Seeking faster renders: i5, i7 or beefy graphics card?
mmitchell_houston
Posts: 2,484
I am toying with the idea of getting a new computer by the end of the year. It will be Windows based, and probably a laptop (more usable, but for the right specs I could go desktop). Other than that, right now I'm just reading and trying to decide what features I should focus on in order to get faster renders out of Daz Studio and Poser. My interest is focused on Iray at the moment, so whatever I get will have a modern nvida GPU of some kind.
I don't want to discuss RAM or HDD size -- I'll get what I can afford at the time and upgrade later in the year as needed and as I can afford to. So, right now I'm just curious about what other people think on the subject of an i5 processor vs an i7, and if there are any video card recommendations or general thoughts.
My Budget: $750 - $1,500. Yeah, I know that's a big range, but I'm being realistic -- I know I get more flexibility (and generally lower costs) with a desktop, whereas similar specs in a laptop will cost more. Since I don't know exactly what I'm looking for, I thought I'd say so.
If you're looking for specific questions to answer, I'd like to know if the i7 delivers enough of a performance boost to justify the extra cost? Or would I be better off with an i5 and putting the money into a high-end video card?
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
You'll pay more and get less from a laptop the same price as a desktop; both have the advantages and disadvantages; for rendering there will be options not available in a laptop, or with only limited availability.
You could easily spend the $1500 on a desktop and get a decent machine. There are a lot of threads about; as a basis, i7; 16GB RAM (minimum) with your budget, I'd be tempted to go 32GB of ram; 980ti. Lots of storage and if you have the budget for an SSD (as it doesn't add anything significant to rendering) I'd go for it as it makes everything seem a little faster. But a second card for display, maybe a 960 or 970 if you couldn't stretch to a second 980ti, in preference to an SSD.
But it's about preferences and what else the PC might be used for.
The i7 gives the effect of 8 (or more) threads in comparrison to the i5 which has four; this is great for multitasking. And will help with rendering when the scene won't fit on your graphics card (yes that will happen). It would happen even if you got a Titan with 12GB; then one starts having to render in layers. :) For me, I consider it worth getting an i7, others will have different opinions, and you might have to sacrifice something to get the configuration you want within budget.
I would say the i7 and i5 are still really close in performance in most apps. I have several i5 and one i7 and while the i7 is faster... it's not as much as I would have wanted. (my i7 is the newest processor too, by a few years)
Which is why I waited so long to get an i7 frankly.(you can look at performance charts to see what I mean) An i7 and i5 of the same generation are very similiar in real world tasks. (assuming you aren't rendering on the CPU)
I'd get the i7 if you have the money, but if the motherboard is the same I wouldn't frown on another i5. If you are GPU rendering that savings might get you a bump in GPU, or ram (go 32).
Daz doesn't multithread all of it's processes anyway...extra cores won't matter cept CPU rendering. (unity free sucks like this too, so a lot of time my extra power goes to waste, I rarely see my i7 utilized fully, and thats only with a random game and I haven't played a game in months)
The only case where you'd fully take advantage of the i7 is if you're doing renders in Reality, which *is* directly proportional to the number of threads available. I don't believe iray scales linearly with the number of cores/threads, but you'd be better suited with an i5 and save the rest for a better video card.
If I had to do it all over again, I'd pick up an i5 with a 980Ti rather than my current rig of a 4790k and a 960 4GB.
I just recently got an i5 and saw immediate performance gains just from the CPU upgrade alone. My next step will be a better Graphics card - I'm still on a GeForce GT 520 - and then upping my RAM from 8 to at least 16 GB.
As I understand it, with Iray what matters is the number of CUDA Cores available to the renderer. More cores equal better performance. So I'd recommend going the i5 and high end Graphics Card route.
More cores, is better for multitasking; this means how many programs are open. Multitasking is where the OS and CPU work together to give the appearance of doing lots of things at once on multiple programs; the more cores there are, the better it works.
Don't mistake Multitasking for multithreading: if the individual program is coded for it, Photoshop is one example that many here might use. Blender is another, and many other 3D applications. Daz isn't I saw someone say? Multithreading isn't multitasking, they're not the same, but the more cores a CPU has the more it can do.
Will your individual needs require the use of an i5 over an i7, I have no idea. I'd recommend at least considering it. And considering what you want to do, you will likely benefit; will it be worth the extra cost? That's for you to decide.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. You've given me plenty to think about as I consider what to purchase for my next system.
the i7 appears to benefit from core related renders and make a big difference when compared to same or bit more speed equivalent i5. If you plan to stick with Iray for all your needs go for the Nvidia, but Poser will be adopting a cycles based rendering engine which at this time is predominately CPU at this time but if GPU is introduced I'd be surprised if it became specific to one developers chipset since it's not an engine developed by a GPU company.
Cycles, when it worked with GPU, has only been successful on NVidia based; AMD have been slow to fix the issues, and was one of the reasons I am no longer an AMD user.
I think Cycles has become a bit more of a concern with AMD
http://developer.amd.com/community/blog/2015/07/10/collaboration-and-open-source-at-amd-blender-cycles/
but using it in only a CPU capacity I don't have first hand experience with it on Nvidia or AMD and I'm wondering if Smith Micro will take the source code and make something propriety out of it.
It's Open Source, iirc, one of the stipulations of open source is that you rerelease the code back to the community with the chages you've made.
Nice to see something happening; it took them three years too long. I waited most of those three years too.
The issue of laptop versus desktop is rather critical to any meaningful discussion on the questions originally posed. Although I understand the convenience of a laptop over a desktop, and perhaps even the necessity of a laptop for some users, the discussion can become apples and oranges quickly if the platform is either/or. A decision to go desktop offers more advantages than simply more bang for your buck (which is real), but desktops also offer a far wider range of options than do laptops. The latter is primarily due to a greater degree of standardization on the desktop, so you have a wide choice of hardware. Also, for intensive tasks, where your components are going to be running hotter and consuming more power, the desktop has fewer limitations - you have room to spare and throw as many fans (or liquid cooling) at heat issues as you like, and power consumption isn't an issue either, since the sky is the limit in terms of PSU options. None of that applies to a laptop, since almost every option designed to increase performance will increase both power consumption and heat, and laptops have limited or fixed abilities to deal with either. Sure, there are lower-power components designed specifically for laptops, but even when they don't achieve this without sacrificing performance, they are going to run hotter under extended full loads than the norm. For intensive computing tasks and optimal performance a desktop is the best option and we can proceed on the basis of best bang for your buck there. If a laptop is a must, then we can discuss the much more limted range of options available for that, but you are never going to achieve the same level of performance you could achieve on a desktop for equal money, or at any price.
Edit: "be better off with an i5 and putting the money into a high-end video card"
The former is an excellent example of what I am referring to. For a desktop, it is a reasonable question; for a laptop, not so much. The current flagship Nvidia mobile GPU is the GTX 980M. If putting more money into a high-end GPU means that GPU, then you need to buy a laptop specifically designed for it - they are not drop-in parts like desktop GPUs. And laptops designed for the 980M are significantly north of your budget. Moreover, nothing I've seen with that GPU offers an i5 processor - they all seem to come with an i7 standard. See what I mean about choice and options? There may be some out there, but nowhere near to those available for the desktop.
SixDs: You've articulated everything I've been thinking about. I am torn between the two options, for a variety of reasons.
LAPTOP
DESKTOP
As it is, I’m nowhere near making a decision, but it’s good to get this feedback, and thank you all for your input. I’ve still got a lot to think about.
Separate what you need from what you want.
Then decide how much you're prepared to pay, to turn want into need.
If a laptop would do everything I want and need my desktop to do, I go for a laptop; but, the amount of effort and cash to get close is incredible, so I still use my eight year old laptop when I simply have to have the portability. I've even taken my main computer with me, and that was a serious hastle, but the outcome was worth it. I allowed an extra half hour to dismabtle it, and then set it up at the other end.
Not always practical, but consider that there are desktop systems a lot more portable than mine. They still aren't - and can't - be considered portable.
With regards to files, I use dropbox, onedrive and google drive for sharing files; this isn't possible for a decent Daz library, at least not yet, but for most other scenarios it works well. Of course, photoshop files can get pretty large, but even so, is still possible.
I'd use Linux all the time if I could get Daz working with IRAY on it, sadly it isn't yet possible. I keep hoping Daz will bring out a Linux build, but I'm not going to hold my breath there. This illustrates that no matter what you decide, there will be the compromises to live with; sometimes throwing a little cash at the problem can make it work more how we want to; the problem might be the cash, or lack of it. :)
my $0.02
go desktop if you don't have to be portable.
if you go big gpu or multiple gpu buy a bigger Power Supply Unit (psu) than you need:
A single NVIDIA TITAN X requires 250W to run, However it demands at the very least a 600W PSU to power it, if you have other equipment in that rig (DVD, HD's, HUBS) that 600 is going to become a problem - go big or go home is the logic here.
Go with more RAM:
8GB to start these days is like buying half a computer so you can buy the other half later - budget yourself to start with 16GB if you can't do 32 and buy to fill half the slots if your mobo supports 32, you can add the other 16 later w/o loosing what's in there now (when it gets there) 8GB to work in 3D has the potential to get dicey. There is probably no other hobby one can pursue on a computer where you can constantly run into problems with lack of RAM other than 3D. I've burned through 12GB RAM on many occasions without expecting to.
Adobe Creative Suite/Cloud can be installed on two machines as long as it's only running on one at a time (and you own both of them)
I use 8GB all the time on my current system. It works fine. Maybe not speedy, but it handles things okay.
Mobility is not an option -- it is a requirement. The only option is whether I choose to invest in a new system that will be mobile, or whether I will give that up and relegate 3D to live only in my home. And no... lugging a full system of any sort around is NOT an option.
Thanks for the input, but it all comes down to me deciding which features and upgrade paths are more important than others.
Again, thanks for the input.
Right now, I must admit, that I'm leaning more toward investing in a good i7 desktop with a big power supply, 16GB of RAM and a decent graphics card. I'd look for a motherboard with 4 slots that could upgrade to 32 GB and make that purchase sometime next year.
But -- that's just how I feel at the moment. That could change.
I have 16 in mine, and my last I'd upped from 6 to 18; it was one of the first i7s about 7 years ago (tripple channel memory); tbh, having more than 16 would be a benefit, but it manages as it is. It still works, the old system, although I don't use it; it's for emergencies.
I've started glancing at motherboard specs. I've found a few that have 8 memory slots and support 64 GB. Definitely drool-worthy.
Next up, more research into the differences between DDR3 and DDR4 memory (including the cost/performance trade-offs).
EDIT: After only a few minutes of reading, I've decided that I'll try to stick with DDR3.
I'm new to the forums but not really new to Daz or Poser. I'm also not a brilliant computer tech guy.
Those two things being made clear; I can tell you this. Theres a couple of different i5s. There's an i5 dual core, and theres the i5-750, which is quad core. The i5-750 I believe does not have hyperthreading. The i7 is a quad core with hyperthreading. So the i5 and i7 can be very similar, or very different, depending which i5 you're comparing. There's really no reason to stick with a dual core. Quads are the new standard, until they double it which I'm sure they're already doing. So the i5-750 should be your minimum baseline relative to investment and tech innovation pace.
Additionally, Ram is important of course, but maybe not as important as you think. HDD speed and size are actually equally important to RAM. This is due to Virtual memory. My system only has 4GB of DDR3. However with virtual memory somewhere around a maximum of 20GB allocated, we're talking about a LOT of power.
Add to this, my GPU is a modest ATI Radeon 5750, which only has 1024 MB of Ram itself. Unfortunately it's integrated or else I'd upgrade it. Nevertheless, my machine doesn't totally suck for gaming. WoW runs fine for example. You're GPU of choice will have more to do with gaming or whatever else you plan to use your computer for.
As it pertains to running 3D apps such as Daz, Poser, Blender, etc... I recently did a few renders of a scene that contained about 14 separate figures, about 50 props, 4 lights, many of my own textures, and more than a few texture maps that were larger than 800x600p. Each render took roughly 90 seconds to complete.
I also recently did a set of renders for a project. These included a scene setting, roughly 24 props added, 3 figures, and 12 spotlights. These renders took about 45 seconds to complete.
The only time I ever have to really wait for renders is when it is optimizing texture maps. Yesterday I had a scene needing over 1,000 texture maps optimized, and Daz decided to go on Strike. lol Odd because I've rendered the same scene in the past with zero problems, so I'm not sure what that is about.
I should add as this is important, I am often (about 80% of the time) running Daz Studio, Photoshop, Firefox, and playing music off my HD at the same time. Daz is rendering that fast while sharing RAM with other hogs.
Here's a quick breakdown of my system specs:
2.8 Ghz i5 quad core. 4GB DDR3 Ram. Virtual Ram 4-20GB HDD space allocated (available as needed-average used is 1GB). Total HDD space 1TB. GPU = ATI Radeon 5750. 2 empty DDR3 slots still available (so far additional RAM is not needed). The main difference between my machine and most other machines is that mine, as far as anything graphics related, is entirely hardware based and not software based. My machine was built for graphics work, as that was my top priority in choosing a machine. Gaming is somewhere around priority #5. Not everyone is me, so not everyone would buy a Mac. But Daz3d is screaming fast on my machine, and it's almost 6 years old with the only upgrades being the OS a few times. I hope my specs and "Daz operating experience" help you out a bit in choosing what components will suit your needs to get the job done for years to come.
P.S. my machine wasn't even the "top of the line" one at the time of purchase. I could've gotten a i7, but felt the added cost wasn't worth the near insiginifant performance boost.
SSD speed and size is important for different reasons. It does not take the place of RAM. SSDs are much slower than RAM, so if you chose to offset RAM with an SSD and it needs the SSD as swap memory, you will notice a performance hit. Not only that, the large number of writes to the SSD will shorten its life. Note I said writes, as reads have no discernable affect on the life of an SSD. (And when folks talk about SSDs failing, the talk is usually around being able to write to them, the ability to read existing data from them should last for years longer.)
With regards to a Mac, users of them report (search forums here) problems - jumping through loops, I seem to remember one Mac user saying - getting IRAY to work on those that have a NVidia card as Apple do their own drivers, I understand. The one here is ATI/AMD and useless for IRAY rendering, so afe_corp_b8ae8ed0f4 would need to render with CPU, or move the scene to a machine with a decent IRAY capable card. And redering an IRAY scene as he described in less than a minute, well I'd be interested in more details; I find it hard to believe a dual titan system would do it.
Considering the thread's title is about fast rendering and the OPs opening discussion is primarily about GPU rendering and with IRAY, then although this reply has some useful info, it is also limited, due to not offering more detail of how and with what such fast render times were obtained; oh and at what render size.
I'd be curious about that, so please expand.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. You definitely expanded my knowledge on the differences between i5 processors. I'll keep my eyes on how many cores my next system has.
I should throw out two caveats:
I was "window shopping" yesterday and say some great motherboards that had 8 memory slots and supported 64 GB of RAM, and RAID. If I go desktop, I may very well go with an internal RAID and some Western Digital Red drives. I'm very tired of cleaning up after HD failures.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT: This might be pertinent to the discussion. I do a lot of work for that ends up printed, and several of my clients use presses that look best with line work that’s printed at 600 dpi or above. So, I routinely output renders that are 3,500-5,000 pixels wide (and if my system wouldn’t choke, I would sometimes like to go larger than that). Honestly, unless I’m rendering a preview, I almost never go smaller than 1,200 pixels wide. As you can imagine, these renders can take a long time to complete, which is one of the reasons I’m shopping for a new system.
Mac is not making any new computers released or to be release next year available with 4GB Nvidia cards, not even custom orders. If you want an Nvidia card with 4GB you need to buy a separate GPU chassis with it's own power then buy a card or possibly flashed card, and hope Apple does not change their API's to not allow the cards to work, all of which connect via the Thunderbolt port. The overhead for cost is enough to justify buying an entire Windows PC instead of the card and components. I don't think Apple even knows they make computers any longer or if they did this is their thanks to the graphic artists who once made them the computer to have if you were creative.
The additional info is important imo; I'd be tempted to say build a system around a Titan card; just go for one, becuase next year is going to see a new architecture from NVidia- including a lot more possible memory; currently it's maxed at 12GB. What they actually provide is unknown, but even cards with the same memory (as an example) are expected to be ten (x10 - yes really) better than any currently available; again there is a caveat: how soon this will be possible when comparing to a Titan is unknown.
I was an Amiga user, and nearly went Mac when I changed back in the mid 90s; for years I regretted it. The last couple of years I am glad I didn't expend all that extra cash on the Apple Tax. It is sad to see this though, I've always enjoyed checking out the latest Apple kit, but now - well, another Mac user (who I'm sorry to say I can't credit) on this site said it best and I paraphrase: "Apple's slogan was - it just works; the same can now be said about Windows machines: they just work."
When I started professionally in Graphics, Mac was the only way to go (I also played around with an Amiga -- it was so far ahead of its time that its really amazing, in retrospect). But by 1998 I saw the writing on the wall and started transitioning over to Windows. By 2001 the move was complete.
A few years ago I was teaching graphic design at a community college and the lab had Macs. Even though I could see the improvements they made, it wasn't enough to lure me back into the fold.
Thanks again for the info on the nvida cards. I'm going to read some more about cards and future options. To be honest, though, I think a Titan card is so expensive that I will probably not invest in one at this time. My goal will be to create a solid computer with enough future expansion opportunities so that I can upgrade things in the future as desire and cash allow.
Nicstt, I was simply clarifying for Mitchell that depending on the type of i5 core he's looking at, an i7 may in fact not be justified. Additionally that a graphics card is more important for things like gaming than for applications such as Daz, generally speaking that is. IRAY is an instance where it is related to Nvidia card.
The bottom line is every system has trade offs, so it comes down to personal needs, which is why Mitchell expressed he's not interested in Macs to begin with, and why I didn't "go there."
A couple of misunderstandings, Nicstt. I don't have an SSD. I don't render in IRAY. There are a few reasons for avoiding IRAY. First, setting it up to run off the CPU is just mind-melting. Secondly, I've got thousands upon thousands of dollars invested. Case in point; I do have the G2F figure and maybe $40 of stuff so I could tinker around with it and try out the new figure. Compared to the V4/M4 series where I have about $11,000 sunk. Not everything works well with IRAY and I'm not mortaging my house in order to use it. The third reason is, it's far too slow. Sure it would serve well for certain things IMO, the focal point of a composite would be an example. Take a movie poster showing lots of elements of the film, with the main actors face big, close, front and center. That would be a prime target for IRAY rendering, while everything else would be acceptable with 3Delight. Reason four is quite simply "new tech." It reminds me of the Blu-Ray/HD battle for supremacy, before that the Plasma and LED tv battle. And before that, the Laser Disk and DVD battle. IRAY looks cool, and even if I had an Nvidia card, I wouldn't invest a lot into it, as a personal choice, until I determine how long until someone makes it obsolete. The 4th reason also leads directly back to reason #2. In the end, all of our decisions are based on personal preference and our own experiences.
As per your inquiry on the RAM swapping: Mac manages memory a bit differently. Virtual memory is critically important for Mac, they all have virtual memory. You can change how much is set aside for that purpose, along with a variety of performance tweaks that every computer can fine tune. The reason virtual memory is critical on these machines is because they are intended for graphics work. The OS and the applications themselves (just being open) get higher priority and hence, get first stab at any inactive RAM. When things get slim, Macs automatically tap into the HD in an on-demand sort of way. Virtual memory is slower yes, as it is a portion of the free physical memory. However, the main point that I was making was that my machine, even with 4GB of RAM and a large allocation of virtual memory on standby, is so fast it's despicable. What I was implying by this is that, the same or similar set up and tweaks-for-performance on a Windows machine (whichever Mitchell gets), should theoretically, run much the same, although I wouldn't feel confident opening and closing multiple applications.
P.S. That Mac guy who said "they just work" is because OSX creates a temp registry file each time an application is opened. Then dumps it afterward. There is no dedicated "Registry" which is 9 times out of 10 where problems arise in Windows. My last Windows machine I was having to reset to factory settings every 6 months, because the Registry was total FUBAR. But that is the "why" behind their stability, why they don't break down... just in case you or someone else was wondering why that is often claimed. It's just a different system to fulfill different needs and having a different set of trade-offs.
But this is all about the i5, i7 and/or Nvidia cards specifically. Let's not detract shall we?
The minor digressions are okay with me. The hardware aspects of 3D are something I have not paid a great deal of attention to in the past.
Back in the early 1990s, I worked in a graphics department and we all had Macs that worked VERY well. In fact, we had the most stable equipment in the department. Whenever the Win NT machines went down, we were still up and running through our Apple Talk network. And I do remember that part of the reason they were so stable was that they rebuilt the desktop file every time you started the machine (or at least that's how we had them set).
Nowadays, I use a utility to clean my registry at least once a month -- it's really the only way to ensure a relatively stable system.
I had the Amiga 1000, the 500, the 2000HD and it was probably the machine that made me decide I would get into digital graphic art - all from a floating beach ball that appeared to be made from a tablecloth at a pizza parlor. I remember Apple came out with a color model, possibly the GT and the guy heading the users group meeting saying "we have nothing to fear from Apple."
Steve Balmer asked this question to his lead developers years ago, the developer said the only way was wipe the drive, reinstall windows.
Yeh the registry can be an issue; but that is usually down to uninstallers not uninstalling properly. Unlike UNIX and UNIX-like machines for which there is plenty of documentation for their equivalent of the registry (and it needs it) for Windows there isn't; and once learned there is less need as it forces confirmity; neither is perfect, both have issues.
I had a 500, a 4000, and still have a 1500 that works; I installed a 40MB (yes Megabytes) in it a few years ago - I rarely use it, but sometimes for old times sake I say hi. :)
I i to reinstall from a disk image a couple of times a year, mainly as I'm always trying new stuff, and don't always bother with trying it in virtual box first:) It is the fastest way of resolving problems, and would recommend it to anyone with a Windows machine; no idea how easy it is on the alternatives - probably easy too.
@mmitchell_houston I'll try not to hijack your thread.
But, as already stated, presuming you have a copy of windows that can create a disk image; 7 and 8 needs to be Professional, but iirc Windows 10 home can do a disk image too, then once you have everying installed, but before you start adding passwords, create an image; I can be back up and running in less than 30 minutes. As you're looking to make some changes, it might be something to consider.
I used to restore from system images but now I just recover from my windows backup (which I've only had to do once). Transfered prior installation over to a new drive that was bigger. The system image method is a good one to have around if needed.
But I don't have issues with my computers like you guys seem to. When I had XP I used to reinstall XP every 6 months. Still loved XP, much better than NT + 98 dual boot to do everything I needed. But for the last several years other than running CCleaner twice a year just to be safe, I don't have issues with my Windows installations.
Am a newby in regard to DAZ, but can offer some recent experience in regard to latest hardware. I have a brand new box sitting in the corner (purchased March 2015), it did not turn out to be the be-all and end-all I had hoped for. It works well enough and is very fast but not in proportion to the money it cost. I am actually still using my old HPxw which is more than a few years old now, because it is fully set up and I now realise that its performance is good enough in the areas that matter to me. But it did teach me a lot about what made a difference for me. A more experienced (or skilled) user will have a different opinion.
For me in order of importance:
1. Screen realestate: I have a cheap 4K 40in screen/TV it is worth every cent. But make sure you have a graphics card that can drive it at 60Hz 4K and spend the money for good quality true HDMI V2 cables not imitation HDMI V2 cables (or v1.4). I would put the importance of the quality of the cables equal with the screen size.
2. Graphics card: Good enough is good enough. The Titan X is a great card but the reviews are in my opinion right the GTX960 is by far far better value for money. I found I don't really need to render 4K images, do it right and nobody notices the difference. In fact they notice poor technique and mistakes more when you do it at 4K :)
3. Hard drive(s): SSD as main drive is a must have in my opinion. But current costs dictate that you also need at least one large spinning disk for all your secondary(low usage) data files (and a backup or two).
4. Memory: 32Gb is over kill. I once saw my "in use" memory hit 14Gb but at the time had multiple graphics programs plus two databases running. My "in use" memory is normally 4 to 6 and rarely gets above 8Gb even when running multiple graphics programs (like DAZ or Blender and ZBrush).
5. CPU: I don't have much experience with i5 or i7 processors, but I have found that peek CPU speed is more satisfying than having double digit cores/threads which spend most of their time idling in the background :( Again you are far better off using the right technique to reduce render time than just brute forcing it.
6. OS: I don't have much experience with Apple so can not offer an opinion on it. My last Apple was a Panda (early AppleII imitation). I lovingly keep a couple of XP machines running, it is my favorite OS, despite its vulnerabilities. Windows7 is almost as good. I have Win10 on my old HPxw box (and the new Z10), but I am only slowly warming to it. I do like it better than Win8.1
It has been a couple of years since I did a registry check or clean, I must put it on my todo list for my old box. Along with moving all my programs to the new box, after all I have spent the money on it I should make use of it.