Hardware recommendations
-
Seriously! when I try to log in I just end up in googledocs? Whats happening?
-
Hi Everyone,
I'm sorry for the confusion. It looks like there's a bug with the gadget. I'm going to keep playing with the settings to see what's going on.
Many thanks.
UPDATE:
Try going directly to the View mode for this spreadsheet at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pdV8e-LldOEpQw6k3-ovifg&hl=en
-
I can see that spreadsheet just fine now.
Chris
-
it works for me too! thanks Tommy.
but I can't really see, what is the most important factor that influences SU's performance...
-
I can't see a thing!?? If its just a spreadsheet can't you just upload it here? Surely it can't be that big.
-
Hey Chris,
I just wanted to say that it was awesome to meet you in person at Basecamp. Thanks for chiming-in on this thread
Hi chango70,
Hmm. That's strange. Try clearing your browser's cache. I'd prefer to show the online version of the data because I have the data in a gadget that can be controlled with filters. Likewise, the gadget will be updated when new surveys are completed.
Hi Everyone,
As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had a chance to draw conclusions from the data myself. However, playing with the filters has revealed some interesting correlations. For example, the Radeon X1600 appears to be working well on MacBook Pros running Leopard. Feel free to poke around with the filters and see what comes up. This is all good feedback for when version 2 of the survey launches, which will be much more objective.
Enjoy!
-
Thx I got it! Thumbs up for the hard work.
-
The links get me to a "sign-in" page and when I log in, I get a blank google doc. How does one view the spreadsheet?
-
I see that I am already logged in when I click on the link. So can you enable the always logged in mode or something? If you're logged in when you click the link, it should take you right to the spreadsheet. Or maybe log in, and then paste the link into your browser that you logged-in in. See if that works,
Chris
-
Thanks, Chris. For some reason, it's working fine now.
-
After reading this forum I've decided to get the following rig for my Architecture Diploma:
Processor (CPU): Intel
Core
2 Quad Q9550 (4 X 2.83GHz) 1333MHz/12MB (Overclocked to 3.6GHz)Memory (RAM): 4 GB CORSAIR DOMINATOR 1066MHz - LIFETIME WARRANTY (2x2GB)
Motherboard: ASUS
P5K WS: DUAL DDR2, S-ATA II, x16 VGA, 2 x PCI-EOS: Vista
Ultimate 64-bit Edition + SP1HD: 300GB WD VelociRaptor
SATA 16MB CACHE (10,000rpm)Graphics Card: 512MB QUADRO FX3700 PCI Express + 2 x DVI + Stereo Display
All for about £1500 from PCSpecialist
Hope it will be a killer.
What do you guys think?
-
That does sound pretty killer chango, i can only dream of such machines
Only thing i would suggest is perhaps try to get some more memory, as if you plan on doing any renders (reasonably likely on an architecture course, i wouldve thought) they can really start to eat up the memory in larger sizes. Possibly worth getting a bigger HDD as well, youd be surprised how quickly you can use up 300gb.
-
My past experices of using Vray to do renderings is that actually the Ram requirement isn't high, sort of hovering around 2GB utilisation while the 2 cores were working flat out. Is that because 2 core can only use 2 GB? Has anyone done really heavy textured renderings?
Thanks for the suggestion Remus, Ram is so cheap these days I might as well get 8GB.
-
I dont really know much about vray, although in indigo its certainly very easy to run out of memory on large renders.
Either way having more RAM isnt going to hurt.
-
I experienced, that the ram is especially necessary, when doing renderings with high resolution.
I processed a scene recently, which contained more than one billion polygons. the ram used by indigo was mere 70 MB, because my resolution was only 800 x 600.
when I tried to render the same scene with a proper resolution, my computer ran out of memory...
-
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.
-
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. -
I believe it works like that yes.
(someone correct me if I am wrong). -
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
-
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
Advertisement