If OpenGL is a big concern, then virtualization is an ok option, but
not a very good one.
Despite some OpenGL/DirectX support in VM's, with the apps mentioned,
bare metal may be the best choice.
However, experiment and see if your particular apps will work good
enough for you.
We use Maya, Max, Nuke, etc... on VMs as well as bare metal for
certain things and they do run noticeably slower in the VMs during
certain screen renders.
Some plugins relying on OpenGL don't even work though.
I really enjoy the freedom virtualization affords so experiment and
see if you like it.
On Oct 9, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Scott Ehrlich wrote:
> Hello to all:
>
> I know this list is generally Linux-only, but I figured I'd try to
> gain wisdom from those with hard-core Windows needs, too.
>
> I was recently pricing out a high-end desktop system for a user who
> will doing a lot of CAD, Matlab, SolidWorks, and other apps that will
> utilize a lot of number crunching and video.
>
> The quote for the desktop (64-bit Vista is likely), which included 12
> GB RAM, two 1 TB SATA hard drives, a high-end NVidia 3D video card,
> and two Intel quad-core 3.3 Ghz processors, was about $15k.
>
> An approval manager asked if the money could be better spent towards a
> cluster for others to use.
>
> This user's needs are for Windows-based apps. The open question,
> then, is can the results the user needs be derived from a high-end
> Windows cluster or virtual environment that is multi-user capable and
> runs Windows-based apps, or do they need bare metal for true results
> and performance? I awaiting an answer on this from the user.
>
> In the meantime, for those who may have been faced with this, too,
> what have you discovered/learned?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
