6 cores
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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yes you can use a 6 Core on both those apps. Its RAM that is different. DS 64 bit will see 64GB of RAM, Bryce will only see 2 GB of RAM cause its only 32bit
If you die, can I have your six-core?
On an unrelated note, does this taste like almonds to you?
@Frank
Thx for your fast reply.
@SickleYield
LOL. I will also make a note to never eat your cookies if our paths should cross. :)
Curses! Foiled again!
In fact it* will use all 12 virtual cores, which isn't quite the equal of 12 real cores but is (based on my experience with a quad core i7) probably going to be about as powerful as 8 or 9 real cores.
* most of DS is single thread, but 3Delight rendering is the slowest part and that will use them all.
I have a Dual 6-Core machine, that is 12 cores, 24 virtual hyperthread cores, all used when rendering. Now i7 is not as good at running all core and all hyperthreads at full speed as Xeon is, but you will use as much as the CPU will allow (the i7 will slow down the virtual cores at too much load to avoid overheating, the main difference between i7 and Xeon).
Bryce can handle only 2GB? A 32 bit processor should be able to handle 4GB. Is Bryce even more restricted than that?
Bryce can handle only 2GB? A 32 bit processor should be able to handle 4GB. Is Bryce even more restricted than that?
A 32 bit program has only 32 bit address space from -2147483647 to 2147483647 and as memory addresses are possitive the limit is 2GB.
Bryce can handle only 2GB? A 32 bit processor should be able to handle 4GB. Is Bryce even more restricted than that?Not all of the memory can be seen because the system can only address so much. Remember, thats 4Gb total memory, which includes anything on your graphics card as well. With a 1Gb graphics card, your 32-bit system is only seeing 3Gb of RAM and 1Gb of VRAM. Now factor in your Windows operating system which will likely eat up a nice chunk of that memory (My PC takes about 1Gb when it's largely idle and is currently using 2.6Gb with just my web browser and background applications) and you get roughly 2Gb if you're lucky.
It will vary a lot depending on what your hardware is and what version of Windows you're running, but 2Gb is a pretty safe estimate.
A 32 bit program has only 32 bit address space from -2147483647 to 2147483647 and as memory addresses are possitive the limit is 2GB.
Bryce can utilise more ram if it is made LAA. The same is true of many 32bit programs. It is quite simple to make Bryce LAA
A 32 bit program has only 32 bit address space from -2147483647 to 2147483647 and as memory addresses are possitive the limit is 2GB.
Bryce can utilise more ram if it is made LAA. The same is true of many 32bit programs. It is quite simple to make Bryce LAA
You still bumps at 4GB. It depends on how the code is written too and how memory addressing is done, But if you have tested it then I wont argue. (I cant test as Bryce still fails more or less predictably on OS X > 10.6
Bryce can utilise more ram if it is made LAA. The same is true of many 32bit programs. It is quite simple to make Bryce LAA
You still bumps at 4GB. It depends on how the code is written too and how memory addressing is done, But if you have tested it then I wont argue. (I cant test as Bryce still fails more or less predictably on OS X > 10.6
Yes that is very unfortunate. Bryce runs well on 10.6 but the newer OS Xs do not support it.
LAA I agree won't push past 4GB, but the extra can be quite useful
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/large-address-aware.112556/
Thank you all for your valuable input. I appreciate it a lot.
Your answers helped me to finaly reach a decision so
I have now ordered the new computer system.
Looking forward to it... A lot!
Another rookie question: How do you make Bryce LAA?
Check the link I posted in my previous post. If you have any problems doing it come over to the Bryce forum and talk to someone over there who can help you. Horo probably.
I wondering if this explains why the stand alone 3Delight is almost as fast as the DS 3Delight version that uses all virtual cores on my 4 core (8 virtual core) I7 system The stand alone 3Delight is now limited to using 4 virtual cores. On my system you would think that would mean the renders would take twice as long, but they do not. The renders are only slightly longer, hardly noticeable. Maybe when using all the virtual cores the cores,, they slow down significantly. When limited to 4 virtual cores, the cores they do not slow down as much.
Thank you chohole. I missed the link when I read your post the first time.
That's because there's a big difference between real cores and their hyperthreaded, virtual ones.
The 4 virtual cores don't double your processing power. Think of Hyperthreading being about efficiency.
Most programs gain between 5% and 20% with hyperthreading.
The most scaleable programs have achieved about 30% at best, that's about the same as having a fifth real core.
As far as I know Win7 schedules threads to the 4 real cores first. (Though I couldn't find that officially stated by Intel or Microsoft!)
Which means 3Delight is only missing out on that efficiency gain.