Computer Specs

2

Comments

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    No, this is what I am putting together as my next rig. I hope to order today.

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    frodi said:
    No, this is what I am putting together as my next rig. I hope to order today.

    Oh snap! Well, when you have D|S installed, if you could run the test I suggested it would give me an idea of what performance boost I can expect compared to my current i7 875K.

    The test render took my system 7 minutes and 35 seconds to do the complete render at the settings I specified.

    I had to reduce the file size for the post, so here it is at 90% of original. Not the best quality render, but it gives a baseline for performance comparisons.

    I have to wait 5 - 6 months before I can get my new system. DRAT!

    GFXrendertest1.jpg
    1512 x 945 - 654K
  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Nice render, 7min 35sec is pretty good. My present setup renders really slow. So hope to see a big improvement with the new outfit.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I have just ordered the Wacom Intuos5. I did buy one last month but had to send it back as it crashed my pc multiple times. I hope the new setup will support it, I am lost without my wacom tablet. I had a wacom graphire for 14 yrs and it never even hiccupped. But now I cannot get another working driver for it. No longer supported as it is so old.

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 8,590
    edited December 1969

    I just bought the bamboo

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hi Frank, is it good?

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    frodi said:
    No, this is what I am putting together as my next rig. I hope to order today.

    I just checked a CPU reference chart and adjusted the results for overclocking on the i7 875K and the i7 3930K. I think I will save myself a bundle and do what you have done.

    CPU Rating Price
    Intel Core i7 K 875 @ 3.475 GHz 6616 429.99
    Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.52 GHz 13285 559.99

    My current i7 is overclocked by 18.6%. Overclocking the 3930K by only 10% results in precisely double the CPU performance. Since the renders are CPU dependent, this should translate into a 50% time savings when doing the same render. That is to say, a 8 minute render with my current system should take 4 minutes with the 3930K - all other attributes being equal.

    As I have some renders that take 4, 6 or even 8 hours to process, the "half the time" would be a huge performance boost.

    Looks like you picked a winner! Let me know if my theoretical performance matches real world performance by doing my test render.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Just ordered the new rig. Now I'll have to wait..........

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    frodi said:
    Just ordered the new rig. Now I'll have to wait..........

    Frodi, did you get it yet?

    If so, do you need a new neighbor? :-)

    Please let me know when you get it setup and can do the sample render I had done previously.

    Thanks!

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Yes I have it. Am presently setting it up. All a bit complicated, but am getting there.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I did a very quick render, it took 1min 22sec.

    fiery_genesis.jpg
    618 x 710 - 207K
  • aaron1716aaron1716 Posts: 1
    edited December 1969

    Frodi i think he meant render at the same resolution as his picture the reason why you rendered so fast because the resolution was a lot smaller.

    Also I'm making a computer aswell i just need a few more parts and then it can be built would this parts be good for Daz studio or will it take a long time to render?

    Processor: Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4GHz
    Chipset: Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Socket 1155
    Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz Ram
    SSD; 120GB
    HDD: 1TB
    Graphics: EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2048MB GDDR5
    Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 64Bit

  • prixatprixat Posts: 608
    edited December 2012

    Best Quality (ie, 4)
    Default Shader
    Pixels = 1680 x 1050
    Bucket size = 64
    Max Ray Trace Depth = 12
    Pixel Samples (x) = 12
    Pixel Samples (y) = 12
    Shadow Samples = 10


    Use the program for any length of time and the 'default' settings are long forgotten! :)

    If you allow it, I suggest we modify these slightly:

    ray depth = 3
    pixel samples = 4x4
    shadow samples = 8

    bucket size is tailored to your hardware, so set that as needed.

    Crucially the shading rate has not been specified, lets keep that at 1.

    Post edited by prixat on
  • texjonestexjones Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    So in order to do reallyuse DAz to its full possibility I need to seriously upgrade to a better computer. Honestly, I've had this one for 2 years now and I never did really like it. It's pretty weak compared to my old XP. Which is really surprising since this is an HP as well the XP. This one has a hard time with just my Illustrator program. Thankfully, Windows finally did the Service Pack 1 which helped Illustrator but I still can't move too fast for the computer to keep or else it will crash, my XP never did crash as much I did with it. If got my XP seriously upgraded with more memory and a better graphics card I woder if that would make a differnece. Or else it's just that Daz can not handle too many items in a scene. As I have said once before. FOr over a month I've been TRYING to build a simple layout scene and it gets 'heavy' fast. Maybe I'm just pushing Daz and my computer too much. Neither can do what I have in mind for animation without a fight. So i have to break the scene up into pieces, I guess and do a little at a time. Then put it all together. I want to show a truck rolling down the highway coming into town. So I guess I have to give up and do a part at a time then put edit it in Movie Maker.

    MuscleShores_City_Limits.jpg
    600 x 450 - 120K
  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    aaron1716, sounds good to me.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    Hi Korvan and Prixat. I used Prixat suggestions. These are the settings I used for the render. Original size same as Korvat's. Picture reduced to 90%. Rendertime: Bucket size 16 = 4min-32 secs.
    Rendertime using Bucketsize 64= 4min-54 secs.

    Best Quality (ie, 4)
    Default Shader
    Pixels = 1680 x 1050
    Bucket size = 16
    Max Ray Trace Depth = 3
    Pixel Samples (x) = 4
    Pixel Samples (y) = 4
    Shadow Samples = 8

    (I generally don't use a large bucketsize, usually only 2 or 4.)

    fiery_genesis.jpg
    1512 x 945 - 686K
    Post edited by frodi on
  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    And another thing: Corel Painter X, Photoshop 5.5 and other apps which ran fine on Vista 32 bit 4GB-RAM, do not run on Windows7 64 bit 16 GB-Ram. So I am having a BIG problem here. I know I can remove 8 GB RAM, but what is the point of doing that?!!

  • KeryaKerya Posts: 7,186
    edited December 1969

    Frodi:
    PainterX and W7 64bit more than 8GB RAM
    http://painterfactory.com/forums/p/2534/13647.aspx#13647

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Kerya, I do have that fix. It worked great for a very old Corel Painter Classic, which had a message "out of memory". But the fix for Corel Painter X does not work on this machine. Mind you, I like that old little program much better than the later versions. It just is so strange that Painter X is not supported, I paid enough for it! I have not updated it, as Corel is so expensive, even for an update.

  • prixatprixat Posts: 608
    edited December 1969

    Making a 32bit program check the system for an 8GB limit is a very peculiar thing for Corel to do.

    ...but as a long time CorelDraw user I've come to expect that sort of thing from Corel!

    "xpmode" might be an answer, though it comes with such a low spec. graphics emulation, I doubt it qualifies for Painter's minimum requirements..

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hi prixat, xpmode does not work at all! It is there, but not available. I have used Painter X for about 8yrs, I have the boxed version. I am not about to buy a later product as Painter X suited me very well. The very oddest thing is that Painter Classic is very old, I got it in 1998. It was out of memory at one stage, but Geert de Peuter's marvellous intercept dll. fixed that. I thought I would have lost that and tried to use Geert's solution for 64bit machines. Strangely that was not accepted after using the cmd. However, after the failure of X, I just hit the Application Mode of Classic and up came a window telling me to use the intercept dll. So I stuck the intercept dll. in again and HEY PRESTO, it worked. Corel knows about the problem, I have seen that on the forum. They sent a message saying they were working on it, that was YEARS ago, and still no working solution. I am not going to recommend Corel to anyone again, I'll tell them to use another well-known product.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Just found where one can find the Windows program where Painter X worked ok. In my case Vista Home Premium. I selected the one with the correct updates. Got a nice little window telling me that Painter X was ready to be installed and guess what: it didn't work. What a joke.

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    aaron1716 said:

    Processor: Intel Core i5 3570K 3.4GHz
    Chipset: Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Socket 1155
    Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz Ram
    SSD; 120GB
    HDD: 1TB
    Graphics: EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2048MB GDDR5
    Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 64Bit

    Get an i7 CPU since they are multi-threaded. DAZ apparently has not tested D|S with anything more powerful than an i7 (4 cores/8 threads), but I can say from experience that the more threads you have, the better your performance will be. i5 CPU = 4 cores / 4 threads).

    The newer Xeon CPUs have 8 cores / 16 threads. I was interested in finding how fast D|S renders would be with one of those, but so far, nobody has submitted any data on if D|S can use all 16 threads.

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    frodi said:

    Rendertime: Bucket size 16 = 4min-32 secs.
    Rendertime using Bucketsize 64= 4min-54 secs.

    Best Quality (ie, 4)
    Default Shader
    Pixels = 1680 x 1050
    Bucket size = 16
    Max Ray Trace Depth = 3
    Pixel Samples (x) = 4
    Pixel Samples (y) = 4
    Shadow Samples = 8

    I re-rendered my baseline using your specs.

    Bucket size 16 = 7 min 6 sec

    Your render took 272 seconds
    My render took 426 seconds

    So your render was done in 64% of the time it took mine to process. Considering your CPU has 2 more cores and 4 more threads, that would indicate a 33% faster render time assuming the same core/thread efficiency and same clock speed. Since you have more efficient cores, and perhaps a bit faster clock, the 36% faster render time makes sense.

    Now we have a definitive answer, D|S supports at least 12 threads!

    Post edited by KorvisBlack on
  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Well, it seems I have also placed an order for a new computer. But not the one I had intended to get.

    Chatting with the wife, she persuaded me to get a mobile graphics workstation. I should get it in about 8 days.

    The system will have:

    Intel Mobile Core i7-3840QM 2.80 GHz (up to 3.80 ) 4 Cores /8 Threads
    8GB DDR3-1600
    4GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GTX 675MX 256-bit GPU/VRAM Clock 600MHz/1800MHz
    Seagate Momentus 750GB 7200rpm SATA 3Gb/s 16MB cache
    17.3-inch 1920x1080 Non-Glare LCD

    According to the CPU performance charts, the i7 3930K scores 12060 @ 3.5GHz.
    The i7 3840 scores 8839 @ 2.8GHZ. Overclocking it to 3.4GHz would result in a score of 10773.
    My current i7, overclocked to 3.5GHz, scores 6661.

    I know I can OC the CPU to 3.4GHz without an issue so it will give me a good performance boost compared to current system. Won't be quite as fast as the i7 3730K, but it will be a portable computer which is what I will need if I am going to do the work I plan on doing. Based on the baseline renders, my current system took 7 min 6 secs. Frodi's render took 4 min 32 secs. I would estimate that the new laptop should do the baseline render in 5 minutes 5 seconds.

    The graphics card in the notebook will certainly do OpenGL renders fast, so spot renders will be a breeze!

    The sad part is that I probably won't have D|S installed until AFTER the new year. Well, D|S, Maya, 3ds Max, Sculptris, 123D, Sketchup, Autocad, Adobe CS 6, and a few other graphic design programs and utilities also need to be installed. Might put World of Warcraft on it too, if I have room!

    We should keep this thread going, so other people will have a good idea of relative performance levels of computers.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Looks a nice setup Korvis, I never thought of a laptop! I have a lappie for business stuff only, so that I cannot mess anything really important up.

  • KorvisBlackKorvisBlack Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Well, the notebook is now setup.

    Did the test render with your settings and it took 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

    Not as fast as your rig, but still a whack faster than my desktop. Also, was unable to overclock the notebook, so it is running at 2.8Ghz.

    Dang manufacturer locked the BIOS settings.

    Drat! LOL.

    Now, if the BIOS were unlocked .... mwhahahahahaha! World domination would be mine! OK, maybe not.

  • PantherTOPantherTO Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    frodi said:
    Thanks for all that input guys, yes I can stretch to i7 and 16GB. The 8GB was chosen as I read somewhere that my 32bit apps would not work on 64 bit with 16GB. I looked at an SSD drive, but don't know how to use it.

    What do you think of Processor: Intel Core i7 3770K 3.5GHz
    Chipset: Intel P8Z77-M
    Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz Ram
    SSD: 60GB SSD

    And should I upsize the cooling to: 2x 120mm Red LED Fans, 1x 200mm Red Led Fan? Any suggestions?

    Or is that overdoing it?

    As this thread is almost a month old, this maybe a moot point. But will share my methodology.

    CPU: Always buy the best you can afford. Not a component you want to change frequently. Intel Core i7 3770K 3.5GHz, great choice has built-in HD4000 GPU, so if your budget is tight you can hold off on a Graphics Card. Then save for a killer graphics card.
    Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V several models do a compare on the ASUS site for features. Again not something you want to change frequently. The V on the model means built in video. It allow you to use the HD4000 GPU, and one of the features LucidLogix Virtu allows the hardware to manage the GPU and Graphics card, it you can use both.

    Power Supply: You will see power supplies listed a Bronze, Silver and Gold. Go Gold, and buy a bit more than you need. Talk to staff at a shop you trust, and buy with your future needs in mind. High-End Graphics cards draw a lot of power, so more is better.

    CASE: Again something you really don't want to change. I recommend the Thernaltake Level 10 GT (I have the Snow Edition). If size is an issue, go with the Level 10 GTS. Best thing about these is easy to change drives without opening the case, and FILTERS. Lots of Filters, keeps the inside dust free. My Level 10 GT keeps things dust free and cool.

    MEMORY: The Asus P8Z77-V can handle 4 x DIMM, Max. 32GB, DDR3 2600(O.C.)/2400(O.C.)/2200(O.C.)/2133(O.C.)/2000(O.C.)/1866(O.C.)/1800(O.C.)/1600/1333 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory
    Here is the trick, Windows 7 PRO can handle upto 192GB, while Win7 Premium can only handle 16GB. The thing to consider is the speed, pick the fastest memory you can afford that is for one of the O.C. speeds. I run 2133 and did test, big difference over running at 1600. As to amount, well I will say 16GB for sure. If you find a good deal on 32GB and have Win7 Pro, or Win8 then go for it. But if it comes down to $$, speed first.

    As to Fans, get the Level 10 GT case and you'll never have to worry about fans or dust.

    Now SSD. Many ways to use one. There is Intel Smart Response that uses a 64GB SSD as a cache for your primary HD. Or you can use an SSD for your boot drive. Then carefully configure to remap your user files to a large 2nd drive. ie Documents, Music, Pictures, Video would be on drive D:. Instructions can be found online somewhere. I would go with this option, get a BIG 2nd drive, put Windows on the SSD (they are expensive so a 128 or 256), then immediately re-map the user path to D:. Then only Windows and software will be on C:.

    Now Video Card. Depends on you budget. If you take the above advice, then you have very good built-in video from the on i7 HD4000 GPU. If you planned correctly in choosing a Power Supply you could put off buying a Video Card until you can save for a higher end one. I have an i7-2700k with HD3000 graphics, and it does me fine. Had it since Feb'11. Will be watching sales after Xmas for video cards. When I say save, you could get a good mid-range GeFore GTX 660 for $230-$340 (local prices) depending on memory/speed. While higher end cards like GeForce GTX 690 can run over $1000. If you can live with the on CPU HD4000 graphics, you could save for that higher end Video Card. One of the few part you can defer, so you finish with the best.

  • frodifrodi Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    This is what I ended up with Panther:


    OS Windows: 7 Home Premium 64 bit
    CPU: 3.20 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3930K
    Motherboard Board: ASUS P9X79 PRO Rev 1.xx
    Memory: 16.0 GB
    Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB
    Sound Card: NVIDIA High Definition Audio
    Monitor: CMO CMC 22 W
    Case: Coolermaster HAF XM Case with Window
    Cooling: Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO CPU Cooler
    Hard Drives: ATA SanDisk SDSSDX12 SCSI Disk Device (120.03 GB)
    ATA ST2000DM001-1CH1 SCSI Disk Device (2000.40 GB)

  • prixatprixat Posts: 608
    edited December 1969

    My time with the test scene on an AMD X6 1055t, win7-64, 8GB is 11m 34s.
    ...taking out the uberenvironment (occlusion and directional shadows) and using point cloud occlusion about 2m 40s

    switching to ray traced shadows and full GI with Uberenvironment about 47 minutes :cheese:
    ...taking out the uberenvironment and using point cloud occlusion about 7m 40s

Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel