Poser's slider for number of render threads maxes out at 32; is this a hard-coded limit, which would prevent use of more threads if the processor(s) had more threads available? I had in mind the AMD 64-core (128-thread) 3990X Threadripper. Can Poser currently use the 3990X's full capability? If not, will Poser be upgraded to do so?

Are there thread limits inherent to Win7? Win10?

The slider maxes out at the number of threads on your machine. There was a previous thread (no pun intended) in which Poser wasn't showing all available cores/threads on a dual xeon machine but I can't remember what the limit appeared to be.

With no technical knowledge of this other than a you tube review of the 3990x I believe Windows allocates work in 64 thread bundles and so won't use more than this for a single program unless the code is specifically written to take account of it.

I think it was this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaKH5etJoE&t=377s

All of my machines have dual hex-core Xeons (HyperThreaded), hence 24 threads. All are either Win7Pro or Win7Ultimate. So, the 32 limit shown in the screenshot doesn't make sense to me, unless it's a coded limit. Poser does automatically select the correct number of threads by default (24, in my case).

Could someone with, say, a core i7 quad-core post what their render thread limit is?

Could one of the devs give a definitive answer? If this is a hard-coded limit within Poser, do the devs intend to increase it for P12?

Is the 64-thread limit peculiar to Win7, or does it also apply to Win10?

Apologies, I was mistaken. Although Poser sets to max number of threads by default, the max on the slider is 32, this is on both my i7 quad core 8 thread and my i9 14 core 28 thread machines

Thank you, Nails60; that info suggests that the 32 limit is hard-coded in Poser.

Oooh. AMD's Epyc series server CPUs are parallel-capable; you can run two of them on a dual-socket motherboard.

This is all new to me, as I run old used enterprise stuff, because it is relatively cheap with pretty good rendering performance for the price.

Hmmm. A thought for the devs: Would it be feasible (for P12) to launch as many as four FFRender64 processes, each of which would be limited by Windows to 64 threads? That would allow for full utilization of the new generation of CPUs: two 64-core (128 thread) Epycs running in parallel. This would incur quadrupled RAM load (I would presume), but then, if you can afford two 64-core Epycs, you can afford RAM.

That is an interesting question, my Poser is set at 32 thread but I just assumed that was because that was the limit of the system. I am very happy with the processor so far which I have been using for close on 18 months. If I had to replace the system I think I would go the Threadipper route again but if Poser in hardcoded at 32 threads that would obviously affect my decision on which one.

hornet3d posted at 4:00AM Sun, 16 February 2020 - #4380649

... if Poser in hardcoded at 32 threads that would obviously affect my decision on which one.

Yes, agreed. If no expansion of thread usage is forseeable for P12, then I would probably go with the 3970X (32 core, 64 thread, @3.7GHz {max turbo 4.5GHz}). The virtual threads would be available to run the Poser executable, Queue Manager, and all of those Windows housekeeping processes.

But if it seems likely that P12 would be able to run more threads, then I would probably save up to get the Threadripper 3990X (64 cores, 128 threads, @2.9GHz {max turbo 4.3GHz}), or possibly a pair of the 64-core Epyc CPUs. The Threadripper apparently cannot use server memory, but it has considerably more aggressive turbo clocking than the Epyc.

seachnasaigh posted at 11:51AM Sun, 16 February 2020 - #4380653

hornet3d posted at 4:00AM Sun, 16 February 2020 - #4380649

... if Poser in hardcoded at 32 threads that would obviously affect my decision on which one.

Yes, agreed. If no expansion of thread usage is forseeable for P12, then I would probably go with the 3970X (32 core, 64 thread, @3.7GHz {max turbo 4.5GHz}). The virtual threads would be available to run the Poser executable, Queue Manager, and all of those Windows housekeeping processes.

But if it seems likely that P12 would be able to run more threads, then I would probably save up to get the Threadripper 3990X (64 cores, 128 threads, @2.9GHz {max turbo 4.3GHz}), or possibly a pair of the 64-core Epyc CPUs. The Threadripper apparently cannot use server memory, but it has considerably more aggressive turbo clocking than the Epyc.

True, I did not think of the advantage of having a 64 thread processor even if Poser was limited to 32 threads. Any of the choices are mouthwatering though.

I did wonder, after seeing those beasts Seachnasaigh put together, whether those Threadrippers had caught his eye

In that video posted by Nails, he does mention something that requires a bit of thought on the side of a potential purchaser, though. What I'm referring to is the part where he marvels at the screen in awe, and talks about how it looks almost like a GPU rendering away, although not quite there. So what I think people should be mindful of is that since we now have out of core GPU rendering that can access the main system RAM, and a single GPU is faster at a fraction of the price with also the ability to use up to eight GPU's, then why on earth would us 3D types need those Threadripper's that cost as much as a car?

My initial thought was that it might be a RAM thing, but like I said, we now have out of core rendering for GPU, so what is the attraction of such an expensive Threadripper for those of us who have this hobby of rendering?

I mean wow, surely if a single GPU is faster than that processor, and we can add up to eight GPUs to a single machine now, that would mean a machine that is over eight times faster than even the fastest processor, and it would still cost less!

Retrowave posted at 6:47PM Sun, 23 February 2020 - #4381546

I did wonder, after seeing those beasts Seachnasaigh put together, whether those Threadrippers had caught his eye

In that video posted by Nails, he does mention something that requires a bit of thought on the side of a potential purchaser, though. What I'm referring to is the part where he marvels at the screen in awe, and talks about how it looks almost like a GPU rendering away, although not quite there. So what I think people should be mindful of is that since we now have out of core GPU rendering that can access the main system RAM, and a single GPU is faster at a fraction of the price with also the ability to use up to eight GPU's, then why on earth would us 3D types need those Threadripper's that cost as much as a car?

My initial thought was that it might be a RAM thing, but like I said, we now have out of core rendering for GPU, so what is the attraction of such an expensive Threadripper for those of us who have this hobby of rendering?

I mean wow, surely if a single GPU is faster than that processor, and we can add up to eight GPUs to a single machine now, that would mean a machine that is over eight times faster than even the fastest processor, and it would still cost less!

I think there might be some circumstances where it is not so cut a dry. Having purchased a 1080 ti I would be really annoyed with the Poser performance If I had not specified a Threadipper for the CPU. When the system was new the GPU render would crash if it was complex as it was not using main system RAM. Even today when it can share the RAM GPU renders are only marginally faster than CPU renders and to get it that close I needed to load a driver that is essentially 18 months out of date. If I use the most up to date drivers the GPU, in Poser 11.2, is crippled with the CPU being faster in almost all cases.

If you can guarantee the performance you suggest and that said performance will be maintained in the future for all 3D software than I would agree with you. My experience with computers so far suggests that such matters tend to drift, one valid reason why someone would buy a threadipper, it gives you two options.

@Hornet - Tell me about it. I suffered the same sorts of misfortune after building my previous machine. It served me well for over a decade, but didn't work out as I had planned. I built it at the time Octane had just arrived, it was the first time I'd seen anything like that so built the machine back then to facilitate its use. So I bought two GTX460 cards that had 1GB RAM each, thinking that I'd get the power of both cards, and the ability to use up to 2GB combined.

The only part I got right was the performance, it lived up expectations but I later discovered that regardless of how many cards are installed, I can only use the RAM from one at a time. So that's what I had for over a decade, and to add insult to injury, now that I just built my new machine, I discover the old one can now use out of core memory (ouch).

So I had to be content with just 1GB Video RAM for over a decade, then as soon as I built my new machine, the old one finally became capable of doing what I thought it would be capable of doing over a decade ago!

Retrowave posted at 11:22AM Mon, 24 February 2020 - #4381631

@Hornet - Tell me about it. I suffered the same sorts of misfortune after building my previous machine. It served me well for over a decade, but didn't work out as I had planned. I built it at the time Octane had just arrived, it was the first time I'd seen anything like that so built the machine back then to facilitate its use. So I bought two GTX460 cards that had 1GB RAM each, thinking that I'd get the power of both cards, and the ability to use up to 2GB combined.

The only part I got right was the performance, it lived up expectations but I later discovered that regardless of how many cards are installed, I can only use the RAM from one at a time. So that's what I had for over a decade, and to add insult to injury, now that I just built my new machine, I discover the old one can now use out of core memory (ouch).

So I had to be content with just 1GB Video RAM for over a decade, then as soon as I built my new machine, the old one finally became capable of doing what I thought it would be capable of doing over a decade ago!

Ain't it annoying when life deals you a hand like that.

Damn right, it would be nice if life picked on someone else for a change

ISTR that the 32 thread limit has been there for several versions, the dev that put it in probably thought it was impossible to get that high and was having a laugh

AmethystPendant posted at 6:45PM Mon, 24 February 2020 - #4381646

ISTR that the 32 thread limit has been there for several versions, the dev that put it in probably thought it was impossible to get that high and was having a laugh

Yeah, I figured so, and indeed at the time it was a wildly generous number. But, as time passed, this concept of parallel processing has really blossomed and now is already upon us. The current top Threadripper is 64 cores with 128 threads; the top Epyc (server/workstation counterpart of the Threadripper) matches the 64 core / 128 thread count, and also offers parallel CPU capability (i.e., you can run two Epyc processors on a single motherboard) to total 256 render threads.

I figured the 32 thread limit was probably arbitrary, and so I reckoned increasing is likely it to be an attainable goal. The upgrade would need to take into consideration Windows' 64-thread limit per process, thus the idea of launching up to four FFRender64 processes (of 64 threads each) if needed.

ISTR there is a similar arbitrary limit of 256 remotes for Queue Manager; I don't see that being problematic unless someone invents a really inexpensive slave render box which might tempt folks to buy in quantity.

I would also exhort RPublishing to retain Win7 capability for the next couple of Poser versions, because I sense that Win7 is going to be like WinXP in that -rightly or wrongly- many consider Win10 to be a downgrade (more intrusive, less flexible). I probably won't change my existing machines to Win10. But any new assembly (Threadripper or dual Epyc CPU pack, newer GPUs) will need Win10 to make use of all of the features of contemporary equipment.

Don't forget, Windows will not let you access the recommended amount of RAM per CPU core, regardless of which version of Windows you use. Microsoft has it capped if a certain comment in that video is correct.