb etc), with both software open, I would say Clarisse use 25% of my ram (64Gb), and Houdini eats everything else, plus 64-128Gb of swap drive.

Clarisse can use lot's of memory with displacement, I usually avoid it and use full geo if possible.