Loading...
> >

Recommendations for a rendering PC? (Iray)

1235

Comments

  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,766
    ebergerly said:

    By the way, speaking of CPU rendering with iray and back to the OP's question...

    I did my own tests, rendering a large iray scene solely with my Ryzen 7 1700 CPU with 8 cores/16 threads, and yes, it takes forever and locks up my machine. But also I happened to monitor my CPU temps during the 2 hour render, out of concern that maybe I too need some better cooling. 

    And with the CPU's 16 threads pegged at 100% for almost 2 hours, my CPU temps flattened at 60C in the first minute or so of the render, and never exceeded that value. I recall that AMD says the 1700 can run continuously at 75C, and it shuts down on thermal protection at 95C. Or something like that. So I was very relieved that even continuous CPU load for hours doesn't come close to even the continous temperature rating, and that's with the included Wraith Spire air/fan cooler. 

    And even if my computer room was 25F warmer (like 100F or something), I'd still be at the rated continous CPU temperature. So I doubt I'll be changing out my cooler for liquid or whatever. 

     

    I would be vey curious to know how fast your your Ryzen 1700 can get to 100 itterations on the Starter Essential Benchmark that is in the linked post.

    After loading the scene do the following

    1. Render Settings
    2. Editor tab
    3. Progressive Rendering
    4. Set Max Samples to 100
    5. Click Render and wait for it to start drawing itterations
    6. Cancel, and do not close the render window
    7. Render again and let it complete
    8. Bring up your log file and scroll to the bottom, there you will find the exact render time.
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    JamesJAB said:
    agent unawares said:
    kyoto kid said:
    Kevin Sanderson said:

    Jon, I've always heard and read that DAZ Studio/3Delight is unlimited cores on one machine. The studios that pay for the full version don't have that.

    ...that may be true for 3DL but Iray?

    Here's some data on render speed scaling with CPU. Looks like you'd start to level off with dual Xeons. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/NVIDIA-Iray-CPU-Scaling-786/

    There is a very big flaw in those tests.  When trying to decide on CPU scaling, you need to remove the GPU rendering completely from the equasion.
     

    I don't think there is a flaw in the tests.  That website is reknown for its thorough testing of hardware with 3d apps.  I think you misunderstand the purpose of the test.  The test is an answer to the question:  In iRay, how cost effective is a high core count workstation in lieu of a high powered graphics card?  This is a legitimate question for those who are looking to build a workstation around one particular application (in this case, iRay rendering).  Usually a high powered workstation will include dual Xeons in addition to a high end graphics card (or 3).  How much will the cpus benefit in a situation where the user will be exclusively iRay renderiing?  The tests results say that a dual xeon workstation used for this purpose is not cost effective.  The more graphics cards that are involved in the process, the less effect the cpu will have on render times.  If you read the conclusion to the article, you will understand why the tests were so effective.  They actually recommended a less expensive option than what may normally have been ordered.  They are a graphics workstation builder.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    JamesJAB said:
    ebergerly said:
    I dont understand why you guys are even considering CPU rendering. Unless you have an unusual number of CPUs its much slower than a GPU. And much worse it freezes your computer so you cant do anything.

    I was just making a point about how that article that was linked above was extremely flawed.

    I don't think it was, it clearly showed how well Iray actually handles multithreading (very well) and how much a decent GPU dwarfs a CPU.

    JamesJAB said:

    That may be a nice statement about the CPU adding speed on top of the GPU, but in practice adding a CPU or a slower GPU into the render cluster can actualy slow down the entire render.  (Probably because the fast rendereds are waiting around for the slow ones to complete an important operation)

    I am going to do some tests on this after my current render is finished, and see what adding a GPU actually does to CPU speed and vice-versa (EDIT: The difference is so negligible I'd probably have to do a hundred renders to get something statistically significant, and I'm not that curious). Regardless, I was just looking to see how render speed scaled with CPU threads, and the tests with the GPU still show that. I wasn't trying to get some kind of absolute CPU thread speed number.

    JamesJAB said:

    So, every time you double the number of CPU threads, your render time cuts to just over .5 of what the previous time was.  Theoreticaly if I had 4 of my processor, the 48 thread render speed would be around 17 seconds.  When that is scaled up to say 5000 itterations, you are looking at 15 min vs 28 min.  Even then this benchmark scene is only rendering a 400x520 image.  On a complicated scene that doesn't fit in your GPU RAM, 24 threads vs 48 threads could be the difference between a 4 day render and a 2 day render.

    Yes Iray seem to be very good with multithreading. There wasn't nearly the drop-off in efficiency that I expected.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    JamesJAB said:
    ebergerly said:

    By the way, speaking of CPU rendering with iray and back to the OP's question...

    I did my own tests, rendering a large iray scene solely with my Ryzen 7 1700 CPU with 8 cores/16 threads, and yes, it takes forever and locks up my machine. But also I happened to monitor my CPU temps during the 2 hour render, out of concern that maybe I too need some better cooling. 

    And with the CPU's 16 threads pegged at 100% for almost 2 hours, my CPU temps flattened at 60C in the first minute or so of the render, and never exceeded that value. I recall that AMD says the 1700 can run continuously at 75C, and it shuts down on thermal protection at 95C. Or something like that. So I was very relieved that even continuous CPU load for hours doesn't come close to even the continous temperature rating, and that's with the included Wraith Spire air/fan cooler. 

    And even if my computer room was 25F warmer (like 100F or something), I'd still be at the rated continous CPU temperature. So I doubt I'll be changing out my cooler for liquid or whatever. 

     

    I would be vey curious to know how fast your your Ryzen 1700 can get to 100 itterations on the Starter Essential Benchmark that is in the linked post.

    After loading the scene do the following

    1. Render Settings
    2. Editor tab
    3. Progressive Rendering
    4. Set Max Samples to 100
    5. Click Render and wait for it to start drawing itterations
    6. Cancel, and do not close the render window
    7. Render again and let it complete
    8. Bring up your log file and scroll to the bottom, there you will find the exact render time.

    FYI, you do not have to do the cancel and complete AFAIK. The log tells you how much time your devices spent on actual render time. Like so:

    2017-10-06 11:10:03.725 Total Rendering Time: 39.70 seconds

    2017-10-06 11:10:08.357 Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER):   1.0   IRAY   rend info : Device statistics:
    2017-10-06 11:10:08.357 Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER):   1.0   IRAY   rend info : CUDA device 0 (GeForce GTX 960):      85 iterations, 23.319s init, 14.356s render

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    JamesJAB said:
    ebergerly said:

    By the way, speaking of CPU rendering with iray and back to the OP's question...

    I did my own tests, rendering a large iray scene solely with my Ryzen 7 1700 CPU with 8 cores/16 threads, and yes, it takes forever and locks up my machine. But also I happened to monitor my CPU temps during the 2 hour render, out of concern that maybe I too need some better cooling. 

    And with the CPU's 16 threads pegged at 100% for almost 2 hours, my CPU temps flattened at 60C in the first minute or so of the render, and never exceeded that value. I recall that AMD says the 1700 can run continuously at 75C, and it shuts down on thermal protection at 95C. Or something like that. So I was very relieved that even continuous CPU load for hours doesn't come close to even the continous temperature rating, and that's with the included Wraith Spire air/fan cooler. 

    And even if my computer room was 25F warmer (like 100F or something), I'd still be at the rated continous CPU temperature. So I doubt I'll be changing out my cooler for liquid or whatever. 

     

    I would be vey curious to know how fast your your Ryzen 1700 can get to 100 itterations on the Starter Essential Benchmark that is in the linked post.

    After loading the scene do the following

    1. Render Settings
    2. Editor tab
    3. Progressive Rendering
    4. Set Max Samples to 100
    5. Click Render and wait for it to start drawing itterations
    6. Cancel, and do not close the render window
    7. Render again and let it complete
    8. Bring up your log file and scroll to the bottom, there you will find the exact render time.

    But why the interest? Rendering iray with CPUs is a waste.
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,854
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    I dont understand why you guys are even considering CPU rendering. Unless you have an unusual number of CPUs its much slower than a GPU. And much worse it freezes your computer so you cant do anything. Even the Puget Sytems link concludes you shouldnt even consider CPU for iray

    ...improved accuracy, better detail, and more available memory which is why film studios continue to use CPU rendering.

    The largest amount of VRAM currently available is 24 GB on the Quadro P6000 which retails for around 5,200$. 

    For that price, I could build a dual 12 core Broadwell Xeon system  with 128 GB four channel of DDR4 2400 memory and have reasonable amount of change in my pocket.  This gives me about 126 GB (after Windows and system utilities) that will be more than enough overhead for rendering. Wiith 48 threads, I can dedicate, say 32 for rendering (If Daz Iray even supports that many) to a file, leaving me with 16 threads to work on other tasks (which is twice what I have now). Add in say an inexpensive 3 or 4 GB GPU card for running the displays and I'm set.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    ebergerly said:
     
    kyoto kid said:

    ...improved accuracy, better detail, and more available memory which is why film studios continue to use CPU rendering.

    The largest amount of VRAM currently available is 24 GB on the Quadro P6000 which retails for around 5,200$. 

    For that price, I could build a dual 12 core Broadwell Xeon system  with 128 GB four channel of DDR4 2400 memory and have reasonable amount of change in my pocket.  This gives me about 126 GB (after Windows and system utilities) that will be more than enough overhead for rendering. Wiith 48 threads, I can dedicate, say 32 for rendering (If Daz Iray even supports that many) to a file, leaving me with 16 threads to work on other tasks (which is twice what I have now). Add in say an inexpensive 3 or 4 GB GPU card for running the displays and I'm set.

    Why do we keep bringing up what professional studios do? I'm guessing the vast majority of people in this forum are either hobbyists like myself or PA's who operate on their own and don't use the same equipment used by the studios. Maybe there are a couple here, but for the vast majority isn't discussion of super high end stuff relatively irrelevant here?

    Practically, how many here care that they can buy a 365 core CPU and render as fast as a 1080ti?

    And I keep looking to the bitcoin industry, who have apparently decided that by far the most cost effective way to do super fast and massive calculations is with GPU's, not CPU's. So the whole argument about rendering with CPU's seems to be a small niche market inhabited by big studios who maybe haven't decided to replace their huge investment in CPU rendering over many years with GPU's.   

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ...improved accuracy, better detail, and more available memory which is why film studios continue to use CPU rendering.

    The largest amount of VRAM currently available is 24 GB on the Quadro P6000 which retails for around 5,200$. 

    For that price, I could build a dual 12 core Broadwell Xeon system  with 128 GB four channel of DDR4 2400 memory and have reasonable amount of change in my pocket.  This gives me about 126 GB (after Windows and system utilities) that will be more than enough overhead for rendering. Wiith 48 threads, I can dedicate, say 32 for rendering (If Daz Iray even supports that many) to a file, leaving me with 16 threads to work on other tasks (which is twice what I have now). Add in say an inexpensive 3 or 4 GB GPU card for running the displays and I'm set.

    Why do we keep bringing up what professional studios do?

    Maybe because Kyoto's reasons are the same as professional studios'...?

    ebergerly said:
    So the whole argument about rendering with CPU's seems to be a small niche market inhabited by big studios who maybe haven't decided to replace their huge investment in CPU rendering over many years with GPU's.   


    No. Like many people keep telling you, the vast majority of 3D programs still need CPU.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    agent unawares said:

     


    No. Like many people keep telling you, the vast majority of 3D programs still need CPU.

    WHICH 3D programs, and I'm talking about the ones used by the vast majority of hobbyist and PA users like inhabit this forum? So far I can only find the following:

    1. ZBrush uses CPU's, but it is unclear how much CPU is really necessary. Can you use an old i5, or do you need 64 cores?
    2. I know VWD uses CPU's effectively, but the developer said he's working on converting to GPU's because they're faster
    3. I also know some video editing software uses CPU's, though some are also trying to shift to GPU's.

    Now if anyone else has some to add to this list go ahead. Studio's Iray uses GPU's because CPU's are terrible with iray. Blender's renderer (Cycles) uses GPU's, as does its newer renderer (Eevee). Maybe Max or Maya use CPU's? How many people here use Max or Maya?

    I'm just not seeing "vast majority", especially when it comes to users in this forum. And more importantly, do those apps use CPU's MORE EFFECTIVELY than GPU's? 

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    agent unawares said:

     


    No. Like many people keep telling you, the vast majority of 3D programs still need CPU.

    WHICH 3D programs, and I'm talking about the ones used by the vast majority of hobbyist and PA users like inhabit this forum? So far I can only find the following:

    1. ZBrush uses CPU's, but it is unclear how much CPU is really necessary. Can you use an old i5, or do you need 64 cores?
    2. I know VWD uses CPU's effectively, but the developer said he's working on converting to GPU's because they're faster
    3. I also know some video editing software uses CPU's, though some are also trying to shift to GPU's.

    Now if anyone else has some to add to this list go ahead. Studio's Iray uses GPU's because CPU's are terrible with iray. Blender's renderer (Cycles) uses GPU's, as does its newer renderer (Eevee). Maybe Max or Maya use CPU's? How many people here use Max or Maya?

    I'm just not seeing "vast majority", especially when it comes to users in this forum. And more importantly, do those apps use CPU's MORE EFFECTIVELY than GPU's? 

    Like we keep telling you, almost all of them. Which 3D programs do not use CPU heavily and would be better off with GPU?

    EDIT: I'm just saying, you really, really seem to be taking the stance that DAZ Studio rendering in Iray is the only thing people want to use, which is one program with a single one of its render methods.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513

    Sculptris maybe? Sculptris is GPU-based and hobbyist-targeted. If the only thing I wanted was GPU rendering and to use Sculptris, I would not bother with CPU. If I wanted to use Terragen, Zbrush, 3Delight, World Machine, Filter Forge, I would get a good CPU.

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    agent unawares said:

     

    Like we keep telling you, almost all of them. Which 3D programs do not use CPU heavily and would be better off with GPU?

    EDIT: I'm just saying, you really, really seem to be taking the stance that DAZ Studio rendering in Iray is the only thing people want to use, which is one program with a single one of its render methods.

     After a quick search I found the following snip from a 2015 article:

    "Over the past few years, more and more software programs have started taking advantage of the GPU on your computer. This is especially true in the world of 3D, where you can harness the power of your GPU to speed up processor-heavy tasks such as rendering or simulating. For example, mental ray has been around for over two decades as a CPU-based renderer, but lately NVIDIA has started to implement features that use the GPU. And since NVIDIA owns mental ray, it only makes sense that NVIDIA will focus its energy on developing technology specific to its own cards. Those are important things to keep in mind when you're looking to buy a new graphics card. Depending on the tool you’re using, sometimes you may need to tell it to use your GPU. In RealFlow you’ll need to go into your simulation options to enable OpenCL before it’ll calculate with your GPU. On the other hand, tools such as Octane and FurryBall don’t require any adjustment in the settings since they only use the GPU anyway."

    And that was from 2015, so it doesn't reflect those that have gone to GPU in the last 2 years. So add those to the to the already-mentioned DAZ Studio iray and Blender Cycles & EEvee, and once again, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "almost all".  

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017

    That's talking about GPU renderers. I think I've already acknowledged that to use GPU renderers you are going to want a GPU.

    EDIT: You've only listed renderers so far, as far as I can see. Since most hobbyists only need one renderer, don't you think they are going to want a nice CPU for everything else?

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,854
    ebergerly said:
    ebergerly said:
     
    kyoto kid said:

    ...improved accuracy, better detail, and more available memory which is why film studios continue to use CPU rendering.

    The largest amount of VRAM currently available is 24 GB on the Quadro P6000 which retails for around 5,200$. 

    For that price, I could build a dual 12 core Broadwell Xeon system  with 128 GB four channel of DDR4 2400 memory and have reasonable amount of change in my pocket.  This gives me about 126 GB (after Windows and system utilities) that will be more than enough overhead for rendering. Wiith 48 threads, I can dedicate, say 32 for rendering (If Daz Iray even supports that many) to a file, leaving me with 16 threads to work on other tasks (which is twice what I have now). Add in say an inexpensive 3 or 4 GB GPU card for running the displays and I'm set.

    Why do we keep bringing up what professional studios do? I'm guessing the vast majority of people in this forum are either hobbyists like myself or PA's who operate on their own and don't use the same equipment used by the studios. Maybe there are a couple here, but for the vast majority isn't discussion of super high end stuff relatively irrelevant here?

    Practically, how many here care that they can buy a 365 core CPU and render as fast as a 1080ti?

    And I keep looking to the bitcoin industry, who have apparently decided that by far the most cost effective way to do super fast and massive calculations is with GPU's, not CPU's. So the whole argument about rendering with CPU's seems to be a small niche market inhabited by big studios who maybe haven't decided to replace their huge investment in CPU rendering over many years with GPU's.   

    ...well myself, (an amateur independent artist with a lifetime training in the fine arts) for one am looking at producing high quality/gallery grade images for printing and exhibition as well as publication. This means rendering in very large formats to enhance detail.   Again I, like some others here also use programmes besides  Daz Studio which do not support GPU rendering natively, as well as 3DL for certian styles that cannot be attained through PBR rendering as that is not what Iray is designed for.

    Just saying that GPU based rendering is not the "be all end all" for everyone. 

    Oh and Broadwell is already two generations old.  I can can just about as good performance out of older tech like Haswell or even Sandy Bridge with DDR3 memory and save even more.  A large number of CPU cores/threads allows for improved multitasking so the system I mentioned above would not be "locked up" while rendering.  Crikey I could even run two instances of Daz Studio If I needed to with little to no performance degridation on those 16 unused threads (though it would be nice if we had batch/background rendering mode like external render engines allow).

     

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    agent unawares said:

    That's talking about GPU renderers. I think I've already acknowledged that to use GPU renderers you are going to want a GPU.

    You asked "Which 3D programs do not use CPU heavily and would be better off with GPU?". I answered with a list of 3D programs that are better off with GPU. You said the vast majority of 3D programs "still need CPU".

    Now you're saying that the vast majority of 3D programs which use only CPU, require CPU? And those that don't use CPU don't use CPU because they don't use CPU they use GPU?

    Oh, okay, now I get it.   

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    agent unawares said:

    That's talking about GPU renderers. I think I've already acknowledged that to use GPU renderers you are going to want a GPU.

    You asked "Which 3D programs do not use CPU heavily and would be better off with GPU?". I answered with a list of 3D programs that are better off with GPU. You said the vast majority of 3D programs "still need CPU".

    Now you're saying that the vast majority of 3D programs which use only CPU, require CPU? And those that don't use CPU don't use CPU because they don't use CPU they use GPU?

    Oh, okay, now I get it.   

    You only listed renderers. Look back up, I have a diverse set of 5 programs widely in use by hobbyists which only use CPU.

    EDIT: I'm just, shaking my head really hard here because I don't understand where you're coming from. If I listed a bunch of CPU renderers as "3D programs" would you take me seriously, or would you tell me someone only needs one renderer, and then tools to go with it?

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,854
    agent unawares said:
    ebergerly said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ...improved accuracy, better detail, and more available memory which is why film studios continue to use CPU rendering.

    The largest amount of VRAM currently available is 24 GB on the Quadro P6000 which retails for around 5,200$. 

    For that price, I could build a dual 12 core Broadwell Xeon system  with 128 GB four channel of DDR4 2400 memory and have reasonable amount of change in my pocket.  This gives me about 126 GB (after Windows and system utilities) that will be more than enough overhead for rendering. Wiith 48 threads, I can dedicate, say 32 for rendering (If Daz Iray even supports that many) to a file, leaving me with 16 threads to work on other tasks (which is twice what I have now). Add in say an inexpensive 3 or 4 GB GPU card for running the displays and I'm set.

    Why do we keep bringing up what professional studios do?

    Maybe because Kyoto's reasons are the same as professional studios'...?

    ...you summed it up far better than I did.

    As I mentioned on numerous occasions I used to work in traditional artistic media.  Joint and bone degradation due to advancing arthritis has made that extremely difficult (and painful) to pursue any more which is why I turned to 3D CG which has allowed me to continue realising my visions.

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255

      

    agent unawares said:

     

    You only listed renderers. Look back up, I have a diverse set of 5 programs widely in use by hobbyists which only use CPU.

    The compute-intensive parts of 3D software are rendering and simulation (cloth, fluids, etc.). That's the stuff that takes time. I gave a list of the following software that addresses one or both of those tasks:

    1. Realflow (fluid simulations)
    2. Mental Ray (renderer)
    3. Octane (renderer)
    4. Furry Ball (renderer I think)
    5. D|S Iray (rendering and 3D viewport)
    6. Blender (rendering and 3D viewport)
    7. Other cloth sims in 3D apps

    If you're saying those don't count because they don't do the non-compute-intensive tasks that don't take a long time, then I just don't understand the point you're trying to make. Yeah, I suppose it's true that CPU's are used by some 3D apps for the stuff that doesn't take a lot of time, but so what? 

     

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017

    Of course they count. Just, a hobbyist only needs one, maybe two renderers, so really I consider the massive list of GPU renderers only as one point in favor of GPU, just like I consider the massive list of CPU-only renderers only one point in favor of CPU. I'd feel the same about a list of image editors; you really only need one.

    When GPU-accelerated physics becomes properly accessible to hobbyists, yes, it's going to be a tremendous game changer. Especially I like Obi Cloth for Unity. It would be very nice if that kind of stuff started to seep into DS/Poser/Blender. And fluid sims too! For now, I can match your GPU cloth sim with Marvelous Designer, Blender, Poser, and your fluid simulation really only with Blender. I will note that Realflow is also optimized for CPUs, and actually warns that switching to GPU can slow down the simulation if it isn't a beefy card , so if you wanted to use Realflow you could build around either CPU or GPU.

    And I'll add: Photoshop (mostly CPU-intensive though there are a couple GPU-intensive filters IIRC).

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513

    You know, it actually would be kind of nice to have a list of software sorted by CPU or GPU focus for build planning.

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795

    Someone's putting the cart before the horse.  A gpu is a highly specialized microprocessor.  Its sole job is do calculations of graphics problems.  That's all.  Since its a specialist, it can do the calculations very fast.  Also since its a specialist, it can't do much else.  3D apps do more than just calculate graphics and even some graphic calculations gpus can't do yet.  This is why most folks until recently have stuck with the good ole cpu.  The most reliable renderers on the market now are still cpu based because gpu rendering still has limitations.  Want to use a special hair or particle system and use a gpu renderer?  Choose your renderer wisely,  because many of them won't be able to do it.  This is why a strong multicore cpu or two will be always in a workstation.  Of course, I am not talking about most Daz users.  Daz Studio iRay is a gimped, shell of a renderer and some of you may realize that Daz Studio is a niche program with only a tiny fraction of the 3D market.  Outside of Daz, cpu is the workhorse.

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    agent unawares said:

    You know, it actually would be kind of nice to have a list of software sorted by CPU or GPU focus for build planning.

    Yeah, that would be nice. And since you and drzap keep claiming that most 3D software needs CPU's, perhaps you can get together and put the list together and see if your claims are actually true. 

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited October 2017
    ebergerly said:
    agent unawares said:

    You know, it actually would be kind of nice to have a list of software sorted by CPU or GPU focus for build planning.

    Yeah, that would be nice. And since you and drzap keep claiming that most 3D software needs CPU's, perhaps you can get together and put the list together and see if your claims are actually true. 

    You are the one trying to convince us we don't need our CPUs to run our programs because there are five GPU renderers available. :\

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    ebergerly said:
    agent unawares said:

    You know, it actually would be kind of nice to have a list of software sorted by CPU or GPU focus for build planning.

    Yeah, that would be nice. And since you and drzap keep claiming that most 3D software needs CPU's, perhaps you can get together and put the list together and see if your claims are actually true. 

    I don't need to compile a list.  This is already a well known and established fact for people who are in the know (people who use software other than DAZ).   

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255

    And with that I think I'll have dinner smiley

    And if the OP is still watching, I think the bottom line is to make sure when someone recommends a top end CPU and water cooling you carefully consider whether you really need it given what you'll be doing on the computer. 

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795

    This reminds me of a story about a man who thought he could replace his wife with a silicone doll.  Until he realized the doll couldn't do dishes.  So he bought a dishwasher.  When he couldn't get the doll to wash his clothes, he bought a washing machine.  Then he bought a microwave for his tv dinners, hired a babysitter to watch the kids and so on until he realized all the things his wife did when he's out at work.  I forgot how the story ends, but it must end the same way it ends for a person who tries to do serious graphics work with an Intel i5.  He probably hung himself due to all the waiting for things to get done.

  • SotoSoto Posts: 1,450

    I`ve been watching closely and taking notes :)

    Based on suggestions, I am considering:

    Corsair MP500 M.2 120 GB instead of Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GB. Will likely have only the OS, DAZ Studio, Z Brush and Photoshop in there anyway.

    Seasonic M12II-850 instead of Seasonic Focus Plus 650 Gold. 850W instead of 650W for only $17 extra

    Corsair Vengeance LED 8 GB DDR4 3200 instead of G.SKILL Ripjaws V 8 GB DDR4 2666. This I`m not sure as the difference is only 2666 vs 3000 for $8 each. I am also debating about going 32 or 16 RAM

    I think I am getting pretty close to what I will get at the end :)

    Thanks all!

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,051
    Hellboy said:

    I`ve been watching closely and taking notes :)

    Based on suggestions, I am considering:

    Corsair MP500 M.2 120 GB instead of Kingston SSDNow UV400 240 GB. Will likely have only the OS, DAZ Studio, Z Brush and Photoshop in there anyway.

    Seasonic M12II-850 instead of Seasonic Focus Plus 650 Gold. 850W instead of 650W for only $17 extra

    Corsair Vengeance LED 8 GB DDR4 3200 instead of G.SKILL Ripjaws V 8 GB DDR4 2666. This I`m not sure as the difference is only 2666 vs 3000 for $8 each. I am also debating about going 32 or 16 RAM

    I think I am getting pretty close to what I will get at the end :)

    Thanks all!

    What is the current state of play with Ryzens and memory? I thought they were still soemwhat limited in their ability to use fast RAM, though BIOS updates had improved the situation from inital release.

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    Richard Haseltine said:

     

    What is the current state of play with Ryzens and memory? I thought they were still soemwhat limited in their ability to use fast RAM, though BIOS updates had improved the situation from inital release.

    Good point. It's a good idea to pop over to the motherboard manufacturer's website and see if that RAM is on their approved list. Though if you have that company building it for you I assume they'll check that. 

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    edited October 2017
    Hellboy said:

    I am also debating about going 32 or 16 RAM

     

    Just be careful with RAM and make sure you have enough for your needs. I found that 16GB was too tight for some of my scenes so I went way overboard and got 64.

    I was just working with a scene with one G3 and a house interior that I made in Blender with a few rooms and furniture and outside patio and stuff and it took just over 16GB of RAM (actually it was about 12GB, but when you add the base system using about 4GB the total hits 16). So if you're working with a lot of big 4k textures and other RAM-intensive stuff you may want more than 16. 

    Post edited by ebergerly on
Sign In or Register to comment.