Just because a render sometimes takes so much time i was just wondering if a stronger processor could reduce this time.

Thanks

I am not an expert, but for sure with  a better processor the render would be faster.

And with several cores, faster x2 x4 ....

Render time is EXTREMELY sensitive to CPU power. I have always bought near the top end of processor speed, but was blown away by the difference going from a 2 core to a 6 core CPU made. Other things will impact the renders, i.e. your settings and the materials and textures being used, but compare scene for scene, increased speed and increased number of cores is always going to give faster results. At least this has been my experience.

Hi

All I can tell you is that when I went from my P4 2.8 Ghz dual core processor in my old computer, to the the 4 core i7 3 Ghz processor  in my new computer I saw big improvements in everything and rendering was one of them.

I also increase the ram from 2 Gb to 8 Gb and went from Windows XP to Windows 7.

Mike

I agree with the comments already made in this thread.  Last year I built a new system to replace an old dual core PC.  With Poser Pro 2010 and Windows 7 available I installed this on the new system that had a quad core CPU with hyper-threading which gives a virtual 8 threads.  Running the 64bit allowed me to take the memory from 4Gig to 12.

The extra memory allowed me to render more complex scenes but the big plus for me was the speed, renders that had taken hours before were now completing in minutes rather than hours.

Of couse, as is the nature of things, I now have some renders that take hours but the scenes are more complex and results way above my earlier efforts.  I did try one such scene of my old system to see how long it would take, expecting it to take days, but the system would crash (probably due to lack on memory) very early during the render.

Hey Guys

You know it is a fact that the render on Poser needs updating , we all know it ( fire F) 

Needs work . I have spent hours rendering, we need a new render programer or programme .

Yes, I will get some criticism for this statement but rendering in Poser is CRAAAAAP.

Sorry but it is true.

If I had the tech knowledge I would create a new programme but I do not, so I will spend hours rendering.!!

Of course I could move to another software programme !! But I have a vested interest in Poser years of trying to learn the dammed thing.

Oh and quite a lot of cash.

As my 3D Max friend said " Are you Crazy " I am starting to belive him.

I think memory is much more inportant than raw procesing power.

Bearing that in mind, your OS will limit available memory as mentioned above, as will the verson of Poser you use. PoserPro 2010 seems to handle memory useage much better than previous versions.

I also run PoserPro 2010 on Win7 64 with 12gb RAM, and have never again seen "unable to render" or "out of memory" no matter what I throw at it.

     Higher processor clock speed will render faster.  More cores (and HyperThreading) will multiply render speed.  More memory gives greater capacity;  i.e., you can render more complex scenes at better quality settings and larger pixel dimensions.  More memory will render faster than less memory if Firefly approaches the lesser memory's limit.

     In general, get more cores (and a HyperThreaded quad is roughly equal to seven cores*), with a secondary emphasis on clock speed (3.2 GHz is better than 2.4 GHz).  But having chosen more cores, now you need to get more RAM to feed all the extra cores.  I would get as much RAM as you can afford and the motherboard will hold.

     A HyperThreaded quad core i7 with 12 GB of RAM is a great balance of price and power nowadays.  Any more, for 3D use, I simply wouldn't bother buying a computer which was not 64bit.

*  While you would render eight threads on a HyperThreaded quad, the HyperThreads only run at about 3/4 the speed of the primary core threads.  So, speed-wise, a H/T quad is about equal in speed to a hypothetical seven-core processor.

Guys one more thing.I saw that some of you menioned about poser pro 2010.I have poser 8 updated to 8.0.3.11793 (this is what i see when i click help--->about poser).So i would like to ask,is poser pro 2010 another poser than my poser 8?

Thanks

Yes. Poser Pro 2010 is a fully 64bit capable version of Poser, and it has several extra features beyond what Poser 8 has.  And, Poser Debut is a simplified version of Poser, intended for new users.

In terms of simple speed, Poser Pro 2010 being 64Bit makes it noticably faster than Poser 8.

"I use IDL for all final renders."

Snap! I very rarely do non-IDL renders.

Only feasible with render times since I got an i7 and PoserPro. Some hair is still a killer to render though.

Sing it, brother! Sing it! But it's WORTH it!

The most important factor is memory speed and not CPU speed. Mememory speed is much slower than CPU. As Poser consumes and process a huge amount of memory, this amount doesn't fit in the CPU cache and always create a cache miss slowing all the process.

Several cores do help, but the problem continue to be memory access speed, all the cores share the same memory, so the bottle neck is memory. When a core is accessing memory the other 49 cores will need to wait doing nothing, if they need to access memory.

Newer processors and its respective mother board will run faster because they have faster memory bus speed, better management of memory and faster memory that use, but the chipsets of the motherborad have a great importance. Depending on the combination CPU, motherboard and memory you even can have case where a slower CPU rendering much faster that a newer and faster CPU.

A 64 bit rendering software will run much faster because it can use many GB of memory and load all into memory without using virtual memory that is very much slower than memory, but it also depend on how is written this software.

With Intel processors in 64 bit mode a 64 bit software runs faster than the same 32 bit software. With AMD processors it has no importance, 32 and 64 bit softwares run with the same speed.

Got It ! now I have a good reason to stop opening poser 8 and start using Poser2010

Thanks

Quote - With Intel processors in 64 bit mode a 64 bit software runs faster than the same 32 bit software. With AMD processors it has no importance, 32 and 64 bit softwares run with the same speed.

Interesting, Kawecki,  as I'm contemplating building a new machine this Fall.  Is the difference because Intel does 64-bit better, or because AMD does 32-bit better?

Quote - Interesting, Kawecki,  as I'm contemplating building a new machine this Fall.  Is the difference because Intel does 64-bit better, or because AMD does 32-bit better?

It is very difficult to say which is better in 64 bits, Intel and AMD have taken a different approach, in some features one is better in other features the other is better and it also depend on the CPU version.

The problem is the competition, AMD and Intel refuse to follow the path of the other and who pay the fight are we. Intel introduced the MMX extensions in its Pentium and some time later AMD created its K6 with MMX and 3dNow  that would be very useful, but Intel refused to do what AMD did and never did the 3dNow extension. Some time later introduced with Pentium III the SSE instructions, that were nothing more than a better 3dNow instruction, but not compatible. Only later AMD introduced SSE with Athlon, then came SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 changed to SSSE3, SSE4a, SEE4,1 and all a mess. Today what is common to both is SSE, SSE2 and SSE3, the other are not compatible and so, a programmer cannot use them unless he want to make his software run only in Intel or make two versions of the software.

AMD was the first to introduce the 64 bit CPU and won the 64 bit battle, Intel was forced to use the AMD 64 bit instructions, but refused to do it in the same way as AMD did, the consequence was the poor performance running 32 bit code and the need to have two different versions of Windows, one for AMd64 and one for Intel64, probably your Windows CD have both Windows, if not you must have the right Window for your processor, if not it will not install. (My XP64 is only AMD)

AMD has a long tradition of making memories, processors, integrated circuits. Intel has a long CPU tradition. The problem with Intel is that always wanted to impose the standarts and be the one that set the rules. Intel ignored the PC. Intel always tried to dominate the microprocessor market dedicated to industrial applications and negelcted the PC that was the most important consumer of their products. Intel lost the war to Motorola and was forced to turn to the only market that had, the PC. Only then created the first decent CPU for the PC, the 386, before this the PC was a mess. For some time had the monopoly of the PC market until appeared competitors. Intel won the battle until entered the scenario AMD and all has changed.

Both AMD and Intel are making good CPUs, but are different and following a different path. AMD is now associated with ATI or ATI is making part of AMD so, the integration of CPU with GPU is very near, Intel seems to be fighting a lost war.

Quote - > Quote - With Intel processors in 64 bit mode a 64 bit software runs faster than the same 32 bit software. With AMD processors it has no importance, 32 and 64 bit softwares run with the same speed.

Interesting, Kawecki,  as I'm contemplating building a new machine this Fall.  Is the difference because Intel does 64-bit better, or because AMD does 32-bit better?

Likely because of the cache-size; past AMD processors had much less cache than Intel processors and the less cache you had, the more any comparison you did between 32 and 64 became a comparison of RAM-speed (which is essentiallly the same for 32 and 64). But they did correct that some time ago, and if you wait until fall, you probably would not experience that effect (unless you buy a refurbished machine or so, that is).

Quote - Likely because of the cache-size; past AMD processors had much less cache than Intel processors and the less cache you had, the more any comparison you did between 32 and 64 became a comparison of RAM-speed (which is essentiallly the same for 32 and 64).

The comparison that I did was at CPU level, the execution speed of the instruction assuming all the data you need is in level 1 cache.

Cache size importance depend on the application. If all your code and data is able to fit in the cache level 1 your app will run at CPU speed. If all your code and adat is able to fit in cache level 2 the app will run a little slower.

The problem is that the caches are very small, 1MB or less, so a simple nude Vicky4 is unable to fit in any cache. Accessing Vicky4 data will always be at memory bus speed and the caches in this case have an adverse effect because the overhead of cache miss and useless cache filling.

CPUs were not designed to run 3d applications, it were designed to play mp3, watch some video or play with Microsoft Office and so, caches work pretty well for this kind of application.

Quote - ... The comparison that I did was at CPU level, the execution speed of the instruction assuming all the data you need is in level 1 cache.

 

Hm, but you normally cannot the determine the speed of the processor by measuring the speed of a single instruction. If 64- and 32-bit processors were the same in every aspect, except for the number of their registers, the 64 would still be faster on average (for any real program). When your measurements showed that both are the same, you either have discovered an effect you have not considered, or you have measured something that does not model the "speed" of a processor very well (that is my opinion, at least: "never believe computer benchmarks on the internet, unless they give good explanation" :-).

Quote - Hm, but you normally cannot the determine the speed of the processor by measuring the speed of a single instruction.

Yes you can, first you can know the intruction speed and latencies for each instruction in the data manuals for your processor.

You also can measure the execution speed in CPU clocks for an instruction or group of instructions, this is the way how codes are optimized.

Quote - If 64- and 32-bit processors were the same in every aspect, except for the number of their registers, the 64 would still be faster on average (for any real program).

64 bit and 32 bit instructions run at the same speed in most cases. 64 bit can be a bit slower because require an extra byte prefix for the code, also multiplication and division is slower.

In most of a 64 bit code you use 32 bit instructions, you win nothing using 64 bits. If you want to count from one to ten you don't need a 64 bit register, even a 8 bit register is enough. Much more, in most part of any 32 or 64 bit code 16 bits are just enough, you only use 32 bit because the processor is optimized for 32 bits and run a bit faster than using 16 bit registers.

You only use and muste use 64 bit instruction for pointers to memory access, it work with the same speed as 32 bit pointers but you are able to access memory in any memory area and not restricted to the 2/3 GB range.

64 bit code have some advantages that can make run faster the app if you optimize the code because you have eight 64 bit registers extra and eight 128 bit SSE registers extra, you can use this registers for processing instead of accessing memory.