Anyone building, buying, or more importantly, using a new x99 chipset PC for DS, Poser, etc ? Hel
Musicplayer
Posts: 515
Hi Folks,
I have decided to start this thread because, after several weeks of searching I cannot find the answers I require in any other threads here at DAZ, or online, and maybe someone in this 3D community may have some answers.
Intel have released their new CPU chipsets the Haswell-E i7 5820k, i7 5930k and i7 5960x
They require the new x99 chipset motherboards and the new DDR4 memory, so being new these are quite expensive. However, the 5820k and 5930k each have 6 cores and 12 threads. The 5960x has 8 cores with 16 threads.
Basically, these new Intel chips are workhorses for rendering and I am interested in building a new computer with this technology for using with Daz Studio Pro 4.6, Carrara 8.5 Pro, Poser Pro 2014 and Vue 10. I also wish to use Luxrender which seems to render quicker with more available cores and threads.
My problem is that this will be an expensive purchase, yet hopefully with great results....BUT....there are no youtube videos or information showing these new chips being used for the 3D programs I use. There are plenty of reviews showing that the new Intel CPU's have amazing video rendering times and benchmarks....my question is....would this be a similar comparison for 3D program renders ?
I would appreciate any comments or guidance from anyone who has already built such a computer or intends to do so, or is thinking about purchasing one.
Many thanks for reading this and I hope maybe someone here at DAZ will also have some thoughts and guidance on such a computers performance within Daz Studio and Carrara renders.
Kind regards. :-)
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
Ultimately the processor is a general purpose 'device' (there are some that have dedicated use) so will run code pretty much as their predecessors did, but probably just faster. They will likely operate at a higher internal clock speed thus performing more operations per second, they may have more processing pipelines (multi-/hyper-threaded) thus performing more tasks in parallel. They may have 'cleverer' instruction handling to improve overall throughput of instructions.
In essence, there should be nothing to prevent a machine using any of those processors - assuming the allied components (motherboard, etc.,) can also be found. They will perform any and all rendering tasks you throw at them and they should handle them with gusto and more quickly than what you currently have (I am assuming you are not sitting on a network of Crays ... ;))
Thanks SimonJM for your reply, much appreciated. I am certainly not sitting on a render farm....ha ha :-P
I am just wondering, as I need a new computer, if this new chip-set will cut down my long render times especially where LuxRender is concerned. Also it appears that this new chipset and DDR4 memory will become the new standard for future workstation computers.
I guess one major question is....Are these x99 chipset workhorse machines worth the expense for Daz Studio, Poser, etc rendering ?
Kind regards. :-)
YMMV ;)
The objective part of the answer is, "yes, a computer built with one of these CPUs would crank out renders faster", assuming the render engine relied upon the CPU, such as 3Delight, Carrara, Vue, 'normal' mode of LuxRender, etc.
The subjective part is: how much is it worth to you?
True, but the new DDR4 will cost an arm and a leg.. With the increase in PCie 3 lanes though, apps like Octane, that are GPU dependent, will probably scream with the latest GPUs.
To the OP, unless you have apps that will specifically benefit from more cores, i would stick with last gen Ivy or sandy bridge E tech
Hard for me to get excited or jump on the upgrade wagon, I keep waiting for a huge leap in CPU tech and GHz speed. i would think by now we would have stock 5-6 GHz chips. My i7 is stock 3.07 and OCed to 4.5 and it's 4.5 years old, LOL.
...ah, another "make me wish I won the lotto" thread.
DDR4 in Quad Channel mode will definitely make a difference. I m running only 12G DDR3 in Tri channel mode on my system and get better performance than If I had 16G and only dual channel memory, (as long as I of course do not exceed the system's memory limit which I have come close to on occasion).
The issue with GPU rendering is it doesn't interpret shaders as well as CPU rendering (yet). GPU rendering also requires a lot of VRAM as the entire scene, both polygon and texture-wise, must fit under the GPU's memory limit. Furthermore, all the VRAM needs to be on one single unit, not split up among two or more cards linked in SLI mode as the process will only utilise the VRAM on a single GPU. However, the total number of cores/threads on all of linked the GPUs does affect rendering speed. Basically, In GPU rendering VRAM, not physical memory, determines how well the shaders and textures will look based on the overall complexity of the scene being rendered, hence, the more "busy" the scene, the less detail some of the textures will have.
The only two GPUs available commercially that have a "sufficient" amount of VRAM to render the types of scenes I usually create would be the Nvidia Quadro K6000 with 12 GB GDDR5 (around 5,000USD) or the ATI FirePro W9100 with16 GB GDDR5 (around 3.100USD).. Alas, the price of these units are pretty much out of the realm of most if not all of us here.
LuxRender doesn't render any faster (in most cases it's slower) than 3Delight, Firefly (Poser) or Carrara at least in my experience with it. The advantage is it uses "real" world lighting which makes scenes look more realistic. One can perform full GPU rendering with it but as mentioned above, at a sacrifice in texture and shader quality. Another advantage with Lux is you can pause and resume rendering or assign a set number of threads to the rendering process so you can work on other projects at the same time (so an 8 core/16 thread CPU would be an advantage as in effect you could assign 8 threads to rendering and 8 to whatever other process you are working on effectively having the processing power of two 4 core i7s for both tasks).
If you already have Reality for Daz and/or Poser Reality4 will be released within a couple weeks, the upgrade will only be 19.95$. If you don't have it yet the price is only 49.95$
Luxrender also allows for a hybrid type of GPU assisted rendering which uses both the CPU and GPU together thus reducing render times by a factor of 2 - 3.
Of course the more memory the better especially if you will be using Lux a lot. I suggest no less than 32GB. Currently looking at prices and I'm finding 32GB (4 x 8GB kits) averaging around 550$. For comparison I paid about 380$ for the 12GB tri channel kit I purchased for my workstation build several years ago. So all things considered the price for 32GB of quad Channel memory is a fairly a good deal in comparison.
I just built my new system which uses the new Haswell 6 core chip (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117402) and has the new DDR 4 RAM. (It's "only" 24GB of RAM at this point.) I'll do some test renders this weekend to see how much faster it runs vs. my soon-to-be-old system. It won't be a perfect comparison because I have a much beefier vid card than before but I've been dying to see the difference between them. :)
Cheers!
The version of 3Delight in DAZ Studio will use all the cores you can throw at it on one motherboard in a single computer.
When I look at CPU benchmarks, I look for Blender and 3DS Max benchmarks in the applications most good sites run for their tests. It can give you an idea of how a processor will do. Memory is the next thing to concern yourself with so you won't run into limits. I'm at 16 GB right now and will soon upgrade to 32 GB.
Many, many thanks to all who have responded to this thread. I really appreciate the thoughts and suggestions you have all made.
Cheers :-)
Thank you Crescent, I will be very interested to know what graphics card you chose and what older CPU your new computer replaces. Looking forward also to your test results, for the i7 5820K.
Best wishes :-)
True, but the new DDR4 will cost an arm and a leg.. With the increase in PCie 3 lanes though, apps like Octane, that are GPU dependent, will probably scream with the latest GPUs.
To the OP, unless you have apps that will specifically benefit from more cores, i would stick with last gen Ivy or sandy bridge E tech
Hard for me to get excited or jump on the upgrade wagon, I keep waiting for a huge leap in CPU tech and GHz speed. i would think by now we would have stock 5-6 GHz chips. My i7 is stock 3.07 and OCed to 4.5 and it's 4.5 years old, LOL.
I am replacing an older 4 core i7 4770k machine and was hoping to get the six core i7 4930k until I discovered that these cost an arm and a leg at £442 or $692, For a much cheaper price, almost half, I can buy the new 6 core 5820x.
My old machine struggled moving large scenes in Daz Studio, and was also very sluggish with large scenes, like those made by Howie Farkes for use in Carrara. This could have been a graphics card issue or maybe something a solid state drive could have also helped. All this extra hardware may have required a better power supply, so I decided on a new build.
I must admit that the new DDR4 memory is very expensive, but it does appear that in the long run it will be cheaper to build a new updated system that should last a few years,
It will be interesting to see what the general thought on this subject is.
Cheers. :-)
Howie's scenes can bring even mighty computers to their knees. They are wonderful but can be taxing.
I've given up on anything lasting for a few years, unless you ignore the latest and greatest.
Well, to be honest SimonJM I need a new computer, and due to cost I want to build something that will last me a few years. I have taken to doing a lot more with LuxRender via Reality and it certainly seems more CPU cores and threads really cut down render times. I am not sure how quicker it will affect 3Delight or Carrara renders, so this is what I am hoping to find out from this threads replies. I know that on my old computer renders using certain lighting setups that contained UberEnvironment would take an hour to render a model with realistic looking hair. In normal spot or distant lighting the same scene took just a few minutes but the hair looked very unrealistic. I hope to improve on these render times too.
Cheers :-)
Oh Kevin, that does not sound good, as I love Howie Farkes scenes. My old computer did struggle with moving those scenes around, Maybe it was a graphics card issue, although I did have one with 2Gb of memory. Some have suggested a 4Gb Graphics card and 'loads' of onboard memory....32Gb at least. Just wondering if I have opened an expensive can of worms trying to acommodate all my needs.
Many thanks for your thoughts. :-)
Many thanks Kyoto Kid, and much appreciation for your informative post. Quite a lot for me to consider before parting with my cash.
Kind regards. :-)
Sure about that? DDR3 is much cheaper than DDR2 ever was per GB (I say was because DDR2 has become expensive now as anything else legacy).
Well, to be honest SimonJM I need a new computer, and due to cost I want to build something that will last me a few years. I have taken to doing a lot more with LuxRender via Reality and it certainly seems more CPU cores and threads really cut down render times. I am not sure how quicker it will affect 3Delight or Carrara renders, so this is what I am hoping to find out from this threads replies. I know that on my old computer renders using certain lighting setups that contained UberEnvironment would take an hour to render a model with realistic looking hair. In normal spot or distant lighting the same scene took just a few minutes but the hair looked very unrealistic. I hope to improve on these render times too.
Cheers :-)
More, faster cores = faster renders for 3Delight and other CPU-using render engines, so your proposed new CPU will help.
More, faster cores = faster renders for 3Delight and other CPU-using render engines, so your proposed new CPU will help.
Thank you SimonJM. Having read all the replies, and yours, they all seem to confirm to me that I would see improvements in render times based on the formula you typed above. Quote : "More, faster cores = faster renders for 3Delight and other CPU-using render engines."
I have seen examples on youtube of a Mac Pro with 8 cores and 16 threads make renders in Luxrender via 'Reality' fly. I am not sure such an expensive computer and extreme CPU would be needed for Daz Studio or Poser renders unless using Luxrender. It would have been nice to see how such a CPU worked for standard Daz Studio and Poser renders.
As I said earlier, I am beginning to use 'Reality' more so maybe an upgrade from my earlier quad core CPU to a 6 core with 12 threads CPU would be the answer.
In Conclusion :
It is always difficult to gauge LuxRender speed because finishing times depend on each individual case. However, I am hoping someone within the community can give me some actual render times for Daz Studio, and Poser using the new x99 platform. Otherwise I will go with the general concept that upgrading to a better CPU will show greater improvements for my workflow, and I will then update this thread when I have some of my own render data, for others who may be making a similar upgrade decision.
Many thanks, and much appreciated, as always. :-)
Good luck with the build and have lots of fun with it!
One thing I might add is, if you are going to build it piece-meal be sure you take care to do so in a 'clever' manner. If you aim to have, say, 32GB RAM but can only stretch to, say, 16GB don't fill all the DIMM slots with lower capacity RAM (4 x 4GB for example) as you'll only have to pretty much throw those away when you upgrade. Not sure how RAM is used nowadays, but I know from my old HP-UX days that balancing RAM over DIMM slots can improve performance, so if you do opt for 2 x 8GB with the intent to add an extra 2 x 8GB later you might not see as much as a boost from the faster RAM as you might expect.
Thanks, this is great advice. I have seen a few youtube x99 builds and they too suggest buying the ddr4 memory in quad channel kits....so my 32Gb of onboard memory would be 4 x 8Gb.
Most of the x99 chipset motherboards have 8 DIMM memory slots and will support at least 64Gb of memory. It appears that it is very important the order in which the slots are used when installing lower combinations of memory than the maximum supported. It is also recommends that sets of memory should match for the very reasons you state above.
Thanks for your good luck wishes and I am sure all will go well. :-)
...24G is the highest I can go as that is as much as my MB will support. The sad thing is a 24G tri-channel kit today costs 140$ less than I paid for my 12 G kit when I built the system. Back then it would have cost me about 800$. Shows how fast technology is moving
To totally upgrade to the new technology would require I win tonight's lotto draw.
As to moving around in or moving a whole scene while in "editing" (viewport) mode yes, that is the GPU (the viewport uses OpenGL). The more VRAM, the less sluggish the camera and transition moves. My old Nvidia GPU has only 1GB of VRAM and I have actually crashed Daz while working in OpenGL mode by running out of video memory.
I recently acquired set of dual Radeon 7950s in Crossfire mode which give me a total of 6GB VRAM when working in the viewport (only 3 GB is available for pure or assisted GPU rendering though).
Here's another opinion. Not to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery, but what is fundamentally wrong with a core i7 4770K? In my opinion, nothing. If you are rendering with Luxrender via Reality a lot, there is a much cheaper answer to more horsepower. Buy one or two cheap Linux boxes and distribute your renders. Every 3 years, large corporations surplus out their old servers. The reason is, they depreciate them over a 3 year cycle, and they only carry warranties for 3 years. They end up in surplus stores and on eBay, sometimes auctions. You can get a rack mounted server (you don't need a rack) with 8 cores/16 threads for maybe $100-$200 depending on the options. Throw Ubuntu Linux on it, install Luxrender, and fire it up when you have a Reality render you know will run a long time. Obviously, if you are using render engines that don't distribute, then this may not apply.
Why spend $1500-2000 on a machine that is only incrementally faster than the one you have, when you can double or triple your thread count for $200-$300? Yes, you too can own a render farm! :lol: I have one like this. It's an older Dell server with 8 cores/8 threads (no hyperthreading) and 16GB of memory. A fairly modest machine, but it doubled my thread count for less than $200.
There is only one serious downside to this approach: Noise. Rack mount servers make the Devil's own noise. I have an industrial hearing protector set like you'd wear using a chainsaw!
More, faster cores = faster renders for 3Delight and other CPU-using render engines, so your proposed new CPU will help.
I believe there is a limit on how many cores/threads you can run 3Delight through unless you pay more for the option of using more cores.
It would be good to visit the 3Delight web site to check on that for sure.
...the free 3Delight engine is only 4 threads.
The issue with a Linux network is one has to have an appreciable amount of IT savvy to set it up and maintain it. I don't care to play "sysop" when all I really want to do is create pretty pictures.
I'd still opt for the 8 cores/16 threads. Actually there is an 8 core E5 Xeon which costs less than the 8 core i7 if you don't mind sacrificing a bit of clock speed (2.4. gHz for the Xeon vs 3.0 for the i7 which is over 1,000$ while the Xeon E5 2630 is about 650$ - 670$).
So having many cores would not benefit rendering DS images... you still have that bottleneck unless you pay 3Delight to run through more cores.
And in general, I think Xeon is the best way to go... and I think the upper limit now on the number of cores for the Xeon processor is 18.
That would be expensive, but there is still a good price for Xeon processors.
The i7 is essentially a Xeon that can't be used in a dual processor motherboard.
...that is only for the external standlone 3Delight render engine. Rendering inside Daz you have unlimited cores..
Yeah, the Xeon 18 core is something like 4,300$$
Many thanks to all who have responded to my thread. Some very interesting facts and opinions being voiced here and I am very keen to hear all.
I still see at the moment both here, and on the web, a lot of support regarding older Intel i7 processors. Some have been over-clocked by people using them for video rendering purposes.
In response to Slimer_J_Spud I have to say thank you for your post. I didn't regard your post as "throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery". You made a good point, because I now begin to feel that my I7 4770K CPU coupled with a Solid State Drive and a 4Gb Graphics card, would have given my old computer a bit more life. I am not so sure it would have dramatically cut down Luxrender times. I have very limited personal space, so having extra computers sitting around as a render farm would not really be an option for me.
Further web searches I have done over this weekend has shown some support for the i7 Quad core 4790K CPU. I have noticed quite a number of positive reviews, and several ready-made commercial computers use this particular CPU.
Sadly, like most of the reviews etc they are aimed at the gaming market. I guess most people use their machines for gaming and others for making videos for YouTube etc. I have found very little regarding their use for 3D Artwork applications and rendering.
This all brings me back to my original question that basically boils down to "Has anybody got 'actual' rendering results using Daz Studio or Poser with the new x99 chipset motherboards and Intel i7-5820K, i7-5930K or i7-5960X CPU's" ?
I think we have established that these new processors with their faster CPU's "should" make a difference, but so far it still remains to be seen just how much faster, and is it worth the financial cost ?
Clearly my post has been about a specific set of Intel i7 CPU's, and I do not want to drift from this question. I am "watching" an interesting thread in the 'DAZ Studio discussion' forums regarding which CPU's are better for Daz Studio, AMD or Intel, and I paste the link here for those who may be interested. http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/48286/
Meanwhile, keeping with the topic of this thread, If people feel the high cost of the new CPU's is too much, I would be delighted to hear from them regarding their own computers CPU and GPU specifications and how they handle Daz Studio, Poser, Carrara, Vue and Luxrender render times. Hopefully this kind of information will remove speculation, and will give me, and others who are thinking of upgrading their computers, some comparison data.
Very much appreciated. :-)
right in line with some questions I was going to ask except for one thing about ram
---
currently I have a i7920 with 24 g of triple channeled memory ...
---
Now that series of i7 will only see 4 gs of ram per slot
---
unless the very newest chip set has made a change
even the i7 Ks only see 8 gig per slot
meaning a i7 xxxxK even if you have an 8 slot board will only see 64g
--
but the e5 zeons will see 16 and 32 gig sticks.
---
I've been looking a getting a dual processor mobo $400 (8 slots per processor)
two e5 1620s @ $300
and putting in 16s.. a sixteen is priced about the same as two 8s ... the 32s jump a bit more.
--------
so I was wondering if anyone has used dual processor boards and does daz play nice or is it just handled by the system.
Okay looks like the x99 will let you see 16s... so with an 8 slot board you can get to 128...
---
and will win 7 64 or win 8 64 handle a dual processor board or does on have to get the server software..
---
dual processors or one.
currently in the $600 range a i7 5930k with a cpu benchmark of 13,500 6 core
or two e5 1620 v3 4-core @300 each with a cpu benchmark of 10,000 each. or 8 core total
---
will the dual processors offset the higher speed.
---
other major difference is the availabilty of 16 ram slots vs 8
or a potential top end
assuming the same dd4 16s of 128 vs 256 ... or even 512 with 32 g sticks
---
or start with one e5 2630 8-core at about $650 and a 13,500 bench mark and have the chance to add a second processor later on .. and just using half the dual board still being able to have 128 in the 8 slots.
Do you still have this 4770K machine? Whether or not you presently have a powerful render computer (which the 4770K is) makes a big difference to the discussion.
If you still possess it, then you will see small gains for large outlay if you move to the 5820K (60min render becomes 50min render approx. level); and essentially no significant gain at all moving to the 4790K. The 4770K is only one step behind the 4790K. A GTX 780 with 6GB onboard will help lubricate the work window nicely.
If you no longer have the 4770K PC, then the 5820K is an excellent choice to start over. It is, by far, the best value point in the X99 CPUs. And your new motherboard will support the replacement CPU range (Broadwell-E) for future compatibility through 2016/17 (this CPU range might include a mid range 8 core - speculation).
If render-speed per personal-space-cubic-foot is more important than render-speed per monetary-unit, X99 comes out tops again.
Do you still have this 4770K machine? Whether or not you presently have a powerful render computer (which the 4770K is) makes a big difference to the discussion.
If you still possess it, then you will see small gains for large outlay if you move to the 5820K (60min render becomes 50min render approx. level); and essentially no significant gain at all moving to the 4790K. The 4770K is only one step behind the 4790K. A GTX 780 with 6GB onboard will help lubricate the work window nicely.
If you no longer have the 4770K PC, then the 5820K is an excellent choice to start over. It is, by far, the best value point in the X99 CPUs. And your new motherboard will support the replacement CPU range (Broadwell-E) for future compatibility through 2016/17 (this CPU range might include a mid range 8 core - speculation).
If render-speed per personal-space-cubic-foot is more important than render-speed per monetary-unit, X99 comes out tops again.
Thanks Peter, I no longer have the 4770K so thought the new x99 chipset had arrived in time for a great new build. At that point, after a lot of online searching I realised the cost involved, and the total lack of anyone using this new platform for the lower end of 3D rendering. By that I mean Daz Studio, Poser, Carrara and the cheaper end of Vue modules as opposed to what I regard the 'upper end' like Maya, LightWave, etc.
Most early adopters of this new faster chipset are doing so for Video rendering, and there are loads of YouTube videos showing this.
Sadly not much help in this situation.
Cheers :-)