Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Got it replied
...got it, thanks.
Oof, ordered a watercooling setup for this too. Apparently the Titan X Pascals have a lot of room to clock higher over the stock cooler. It's gonna get warm in here!
...my take on overclocking:
The flame that burns twice as bright burns lasts half as long
--Lao Tsu
Yeah, me too. I know it's not generally true, but still....
But more important to me is if you overclock your CPU from 3GHz to 3.8GHz, does it really make a noticeable difference in stuff you actually do every day? Same with the GPU. People are so focused on squeezing the last 0.2% improvement from their equipment, but does it really matter? I haven't really seen results that directly deal with Iray and so on. I suppose if you're a gamer and a few FPS matters maybe it's a big deal. But the cost and worry of splitting a water pipe would be more than it's worth for me.
Yes. That's a potential 25% increase, not at all unnoticeable. Think of it backwards, would you underclock your CPU from 3 GHz to 2.6 GHz?
I think you're missing the point a bit. When you say "potential" that can imply anything. What matters is the software you use, whether the CPU speed affects performance in that application, and whether the application is also affected by CPU speed primarily (as opposed to # of threads). Same thing with the GPU. If most of your apps primarily take advantage of the GPU, not CPU, then you can overclock the CPU all you want and maybe notice not much difference. Those are big "ifs". And that's my question. Again, I'm trying to cut thru the broad generalizations and see if it ACTUALLY makes a difference.
Has anyone measured D|S or other apps that many here might use to see the actual difference it makes?
So, would you purposely underclock your CPU, or not? What is often missed in these discussions is that if the only difference between two chips is the base clock speed, they're very often manufactured exactly the same way. The ones set with a high clock speed out of the factory are just the best of the best. The ones set to lower clock speeds can generally match them when overclocked, and it's not unusual for them to even match the overclock speeds of the "good" chip. For example, there's basically no difference between a Ryzen 1700 and a 1700X. Just the 1700s are slightly less perfect.
Any app that relies heavily on the CPU will usually see increased performance from increased CPU speed because the CPU is performing more actions faster. Only if there's a bottleneck somewhere does it not matter. What would you like to see tested? I can run some Terragen renders.
My point is that if you intentionally overclock it generally means higher temperatures and more cost for buying and installing expensive coolers. If you intentionally underclock it costs nothing but performance. Which is stupid.
So does D|S perform significantly better if you increase your clock speed from 3GHz to 4GHz for example and buy better cooling? Maybe there's a small improvement in loading times, maybe not depending on other stuff (HD, etc.). From what I've seen of benchmark videos a lot of video games (which I assume many here use), are primarily GPU-oriented. Though I seem to recall GTA V is more CPU-oriented.
For me the big one is D|S, and I haven't seen anything regarding performance with overclocked CPU's.
...I just leave mine at the factory setting. this way I don't need more expensive liquid cooling as the aftermarket cooler I currently have does just fine along the "extra breathing" room having a large case offers and a large cooling fan on the left panel instead of one of those dopey windows.
Not sure after five years how my old CPU would be doing running above it's recommended operating parameters.
If you're using CPU processing for Iray, sure. Otherwise probably not too much gained there. Threadripper is a bit different. It is so big and puts out so much heat you need an obnoxiously big air cooler to cool it. Like a lot of folks getting a Threadripper, I'm going to watercool it too. I happen to be getting a nice watercooling block & setup too (EKWB), may as well overclock it a little... I'm just aiming for the 4GHz factory boost.
Particularly with the Titan X Pascal, there is A LOT of room to clock it higher - the factory cooler doesn't tame it too well. It goes up to 84C pretty quick and throttles. From a few dudes that have watercooled it, they dropped temps down to the middle-upper 40C range, and run it at a far higher clock. Some dude showed a 70%-80% gain in FPS in games.
Watercooled Titan X benchmarks in Daz Studio? Hah. We're too small of a community. If I'm not a pioneer, I'll be one of the very few. I think Jack Tomalin or someone may be watercooling some Titans (not sure which). But I haven't seen him bother to do any benches or anything.
Scott, let me take a wild guess and say your main interest is more in the technology and specs than the actual performance increase right?
Yeah, the technology interests me too, but at the end of the day I have to be convinced that, on paper, I'm getting enough benefit in what I do for the cost. I sense, from what I've seen in the tech industry in general, there are a lot of people who automatically think "hey, if I overclock my CPU by 25% then my computer will be 25% faster". That just ain't the case in general, and it's a lot more complicated than that. But maybe that complication is explained after the first 4 minutes of tech videos
There will be a substancial increase with the water cooling. How much? The fact is it is very unlikely there is anyone that can or is willing to answer that question.
I either take it upon myself and do it, or sit back and keep wondering about it. I'mma gonna do it.
"Worth it" is subjective. With computers, it has never been a linear cost/performance curve. You want the top of the performance pile? It's gonna cost ya. And more than double to be in middle. Building rigs is fun, I'm sure it will be fun to build the watercooling rig to have the bestest performing Studio beast I can get. It's both. I want the best rig I can get and have fun getting there.
Gaming should be fun on it too.
If you clock a 1700 to the same speed as a 1700X they require the same cooling. And the 1700 is cheaper. The only reason for me not to get the 1700 and overclock is just not wanting to change settings.
...if I had overclocked my old i7 from teh beginning I'd probably be looking for a new CPU soon if not already.
More cores seems to be the better route for CPU rendering (which is one of the reasons big studios have warehouses full of networked render systems). This is why for now I am still considering a dual Broadwell Xeon setup for my next system. While yes, slower than GPU rendering, effectively there is no memory limit to work under except whatever is on the MB. Having over 10 times times the memory resources of a single Titan Xp (128 GB), which costs about the same as an Xp without water cooling, it pretty much ensures the process will not dump to a slower mode (in this case swap mode). Having 32 - 48 CPU threads will knock those day + render jobs down to a few hours and do so more accurately. I can live with that. Now if Daz and Nvidia work out Iray network rendering for Studio, then al the better as I can just build a render box and use my current system for scene creation thus not having to wait for a render job to complete before I can work on something new..
This is a feature of Reality/Lux that I always liked. It was just the glacial CPU render times in high quality mode and instability of R4.x that turned me off Yeah I the latest releases of Reality and Lux have the accelerated CPU mode, but that adds more bias into the process and reduces render quality.
A Threadripper 1950X with 32 processor threads at 3.4 GHz would definitely grant a noticeable improvement in render times over 8 cores on an old Nehalem i7 at 2.8 GHz without having to burn out the CPU. As Threadripper is still new, there are no cooling solutions specifically made for it that are available yet. The key word here is "yet". Other solutions may work but not as good as one that is specifically designed to be fully compatible with the larger CPU form factor.
Yep. They basically all have no problem hitting 4.0. You're not so much "overclocking" a 1700 as you are "not underclocking" an 1800X.
..haven't seen those at Newegg yet.
Overclocking Threadrippers? Now you guys are talking something! Personally, I wouldn't overclock with anything less than liquid cooling setup, but to get a 32 core chip up to 4gz?..... that would be an insane single cpu rig. In fact, it would be the only reason why I would go with a single. I had my heart set on building (having built) a dual Epyc box for rendering only. Until I saw the chip prices..... I couldn't justify it when I can put in two Xeon e5-2696's with 22 cores each for about a quarter of the price per chip. I could build two or three of those and have up to 132 cores and still underprice an Epyc station. That math is too hard to ignore.
Just did a quick search, here is the Noctua for Threadripper:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=13C-0005-00140
I bought my water block and other stuff directly from EKWB.
But even with 16 cores/32 threads it still is only 1/3 the speed of a 980 Ti, a generation behind of Nvidia cards. Unless you're rendering really big scenes, it's an expensive way to do it. I know you use Carrera too, so it comes down to deciding based on which apps you use the most.
If mostly Studio, I'd suggest tracking your mem usage with Studio on your biggest scenes to see how much you need. I was looking at 1080 Ti's, I used Nvidia Inspector, the 11 GB is tight but they fit.
It really depends on the amount of overclocking & your cooling. It's been a long time since I've overclocked (I don't consider factory overclocked vidya cards to be overclocking). I had chips that I overclocked for many years. Depends on a lot of things, mostly heat it's running at and how much voltage you pump through it. If you do a modest overclock keeping the temp. good with an oversized air cooler or water cooled & don't change the voltage it would probably last as long as stock clock with factory cooler.
...my CPU runs in the 60s to near 70C on a an average render job (big for some as that "average" is around 7 GB), that is sufficient for me. Overclocking would push that higher, requiring I purchase a more expensive liquid cooling system for a legacy CPU.
For GPU rendering I will not go with anything that won't handle at least 90% of my scenes. if on teh other hand I can cut a third off the render time with a Threadripper (or more with dual high core count Xeons), that would be significant as with CPU rendering I have the full physical memory resources of the system itself rather than having to work with a relatively small amount of VRAM in comparison.
That 980 TI would maybe handle 60% of my scenes at best so I'd still end up on the CPU a good part of the time anyway and thus, there would be little advantage overall. If Volta will involve a jump in VRAM, then I may reconsider, but most likely that will be for the Pro Quadro line first before anything else. Nvidia however will need to do something to counter AMD's HBM 2 Vega on the prosumer side if they want to keep carrying the market share they do.
...and yes I do have a fair amount invested in Carrara (for example, almost the entire library of Howie Farkes' sets). With Misty's fix We can now use G3 in Carrara as well which is perfect as I haven't seen the need to move on to G8. As to software use, I'm pretty much 65 Daz/35 Carrara right now.
When you say you can use Genesis in Carrara, does this mean Carrara uses the same technology as Daz Studio? Carrara automatically inserts JCM's when the characters move? Is using Genesis in Carrara just like using it in DS? That alone would be worth the price of the software.
....I believe it uses DSON like Poser. which is why it takes a while for a new Genesis figure to be useable.
DSON is the Daz Studio format - Carrara can import that, as long as unsupported features aren't used.
Maybe you don't understand what I mean. Genesis loses its soul when it leaves Daz Studio. I have attached two photos. One was rendered in Maya. The other in DS. Notice the difference in deformations where the calf meets under the thigh and where the thigh and hip converge. Daz Studio corrects the problems automatically. In Maya, I have to sculpt the correction manually. How does Carrara handle extreme bends?
I believe Maya loses the link between joint bends and morphs correcting for the bends; also, I'm not sure that the available routes to Maya don't lose the Dual quaternion skin binding in favour of the general model (though Maya itself supposrts that binding method).
Yeah, I know Maya loses the link. I was asking about Carrara. Does Carrara apply corrective morphs in the same way that DS does?