Digital Art Zone

So, the hyper-threading technology does not work well in Bryce application. In that case, why Intel did not create a processor with real multi-cores (8-16-32 ...)? We pay real money for virtual processors, and we do not get a large increase in productivity for our 3D creative works. It’s very sad. :-(

Poser-User - 21 October 2012 08:53 AM

So, the hyper-threading technology does not work well in Bryce application. In that case, why Microsoft did not create a processor with real multi-cores (8-16-32 ...)? We pay real money for virtual processors, and we do not get a large increase in productivity for our 3D creative works. It’s very sad. :-(

I would say it works as well as can be expected given the resources available.  Rendering is one of the few 100% processor intensive applications that I can think of.  Games for example use around 80%, this leaves some headroom for other applications to take advantage of virtual cores and run processors in the background.

First of all, the operating system must support multi-core systems. If the OS does not support multi-core processor, then one core run all processes, and other cores be resting. I’ve heard, that “a cloud technologies” will produce Render almost in real time. I very much hope that this will happen soon.

David pretty much described the reason why hyper threading “only” adds about 15%. This is not Bryce specific. A virtual core is just not a real one. If you have more than one machine, you can always use Lightning and render over your home network. But here again, using two identical machines will not cut the render time in half, it will take a bit more than that, because there is the overhead of sending work out to the other machine and collect the result. I seldom use High priority on my i7 920 (I can comfortably visit the forums with the 15%) but always on my i3, which has 4 cores as well but cannot hyper-thread.