Hardware recommendations

kwistenbiebel · 20 Jul 2008, 21:56

As for using render engines in a SU combo, RAM plays a very important role.
Luckily, Skindigo launches Indigo as a separate process from SU, which enables the possibility to use more than 3.5 GB of RAM (if you run a 64bit OS).Same goes for Maxwell.

Some of the other render engines however (Podium, Vray, etc..) share the same process as Sketchup.
And since Sketchup is 'Not Large Adress Aware' and does not support 64 bit (a limit of 3.5 Gb Ram)or multi cores,it's easy to run short of RAM. It doesn't matter if your PC has 8 Gb or even 16 Gb. Every Gb over the 3.5 Gb limit will not be used. (actually the limit is even smaller, as the operating system claims a large chunck from that 3.5 Gb for hardware reasons)

Sketchup actually handicaps render engines like Vray...A pitty, really.

dsarchs · 22 Jul 2008, 16:00

Kwistenbiebel --

I've been looking into 64-bit architecture lately to see if it's worth it or not.
Are you saying that if you are using 64-bit OS emulating a 32-bit software application [SU] that even though you are limited to ~3.5 GB RAM that this is only for each program?
For example, each active program could use up to ~3.5 GB RAM? If so this would make it useful to have very large amounts of RAM [for multi-tasking] even if the software individually does not support more.

kwistenbiebel · 22 Jul 2008, 16:42

I believe it works like that yes.
(someone correct me if I am wrong).

Chris Fullmer · 22 Jul 2008, 21:32

That was my understanding too. Though I thought I read in another unrelated thread that it is possible for a software to enable large memory handling (over the 3-4gb barrier) if it is only 32 bit software running on a 64 bit OS.

I whish I knew more about all this. I did upgrade my comp to Vista 64 bit with 8gb ram. Its nice and I can run lots of stuff at the same time without a hitch. I can be doing detailed renders in 3dsmax and still work hard in photoshop and sketchup. Its really nice

Chris

wyatt · 23 Jul 2008, 19:59

Hey everyone. I've read this thread with great interest. I ran several tests over the weekend with the City model. Now I need someone to tell me if these results are good and how to improve them.

Specs: Windows XP SP2, Pentium 4 CPU, 3.6GHz, 2GB RAM latency 2 (see note below), 512 MB NVIDEA GeForce 8600, HA & FF on, 4x AA
(Frame Rates averaged over 3 trials)
Scene 1: 45.6 fps
Scene 2: 49.6 fps (I think it's interesting that this scene displayed faster than #1.)
Scene 3: 27.9 fps
Scene 4: 10.4 fps
Scene 5: 1.4 fps (52 seconds)
Scene 6: 0.5 fps (134.1 seconds)
Scene 7: 0.2 fps (350.2 seconds)

With AA turned off, the results were virtually identical, except 1- and 3-seconds slower on Scenes 6 & 7.

I ran more tests with an additional 1 gig of 3-latency RAM (which somehow totalled to 2.69Gb...thought that was strange) and processing speed of the model was actually a bit slower even though my total RAM was more (ie Scene 1: 44.9 fps vs 45.6). I guess the different latencies dumb themselves down to the slowest RAM. Can anyone confirm this?

Subjectively, I'm not impressed by my computer's performance. But maybe I did better on the benchmark test than I think I did. Regardless, I'm not sure what changes would improve performance the most: processor, RAM, or graphics card. Adding RAM is easy enough. I'm discussing with others in my office the possibility of swapping my GeForce 8600 graphics card for a 512 MB Quaddro FX 1700, but I don't want to do that if it won't help. I use SU, Photoshop, and AutoCAD, often simultaneously. I don't use other rendering engines at the moment. Any advice?

Thanks!
Wyatt

solo · 23 Jul 2008, 20:01

Regarding the RAM thing, yes your machine is only as fast as the slowest RAM module.

chango70 · 24 Jul 2008, 09:20

Thanks for the interesting information guys. I think i'll get 8Gb of Ram now. Indigo sounds like a good renderer to try. I like Vray because its is really fast. I've been doing relatively small sized renderings thats why they didn't impact on my Ram noticeably.

Since I am gonna be using Rhino as well I think I'll stick to the Quadro FX Card, however the new GTX 200 series has ludicrous amount of bandwidth! Don't know if anyone has had experience with FireGL cards form ATI?

I heard that in Q3 Intel is due to release several new processors which would mean the Q9550 would most like drop in price. I think its a good processor with good OC headroom. Which brings me to the question. Does anyone have experience with OCed (Overclocked) systems and performance in Sketchup?

remus · 24 Jul 2008, 10:40

I havent got any personal experience with overclocking and SU, but on a theoretical level it should work pretty well, as all your doing is increasing the clock speed of the CPU, and as SU cant take advantage of lots of cores, its pretty beneficial to have each one running fast so SU can take advantage of the individual speed.

plot-paris · 29 Jul 2008, 21:47

I just did the city- and the cube-test with my brand new laptop ( )

(Intel Core 2 Duo 2.5Ghz, 4GB Ram, Nvidia GeForce 9650 with 512Ram,)

and interestingly I discovered, that the screen resolution does NOT change the framerate at all!

scene7 of the city test took:

216 Secondswith a resolution of 1980 x 1050pixels

and

215 Secondswith a resolution of 800 x 600pixels

can anybody explain to me, why that is? may it be, because all the SketchUp geometry (inclusive of shadows?) is vector-based and therefore doesn't affect the resolution at all? does that mean in reverse mean, that you can run a screen with a resolution as high as you like (that is supported by your graphic card) without losing any framerate?

chango70 · 30 Jul 2008, 13:26

That doesn't make any sense. Surely higher screen resolutions mean more pixels to update for the graphics card!!!

remus · 30 Jul 2008, 13:33

That means its probably something the CPU deals with that is slowing SU down, although i cant remeber which bits of the model the cpu deals with

brodie · 31 Jul 2008, 04:03

Regarding the screen resolution, the same has held true for me as well. I have 2 monitors. One is set to 1600x1200 I think and the other is 1280x1040ish. I ran the test on both and got the same results. I didn't even mention it because I thought maybe I was crazy for assuming their should be a difference.

Conclusion: SU is wierd and defies the laws (sketchy) physics.

-Brodie

kevsterman · 2 Aug 2008, 16:05

I've read this thread with interest but being a computer dunce I have no idea what all these technicalites mean

I want to buy myself a really good computer in the next couple of weeks as I'm hoping to be doing a lot more SU work and rendering in the future and want a machine that is going to keep up with the demand.

Has anyone summarized all this data yet and come up with the definitive spec?

Or could someone advise on the very best computer to get?

I've bought about 4 computers in the past and always end up with ones that are slow . I don't want to make the same mistake this time around. My bank balance won't allow it.

remus · 2 Aug 2008, 16:18

If your looking for a beefy render machine you'll want to go for a quad core or more. You'll also want to get as much RAM as you can afford, id suggest about 16 GB. You'll also need a 64 bit operating system to go with this.

The really tricky bit is graphics cards as these are the things that can mess around with SU if you dont go for the right one. I can noyl vouch for the nvidia 7800 as thats what ive got. Its worth checking out this survey to see what everyone else has got and what seems to work for everyone.

Apart form that everything else is pretty much down to how much you want to spend.

this is probably a good starting point: http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx?c=uk&cs=ukbsdt1&id=precn_t7400&l=en&s=bsd

Gaieus · 2 Aug 2008, 17:28

C'mon, Remus, don't tease me! I quickly put together a not even top machine for the price of 6,223 GBP (VAT not included)

remus · 2 Aug 2008, 17:58

A positive bargain! i put together one for 12, 600 GBP

Gaieus · 2 Aug 2008, 18:03

Well, I tried to be realistic (to my budget)

Chris Fullmer · 3 Aug 2008, 03:35

Yeah, I recently upgraded to a quad core with 8gb memmory, running Vista 64 bit (which is working great for me). I have an nVidia 8600 w/512mb memmory. My system is great. Even though SU doesn't take advantage of quad cores exactly, it still comes in handy. For example, the other night I had some videos to render. I was rendering 2 videos (2048x1536 resolution) out to .png files. And also running a batch operation in photoshop to automatically resize images from other videos I had rendered down to 1024x768. So that was 3 intense operations working just fine together. So I started browsing the web and didnt even notice a hitch in my performace. So I went and played Battlefield 1942 (video game), at highest graphic settings. Not a single hiccup. While rendering 2 videos, and processing a batch of images. I am soooo happy with my new system

I used to not be able to do anything else while rendering a video in SU. If i tried to browse the internet, it was sluggish and twitchy. I don't miss old my computer

Chris

PS I love knowing that if I were to go back and read this a few years, I'll be laughing at how outdated my quad core is compared to whatever will be available then. So future self, if you're reading this, please don't laugh too hard. Right now, I promise this really is a great computer

kevsterman · 3 Aug 2008, 14:03

Chris, did you get your new computer from a website? If so, could you let me have the address of it please? Sounds like you've got yourself a good one there and is just the kind of thing I'm after.

(This is where Chris says he had to take out a second mortgage to buy it and I start to cry)

kevsterman · 3 Aug 2008, 14:58

Has anyone come across the Alienware computers?

302 Found

(www.alienware.co.uk)

They are certainly.. distinctive to look at but appear to be made especially for the gaming and graphics market.

As I don't really know what makes a good computer I can't tell if these are any good or not

I ought to buy "PC's for Dummies"