What CPU to buy for DAZ3D, 1800x, TR 1950x, i7 5960X, i7 9600K
j1039564
Posts: 19
I work with big scenes with a ton of props and stuff in them.
The lagg is insane, computer grinds to a halt.
I'm going to upgrade.
What CPU should I buy?
I want to get less lagg when working around in the scene, and if possible, I'd like to use it to slightly boost the render times. But scene lagg is most important!
I have been thinking about this CPUs
Intel:
i7 5960X 3.0 GHz 20MB 8 Cores
i7 6900K 3,2 GHz 20MB 8 Cores
AMD:
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 3.4 GHz 40MB 16 Cores
Ryzen 7 1800X 4.0 GHz 20MB 8 Cores
All processors have some kind of hyper threading so doubble the amount of cores above.
The Ryzen seems to be best, with a ton of cores. Will DAZ3D be able to use all those cores when working with the scene? Or will it only use like 4 cores like most applications?
Will the Intel be stronger due to better optimizations or something?
Can AMD Ryzen render Iray or is that locked to Intel?
Will these above make any good difference from a more "normal" CPU like i7 6700K 4.0 GHz 8MB 4 Cores when working with the scene?
Thanks for any reply!:)
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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I can't answer all of your questions because I'm only vaguely familiar with the new AMD processors, but I can say that Daz3D definitely uses all cores, so on my CPU usage graphs, all 16 threads are at 100% during rendering (i7 5960X).
If you're going to use Iray, then the GPU is more of a speed factor.
More cores will not help with "lagg when working around in the scene".
Daz Studio use only one core when working with the scene,
so you need the fastest CPU per core, to make any difference.
May be storing the scene and all Daz libraries on the fast SSD (like NVMe) will help a little
if your scenes use a lot of items in them.
Only during rendering all cores or GPUs will be used.
For speed up the iray rendering, you need the best Nvidia card, you can afford.
All existing CPUs are far behind the speed of GPUs while rendering.
As Artini said, a powerful CPU doesn't necessarily mean you'll get better performance. A powerful GPU and maybe an SSD might get you a lot more performance. And if you're doing Iray, a GPU is vastly faster than CPU rendering.
In fact, I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the new processors, when in fact there is only a narrow range of applications that actually make use of multiple cores. Stuff like video editing (depending on the application) and some others MIGHT benefit, but there are no guarantees. It depends on how the app is written and whether the task is suited to parallel processing, or maybe it has to be done in serial.
People tend to assume "newer and faster is better", when in fact it depends a lot on a number of factors.
Regarding "lag when working on a scene", do you mean with the 3D viewport set to Iray? If so, there are some simple preference settings that can help speed that up immensely. And of course a GPU is the primary factor for anything related to Iray.
I have a Ryzen 5 1600, and the only difference I found in Daz was the Iray preview viewport. With my AMD FX-8120 it took about 30 seconds to refresh, with the1600 it is almost instantaneous. My GPU is only an EVGA 1050ti sc, so it is not like I'm using a really fast video card.
Remember there is also the Threadripper 1900x being released today, but I haven't seen any reviews yet. Odd, I'd expect some today as I imagine reviewers probably had their hands on them in advance, but NDAs prevent them from writing about them until launch. Today I hope.
There is a thread about mega core CPUs here:
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/184411/will-new-mega-core-cpus-help-with-daz-studio#latest
Loading a scene seems to use all the cores, but not nearly all of my 4+ GHz i 6700 CPU. I suspect the delay I see is the time to get the data through the CPU fed to RAM. Also many of the operations listed from the OP are single threaded according to Richard Haseltine.
It's really a head scratcher, because according to perf monitors the SSD my content sits on isn't doing much, the CPU isn't doing much, but I'm waiting. I do see memory slowly climb (time to take everything fed into RAM the delay?)
I am looking hard at Threadripper. The 1900x may be the ticket for me, as it sounds like going overkill on cores will not help. Also, the 1900x is using a single die, so it shouldn't have the extra memory latency with the 1920x and 1950x introduced with the memory connected to the 2nd die with the other cores. (For those not familiar, the Threadripper has a gaming mode, disabling one of the dies and changing the memory architecture to first ues the "local" connected memory for less latency. For apps that rely on low memory latency this is often faster.) Why the 1900x and not a regular Ryzen? 64 PCI lanes & faster quad channel DDR 4 memory that can be fed faster. I have 2 cards I render with, those will run at 16x, and I can even add a third to run my desktop to multitask keeping my render cards at 16x while that card is 8x. Each M2 memory "disk" can use 4 lanes as well. In short, all the IO lanes for a Threadripper system sounds great from a performance standpoint.
Keep in mind that "new" and "more" and "faster" doesn't necessarily equate to "better" from a performance perspective. It seems like the stars that have to line up for it to matter include the following
I'm sure there's more, but you get the point. There's a huge amount of "it depends" in all of this techology. Yeah, that ruins the fun and excitement, but it is what it is.
Get the Threadripper if you use your PC for anything other than playing. Applications that will make full use or your threads:
1. CPU rendering apps
2. Compressions, decompression, and encoding apps
3. Many video editing processes
4. Scientific and Engineering simulations
5. Special FX apps and plugins
6. Any professional math or design based apps.
7. Server apps
Get the Threadripper if you want the most bang for your dollar:
AMD's flagship chip trounces Intel's at the same price point (16 core @3.4ghz with 64 lanes to 10 [email protected] with 44 lanes). Even the second best Threadripper beats Intel's flagship in the numbers. Of course, everything isn't about numbers. Many apps are optimized for Intel hardware at this time, but I expect that to change. At any rate, with AMD you are getting more silicon for your dollar.
I see no reason at this point to get an Intel chip unless you are seriously into gaming (i7 and i9 still rock in gaming) or are seriously into cpu rendering and have a fatter budget (at which point, I would direct you to dual xeons) If you are planning to upgrade your cpu anyways and you only do Daz Studio, I don't see the logic of buying Intel.
If you are getting viewport lag it may be worth checking the setting for Display Optimisation in Edit>Preferences>Interface tab. If it's set to None (the default) try it on Better or Best.
1. CPU rendering apps (I don't have any, nor do I want any since they are so slow compared to GPU rendering)
2. Compressions, decompression, and encoding apps (can't recall the last time I used any other than a quick 7-zip)
3. Many video editing processes (yeah, I do that occasionally, but my present free app doesn't make significant use of the additional cores)
4. Scientific and Engineering simulations (uh, no...and that depends, like I say, on the application and the task you're doing)
5. Special FX apps and plugins (nope...and that depends, like I say, on the application and the task you're doing)
6. Any professional math or design based apps. (nope...and that depends, like I say, on the application and the task you're doing)
7. Server apps (who here does server apps?)
Like I said, it depends on what you're doing and the apps you're using. Blanket statements are misplaced when it comes to technology.
Well, I see slowdowns that I mentioned in my threads and some others, but the big question is what causes them? CPU use isn't 100%, is it core speed? Memory latency? Memory speed? We can address the issue specifically if we know where the bottleneck is.
For example, loading a scene with a bunch of Genesis 3 figures, and we know it has to process many morphs to load the figure. My CPU or any core/thread doesn't appear to be at 100%, but the slowdown is somewhere.
A new system with faster everything is the famous shotgun approach.
Have you monitored everything in the chain? Have you looked at SSD/Hard drive usage? If it's at 100% maybe that's the bottleneck.
1. You don't do CPU rendering? Get a TR. It's cheaper. Unless you like paying more for less
2. You don't do decompression? Get a TR. Its cheaper
3. Your present app doesn't use more cores? Get a TR anyways. It's cheaper than the i7 and i9 options.
If your in an engineering simulation app, you are doing engineering simulations
. All scientific and engineering simulation apps use all cpu cores. Can you name an exception? I don't think so.
. Please cite a pro 3dFX app or plugin that isn't multithreaded.
. Do you know a cpu renderer that doesn't use all your cores?
If you are in a 3D FX app, you are doing 3D FX
If you are in a rendering app, you are rendering
So my "Blanket" statement stands (even though it wasn't blanket). If you are buying a new PC and your budget is for an i7 or i9 Intel processor, unless you are heavy into gaming, you will always be better served with a TR. The AMD option will give you more silicon for less money. I don't see the logic of spending more to get less (with the exception of gaming where you get slightly more.) This may change tomorrow, but today that is the state of technology.
I have. Barely any activity on the SSD. Looked again. I hardly see any reads, I see a lot of write (same as OS drive). Maybe it going to page file, dunno why if it is I have 48 GB, says I'm only using about 12.
Threadripper costs like $550-$1,000. And yesterday I was watching Mr. TechDeals talk about his 4k video encoding in Adobe Premiere Pro (H. 264 and the newer H.265 encoding). And he made the point that Adobe Creative Cloud does make use of additional cores, but not nearly what you'd want or expect. And he's now using a Ryzen 7 1700, and made the point that when he got the Ryzen 7, doing stuff in Premiere Pro became very smooth. So if why upgrade to Threadripper? Smooth is smooth, and you can't get much smoother. And this guy does TONS of 4k video work. And he also said that Premiere Pro loves FAST cores rather than number of cores. So it really depends.
My only point is each person should do an analysis of cost/performance and not just buy stuff because it's newer and faster and bigger.
I think you've lost track of this thread. Take a look up at the top of this page for a moment. Do you see the title? Did you read the OP's comments? He wants to choose between high end Intel chips and Threadrippers. Are your answers serving his question or are you just trying to promote your own thinking? In answer to the original poster's question, in Daz Studio there is no reason to spend more money for an Intel chip over an AMD.
Or maybe you can justify to him why he should spend more for the Intel chip?
btw.... your ryzen and a gtx1700 vs a TR and a gtx1700 in iRay..... who is faster?
I don't care what he buys. I'm only saying that he should analyze his needs and then decide. To your point, its not just about Studio, it's about all the apps you use.
So decide after careful analysis. Seems obvious to me...
I use 1080Ti to render, gonna buy at least one more to get even more power for the rendering.
I run data from SSD harddrives and will max my RAM for the motherboard at over 100GB on high frequenzy.
I'm supprised, almost chocked to hear that DAZ3D only utilize 1 core to work with the scene, that explains the insane lagg.
Even if I work with wireframe viwe in the big scenes the lagg is extreme.
I use all those, and Iray as well sometimes. But when I work with for example wireframe I don't want lagg, or at least not so the computer is unuseable to work with.
But I guess this is not a question about hardware any longer, it's a question if DAZ3D will start to utilize the hardware, do some multithreading!
1 core, omg!!
I strongly recommend you check the display settings like Mr. Haseltine mentioned. That made a VAST difference on my machine. VAST. It even made me question whether I wanted to proceed with buying a second GPU.
Keep in mind Daz Studio is not a professional powerhouse 3D app. It is a free application designed for hobbyists. Don't expect too much. There comes a point where someone who is serious about their work will start looking at other options. Daz is good at what it does, but it is not designed for a production environment.
This is the response I got in Iray 3D View (with GTX 1070) using some of the display preferences Mr. Haseltine mentioned. Prior to that it was slower than molasses on a cold day in January in the Arctic.
I just found out, using "Cartoon shaded" in viewport, give a MASSIVE speed boost, scenes that lagged like the end of the world is almost silky smooth now.
I mean movements of camera for example lagged with a change update every other second.
Wireframe, litwireframe, texture shaded and all those others lagg except Boundingbox of course but with Cartoon shaded, you get a decent view and it's almost silky smooth! Magic!
Thank you, Richard. I didn't know about that setting and it was set to "None".
Although it's not being a problem so far, I can see a big difference upon setting it to "Best". With Stonemason's Urban Future 5 and a couple of Genesis 8 figures loaded, the display looked a little laggy. I've just done a couple of rough tests moving about in the scene with Texture Shaded view. With the Display Optimisation set to "None" it was giving between 10-16 fps. Upon changing the setting to "Best" I am getting between 25-40fps.
BTW, for anyone interested in an intelligent discussion of some considerations in choosing CPU's, techdeals put out a Skylake-X vs. Threadripper video yesterday where he talks about his particular requirements, and how the various high-end processors fit in. Skip ahead to about 20 minutes into the video for the interesting part. He talks about some apps favoring clock speed and others favoring multiple CPU cores.
I think setting the Response Threshold in Iray Draw Settings to 5000 made a huge difference too....
As I move around a scene, Daz Studio is definitely using more than one core. It's not utilising any core to the full as it does during rendering, but there is a definite load on several cores. Just out of curiosity, I cleared the monitor history and did three readings, clearing the monitor history before each one:
1 - Core usage without DS loaded.
2) Loading a scene into DS.
3) Moving around the scene - first peaks are moving around the buildings, the later peaks are moving a figure around the scene.
I've seen similar comments about scene loading in many threads recently, so I thought I would throw out what I know about it. People seem to often note that "all" of their cores/threads are being used when loading a scene, but usage is very "low". First, yes, all of your cores/threads are being used, but it is doubtful that the process is multithreaded. Since the introduction of multiprocessor support in Windows, the OS automatically implements load balancing on multiprocessor, or multi-core systems. My guess is what you are seeing when opening a scene and DS is using "all the cores" is simply Windows performing load balancing across all of the cores, which does help the performance of non-multi-threaded applications/processes a bit, but is not the same as true multithreading. Since I have no knowledge of how DS is actually programmed, this is all conjecture on my part, but when I open a scene with DS, it looks to me like the use of all the cores is simple OS load balancing, not multithreading. Due to the nature of the data I/O when opening a scene, it also makes sense that the process is not multithreaded, because it really isn't a process that could be easily optimized for multithreading (and in fact, multithreading it might actually cause the whole process to be slower due to timing inefficiencies).
To easily verify that this whole load balancing to use all cores on a single threaded process is real, just open a non-multithreaded application, or do some processing with a single threaded application, and watch your processor/core activity. it will be spread out across all the cores, but if you use something like Task Manager you will see that seldom does the usage % go over the single core value (it will occasionally, depending on the app, and what else the computer/os is doing at the time). So, just because something is "using" all of your cores, it doesn't mean it is multithreaded unless it is using nearly 100% of all your cores (or 100% of the cores the application allowes).
To answer the OP, for my uses, I would go with a threadripper. even without using CPU rendering, the additional PCIe lanes make it a good choice for multiple GPU setups. Plus the cost vs the intel is outstanding. Of course I use a lot of other things that are CPU multithreaded, so the threadripper would be helpful there. Keep in mind that a threadripper may make using 3Delight more attractive, and would also be quite useful for other 3D applications like Carrara, Blender, and Vue.
Mr. Haseltine thanks for the advice, forgot to mention that in my earlier post. It helps a lot!
Also thanks to everyone else who replied, very good replies here!
I saw a video about mass multicore vs 4-6core for video editing tasks.
I guess similar could perhaps apply to rendering, as he say in the video about cuda operations that in his tasks got slowed down by mass multicore.
Just leaving it here, might be interesting for someone.