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
...I can go to Adobe directly and get PS CC for 9.95$ a month (minimum 12 months)...
...If I wanted to work in the cloud.
My system has an AMD FX-8350 @4 GHz ( no overclock) 8GB 1600 DDR3 ram and my graphics card is an PowerColor PCS+ AX R9 270X.The graphics card has 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 VRAM, 1280 stream processors.I've tried the GPU rendering options with luxrender and because of the limited amount of vram I have I didn't really care for the results.With simple portrait style renders it's great, but it doesn't take long to use up 2GB.I like the cpu rendering alot more.I can afford more CPU+RAM than GPUs with huge amounts of ram.A GPU with 16GB will run around $3,000, one with 8GB will run around $1,800.
...exactly, and all that memory needs to be on one card, a dual card GPU (like the 1,700$ Titan Z) will only use 6 GB for rendering rather than the advertised 12GB.
Again with 12GB of total memory on my system, I have incurred high memory usage warnings with some scenes I submit to Luxender (and that is for CPU, not GPU render jobs). The only Nvidia GPU that would be able to handle that kind of load is the Quadro K6000 at a price tag of around 5,000$.
For around 1,900$ less (Newegg) AMD has the FirePro W91 which has a full 16GB 512 Bit GDDR5 and 5.2 TFLOPS floating point performance (comparable to the K6000).
These of course are what would go into those "dream machines" we'd all like to have....someday.
I have not tried Luxrender recently. Has it improved its Hybrid mode (CPU with GPU assist) performance?
I have not tried Luxrender recently. Has it improved its Hybrid mode (CPU with GPU assist) performance?
I use the Reality plugin, so it only has hybrid as an option now for GPU rendering in it's current version.I'm not sure how much faster hybrid is compared to CPU only,and honestly I can't see the difference in quality or performance on the system I have.Maybe someone with a better GPU would have a better experience than I have.
I know I've said this before, but with CC you aren't working in the cloud - it's just a marketing label for what used to be called software as a service, or even plain rental. CC periodically needs a live connection to check your subscription, and I believe is fond of updating itself given a chance, but it's a local application and local data. The big objection is that if you stop renting it stops working.
I've been using Adobe with the monthly plan for a few months. I love it. It's a lot cheaper than buying the program. I've had no issues so far.
I have a Intel i7 3930k 6core w/12 treads and 64gig of ram ddr3 and it kicks butt. If you can build your own and have the means go Intel, it give you greater performance for your money. If you are building a new PC and have the cash I would get the new Intel 8 core with new ddr4 ram. If you have budgetary restraints like we all do: I would suggest just getting a new Intel Core i7-4820K 4 core or a Intel Core i7-4930K 6 core Intel with new ddr4 ram but get the motherboard with the 8 ddr ram slots so you can upgrade the ram and the cpu when you can afford it. Otherwise just get a cheap amd FX-8320 8core system and overdose on ddr3 ram: just make sure the board can handle at least 32gig of ram.
Intel has the max expandability. AMD your limited.
This is true, but some people can't afford Intel's prices. You can get a relatively strong CPU from AMD with motherboard for the price of just the processor from Intel. Also If you have DDR3 ram you can recycle it or purchase someone's older ram that they are getting rid of because they have upgraded to new Intel DDR4 platform. I would check Craigslist in your area for people getting rid of older DDR3 to purchase new DDR4. 3D system work better with more ram. A 32 or 64gigs of DDR3 is better than 8 or 16gigs of DDR4 when you are using 3D programs. I use Intel and AMD systems and I like both systems. Intel systems just works better for 3D and Video compression of which I do a lot of.
I'm probably going to get a 6 core Intel. I'd love to get the 8 core but not for $1000. I looked up some performance testing and the six core i7-5820K is a much better choice for the money. ($390) I want to get the best I can afford so I don't have to build a new PC for a long time. I think I'll start with 16 gig then upgrade to 32 later when the prices drop.
Now I just need to decide on a graphics card and a case. From the advice you kind people have given me I plan on getting an Nvidia card, but don't know which one yet.
In the past I had a hard time choosing a case because there were so many l liked. Now I'm having a hard time choosing a case because I don't like any I've seen. Maybe I've just become too picky in my old age.
Great choice Newegg has a sale on this processor $15 dollars off ends today. Code EMCPWPH33 Head on over and get this great processor. They also have sales on cases maybe you will see something you like.
...it's too bad these cases are no longer available.
Antec P-193
This is what I have for my system.
Super quiet, lots of cooling, unpretentious looking.
This is simply not true. It is certainly possible to overclock a processor to an extent that makes it unstable (too unstable to start the computer, even), but there's nothing about overclocking in itself that results in instability. Adding 10Mhz to a 3GHz CPU overclocks it from a 3000Mhz processor into a 3010Mhz processor. It's overclocked, but you'd barely notice a difference in temperature or performance. It would be quite stable.
How high a CPU can be overclocked depends on a combination of the chip's (and supporting hardware's) characteristics and the user selecting appropriate settings. My CPU, a 3930K, is frequently taken to the high 4.xGHz (4.6, 4.8) by expert overclockers who soak test their setups with 24hr+ runs of programs like Prime95 that stress a CPU way more than any rendering app. Sustained stability under maximum load is a point of pride for those guys; and some have reached 5.0Ghz. I'd never attempt anything that far, but I've run mine at 4.0Ghz just fine (that's up from 3.2GHz) under normal, but noisy, cooling.
You can even purchase perfectly sober professional workstations that utilise the overclocked 8 core 5960X that I mentioned on page 1. These come with the same warranty and service as the standard clock Xeon machines...
http://www.workstationspecialist.com/workstations/wsx180/
It would be much more reasonable to say,
"For rendering I highly advise against overclocked CPUs - unless you know what you are doing."
If you don't know then it's perfectly sensible to run your equipment at stock speeds and enjoy the still amazing performance of modern electronics. But it isn't sensible to make incorrect generalisations about other sensible behaviour.
.
Here are my thoughts. I have to comment the first deciding point would be, what are you going to render with? If its 3Delight then you will be happier with a I7 6 core or >. I like the LGA 2011 Intel chip (more RAM) they are a little pricey but pay off in speed. Now if you are using Lux to render I think the AMD video cards just do better I am running a Radeon R9 290 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 card. But, with 2560 Stream Processors this may be why. So if you have a similar number of Cuda cores if the case of Nvidia I am pretty sure this will yield similar results. To me Nvidia cards seem to cost more.
The more CPU/GPU threads the better is what I have to say overall. The main point being that 3Delight uses CPU only and Lux can use both the CPU and GPU. I have been messing with DAZ for the last 3 years or so and have build 8 or 9 systems trying to reach the best balance. I refresh hardware often. I have used both AMD and Intel CPU's, but I have kept with Intel for the last year. I like 3Delight and Lux (I use the Reality Plugin) the latest Reality 4 is much better than 2.5 for DAZ in my opinion. I have not tried Octane but it needs to have an Nvidia card to render.
Now the Quadro (Nvidia) and FirePro (AMD) Professional Graphics lines are way pricey. But since there are no specific drivers for DAZ I don't see the point (like Maya and 3DMAX have optimized drivers). I have experimented with the V4900, V7800, V8400, V5900, and W600 the Stream Processing Units are all <1000. As far as the Quadro line I have tried the 2000 (not K2000), 600, and older, also real old Tesla 4GB cards again all with <1000 Cuda Cores. I have even used GPU's from MRI displays. A lot of heat, noise and 1000 watt power supplies but no quicker renders.</p>
As far as drives use a raid SSD for boot drives it can be two or three 128GB or 256 GB they have great prices. Then use a conventional SATA HDD for data just keep it cool. I have not filled a 2TB drive (currently @ 600GB) with my library and it has over 1000 items in it. I am a firm believer in RAM you need 32GB, and if you have tri-channel at least 48GB. In my experience the more CPU cores the more RAM you will need to get efficiency overall.
I use server pedestal cases they are easier to work in and quieter. I like the ANTEC Titan650, and the CHENBRO SR10569-CO. As far as regular ATX cases I would just go with a Cooler Master HAF 912 they cost like 60 bucks and seem to be the best ATX case for the buck.
I am just an enthusiast. I build my own, but checkout www.jncs.com or xicomputer.com for a dream system.
Just my 2 cents to a great thread. BTW Happy New Year, ROR
...@ ralphor2003, good suggestions.
One of the selling points for workstation GPUS is the higher VRAM with12GB for the Quadro K6000, and 16GB for the FirePro W9100. Workstation GPUs are also more durable and offer superior floating point performance for computational purposes.
The highest VRAM on a consumer GPU is 6GB for the Nvidia Titan and 8 GB for the Sapphire Vapour-X R9 290X
Dual GPUs like the Titan Z and Radeon R9 295X2 are a waste of money given their high cost as only half the advertised VRAM will be used for rendering since they are essentially two cards permanently linked together.
To render some of the scenes I create with minimal texture degradation would require the resources of the Sapphire Vapour-X, minimum.
That all said, pure GPU rendering is still somewhat a new science and while fast, it is prone to poor quality compared with pure CPU rendering, especially where high resolution textures and output are involved. There is still an advantage to having more VRAM aside from GPU rendering, and that is improved viewport performance.
As to the CPU/MB/Memory setup, if you can swing it I would concur going with the Haswell 6 core i7 and a 32 GB DDR4 quad channel setup on an x99 MB. DDR3 is heading the way of DDR2 and finding both tri channel MBs and memory kits is becoming more difficult (I'm looking to upgrade my current workstation to 24 GB - the maximum the MB supports - and only found one compatible 6 x 4GB tri channel kit). If you are staying with the Lux/Reality route, then yes an AMD GPU is the better option as like I mentioned earlier in this thread, Nvidia's OpenCL driver development takes a back seat to their CUDA GL language and thus lags behind AMD.
As per my sponsor,'s request, I am currently drafting up a new workstation concept based on server components: dual CPU 16 slot MB, starting with a single 8 core Haswell Xeon 64 GB DDR4 memory in quad channel mode as per what my sponsor requested. Still up in the air about the GPU as I have two Radeon 7950s a gamer friend gave me, but for the cost the Sapphire Vapour-X R9 290X looks intriguing with that 8GB of VRAM once LuxRender perfects their pure GPU rendering.
Asus HW and GPU, Intel CPU's (quad or better), Corsair RAM, PSU, and chassis, Seagate HD's
I've built and repaired more systems and replaced broken parts with these brands and had very few problems and when I did the companies responded quickly and efficiently, with the exception of ASUS: Great parts, terrible customer service
• If your going to build to use Studio a mid level gaming computer with the better CPU and more RAM (8GB at the very least) is good baseline.
•If your going to over-clock keep in mind a gaming machine and a graphics workstation do not put the same demands on a CPU. You will get different success and/or horror stories from art/techs who OC'd their rigs for better render and performance depending on who you talk to.
• If your going to buy from a store vs online you will pay a premium for older HW and have less of choice. Try Newegg or TigerDirect instead.
...personally, I would never overclock if you are just building a graphics workstation and won't be doing any gaming. There is little advantage for the "price" of driving components beyond their normal parameters when it comes to rendering.
In the knowledge base, they say, like DAZ_Spooky said, do NOT overclock. It can cause problems.
https://helpdaz.zendesk.com/entries/23049988-Trouble-Shooting-Render-Crashes-in-DAZ-Studio-4-x
I know when I render, all 8 cores are used and the fan speeds up and heat increases, especially when rendering out a series of frames for animation, which is to be expected.
Unless I win the lottery ... I'm going to have to limp along with the computer I currently have for awhile longer. :long: One of the main issues is the RAM which is currently only 6GB but it is upgradeable to 8GB. My question is would the extra 2GB make any difference? Not that it is horribly expensive to add the extra RAM but I HATE throwing away money. :)
First, the only "parameter" being specifically "driven beyond" is the clock speed - which is entirely arbitrary. So long as the processor is operated within its proper temperature and voltage limits then it is within its normal parameters.
The advantage of overclocking is self evidently vast. Six cores operating at 4.2GHz instead of 3.2GHz is a massive performance jump - especially for multi-threaded applications like renderers.
The more RAM you have the better your results will be. It will make moving around in big scenes faster and less glitchy.
So even the extra 2GB will be worthwhile?
??? Quite bizarre.
There are system requirements listed for DS:
https://www.daz3d.com/get_studio
If the software isn't stable with those systems then they should not be listed!
*I would never bother a software tech support person with a problem without first checking potential hardware issues, including reducing clock speeds to stock.
But you are part of a rare group who know what they are doing, something that's easily apparent after many years visiting these forums. ;)
First, the only "parameter" being specifically "driven beyond" is the clock speed - which is entirely arbitrary. So long as the processor is operated within its proper temperature and voltage limits then it is within its normal parameters.
The advantage of overclocking is self evidently vast. Six cores operating at 4.2GHz instead of 3.2GHz is a massive performance jump - especially for multi-threaded applications like renderers.
...however overclocking increases the operating temperature for a very small gain in performance. Not worth shortening the lifespan of the CPU or the cost of an exotic cooling system. The major factor that affects CPU rendering is the bandwidth pipeline between the CPU and memory, overclocking cannot change that.
??? Quite bizarre.
There are system requirements listed for DS:
https://www.daz3d.com/get_studio
If the software isn't stable with those systems then they should not be listed!
*I would never bother a software tech support person with a problem without first checking potential hardware issues, including reducing clock speeds to stock.There is a difference between minimum required and recommended. Further there is a difference between stability and people exceeding the capabilities of their machines.
Just because the speed limit says 85MPH, if you are driving a beat up Yugo, that doesn't mean you should attempt to drive at 85MPH. If you do and fail that isn't the fault of the road or the speed limit
Note the Overclocking section was added after several customers reported issues and I did some testing which showed that Overclocked CPU's will develop hot spots, even with the temperature being reported by the CPU as being within tolerance by the MOBO and caused crashes (Blue Screen Crashes) even on relatively short render. (I found some utilities that measure more than just the overall temperature of the CPU which is what the Motherboard reports.)