Building a new PC. Do threads matter?
elbiggus
Posts: 24
I'm currently making tentative specs for building a new PC later in the year (I'm largely waiting to see what nVidia will be offering with the 3xxx series to see if I should hold off and wait for them), and my impulse is usually to stick with Intel CPUs but I'm wondering whether opting for one of AMDs "let's see how many cores we can throw in a CPU" offerings is a better bet. In an ideal world I try and keep scenes small enough to fit on the GPU, but would the extra threads help elsewhere? There are definitely a lot of CPU-bound things going on in the program (things like loading a character preset onto an existing character in the scene can be painfully slow (close to 5 minutes!) due to the daft number of morphs I have installed), but other than when it falls back to CPU rendering I've not noticed Daz doing a lot of multithreading so my gut tells me single core performance is more important? The only benchmarks I can find are all rendering-based and there don't seem to be any focussing on how responsive the rest of the process is.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I admit that I'm an old-timer, but I was designing real-time, multi-tasking, multi-processing operating systems before many of you were born. My understanding of the modern concept of "thread" is contained in the Wikipedia description https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_%28computer_science%29 but from that I emphasize the the phrase "... simultaneously (or pseudo-simultaneously) running tasks". It is my understanding that a CPU with let's say 6 cores and is advertised as handling 12 threads is a machine that has 6 independent sub-CPUs on the chip and each CPU can run a thread "simultaneously" with the other 5 CPUs. However, to speed things up a bit, each CPU is said capable of handling two threads because it has two complete sets of program registers that hold the process execution status of two separate threads of execution that can be switched between quickly instead of having to save the register contents and then load the other thread's saved register contents to pick up where it left off which is sort of "pseudo-simultaneous".
Believe it or not, back in the early '80s I was tasked with writing a multi-tasking operating system for an industrial real-time, robot controlling, computer that had 16 sets of identical registers, that could be switched between with one instruction to swap execution between 16 separate threads. It was multi-tasking, not multi-processing, but it's not difficult to see a similar extensibility to multiple processors.
Granted I may be ancient and all fuzzy in the head and not know the proper modern terminology but the concept of multiple simultaneousy operating CPUs each handling multiple sets of nearly instantaneous (i.e. pseudo-simultaneous) sets of process registers maintaining the execution state of separate threads seems clear. The reality of what's actually going on at the chip level may be more complicated but I hope this description helps clear up the distinction between cores and threads.
My personal best computer at home here (which I proudly assembled myself just a few weeks ago
) has an Intel-i5-8600 with 6 cores but only handles 6 threads. There are other i5-8xxx models that have 6 cores and handle 12 threads but I cheapened out and bought the chip that left out the 6 extra sets of registers in favor of getting the on-chip graphics circuits instead. So many options... oh, my aching head. Granted my new machine is not the fastest kid on the block but it was affordable, far better that what I had, I'm happy, and I have no desire to be a digital gearhead anymore. I turned in my Guru license 20 years ago.
For day to day stuff, probably clock speed is better.. but personally, it's getting a decent mix of speed and cores if you want to build an all-rounder.
I know the difference between cores and threads, but to simplify my question, would a superfast 4-core CPU be more useful in Daz3D than a slightly slower, say, 8-core? As far as I can tell Daz3D doesn't make use of much multithreaded code (whether they're running on actual cores, or virtual cores), but I might be missing something.
Yes.
How much will depend on your requirements, workflow, Studio (presuming that is what you primarily use for 3D and rendering) - and how you intend or might use in the future.
Studio has limited use of threads outside of rendering; 3Delight uses CPU, so definitely worthwhile there.
Iray, when it drops to CPU benefits from threads; although CPU threads are far more efficient at rendering in relation to to nvidia, nvidia adds far more of 'em, but when it does drop to CPU, more threads matter. I have a Threadripper 1950x and it isn't that much slower than my 980ti - and it drops to CPU often.
You can take time reducing texture sizes, and other ways of making a scene fit on the card you get, but that is dull and takes some time - how long varies; I do do it, but I usually prefer to let the CPU take the strain.
Multitasking - you don't just use Studio but many other applications, and you may want/need to allocate threads to specific software - the more you have might help.
Personally, I'd reccommend AMD over Intel, you'll get more for less.
Without multiple CPU core and also though CPU logical core threads then your computer could only do things sequentially. It's a fake logical CPU sure but it still adds to the ability to run child processes in parallel.
No, I just switched from a 4 core 8 thread CPU to a 8 core 16 thread CPU and it's more than 4 extra CPU cores faster when you are talking CPU of nearly the same generation. Also, most CPU clocks are throttled most of the time too. And most of your waiting will be for disk and network I/O bottlenecks, not CPU compute bottlenecks.
I've got a 1950X and to be honest, it didn't seem any faster navigating around Daz than the machine in replaced. I think the PCIe NVM SSDs made more of a difference than the CPU. Try keeping an eye on the Task Manager whiel doing stuff in Daz. Does the CPU utilization ever approach 100% times the number of threads your CPU has? If not, then more cores isn't really going to help you because Daz is not even using the ones you've already got.
But if I recall, dForce can use one GPU, and IRay will use all you've got, so if those two things are the majority of your time spent, for the same budget I would sacrifice CPU cores to get a better GPU. We worked it out on another thread here on these forums: a single 2080ti is a real world 6 times faster than a 1950X at IRay.
There is no such thing as a superfast 4 core compared to any of the current generation 8 cores.
DS is mostly singlethread so if all you do is DS then get an Intel CPU like the 9600k but if you do essentially any thing else get the higher core count AMD chip at the same price point. As a matter of fact I'd get the current AMD chips unless you're a competitive gamer. Ds is updating to the current Qt which has much improved multithreading capabilities. I wouldn't be shocked if the upcoming DS or a later version doesn't start being more multithreaded.
Daz Studio itself is single threaded, so it will benefit from faster single cores. You could even use a Pentium i3 for Daz if you really wanted to. However, if you use anything besides Daz Studio at all, most likely you will get some benefit from extra threads and cores. Plus if by chance you ever do any CPU rendering, then the extra cores and threads WILL make a huge difference (though generally will not be nearly as fast as a decent GPU). Of course if you 3DL or any CPU dedicated render engine then more fast threads is always better. And extra threads allow for more multitasking abilities. It all depends on just what are using your PC for.
Intel still holds the crown for single threaded performance at this time. BUT AMD's current line of Ryzen 3000 is right there knocking on the door with its own single threaded performance. Then if you look at multithreaded performance, AMD generally blows the doors off of anything Intel offers at a similar price. So if you do use any software that takes advantage of more threads, it will likely run better. IMO I feel AMD offers more balance and value in this regard, you can get both very good single threaded while getting the best multithreaded performance at the same time.
But don't take my word for it. You can find all kinds of CPU benchmarking that cover this and compare the chips you are interested in against each other. Sadly Daz Studio is too niche for most benchmarking sites, but you can get an idea. GamersNexus does a good job benching things, and they usually explain what software benefits more from single threads or multithreads so you can understand WHY the benchmarks turn out the way they do. While they have a focus on games, they bench other different software and typically with a wide range of chips. If you don't like videos, you can find a link to their site that lays the review out in text and graphs. This particular review is for the big 16 core 3950X, and since that was the last big release it has a lot of other chips in its testing data.
For me personally, the real advantage for AMD is not just how many threads they offer. It is how they support a socket. We have had 3 full generations of Ryzen that all support AM4. The next generation will probably move to AM5, and odds are very good that AMD will support the new AM5 for several years just like they did with AM4. This means if you do go with AM5, you can probably upgrade again later. OR you could try out Ryzen 2000 for dirt cheap and move to a Ryzen 3000 later on as the Ryzen 2000 series is stupid cheap now. Meanwhile with Intel you are pretty much stuck with the series you bought into. Like me, I have no real upgrade path on my i5 (the only option is the one i7 that sits above the i5 and it would be silly). Also now that AMD is on 7nm processing they have a serious advantage on energy efficiency. They are getting their performance while also using less power than Intel is right now. And less power equals less heat. I fully plan on going with AMD when I finally get to build my new machine. I was totally on board with the 12 core Ryzen 3900X, however life got in the way. That delayed me and now I am looking for the next generation Ryzen instead because it will be on AM5.