We are talking about cpu, not gpu…
My quad core can get 5ghz, no crazy cooling; 4ghz isn’t a cap: softcap or otherwise.
I’m also interested what specific task you use 128x 5ghz cores for?
(I’m not being facetious; you are clearly not asking for them to bump the limit to 65 when you ask for more than 63, right?)
ocz, I am also very very very interested 128x 5ghz cpu…
I thought so 
Unless you’re an android “You can’t handle the speed”… your 128 core machine will be asking it’s mates for a I1407 upgrade
EDIT: havnt made this calculation before, but I think that’s 0.64THz… Imagine the power!!!
I think this whole line of questioning without giving any indication of what this is used for is ludicrous. I have members of my forum making movies for Hollywood, Anime, for Ghibli Studios, using Rhino on home computers. I have run and programmed 8 axis CNC machines, and what you ask for without showing what you would use it for is a bunch of technical “Whoo-Hah”.IMHO. I just build an 8 core 4.7 Gig AMD powered machine with an latest R9 Radeon 4 Gig video card, it can handle anything I throw at it.The CPU is water cooled, and I have a 24" free synch AOC monitor with a 1 ms response time. I have yet to have Rhino hiccup on it. Waste of time thread.
2 Likes
0.64 thz around = 7.2 xeon e5 2699v4 = 140w x 7.2 1008w, which wattage is below 2 x xeon v3 + 3x titan x 
And that means what? How does that affect what you are modeling? I am an electronic technician, are you running a couple of 1000 machines and need to save some pennies per machine? Overpriced machines for something that does not need it. Buy Maya, or rent AutoCad, and stumble your way through that. I can make in Rhino things AutoCad users have to work very hard at, and cannot, in some instances create. You over built some computers, wow, I have built every computer I have owned, the first language I learned was APL. I don’t think you understand the serial nature of this program. I have worked on classified work all my life, if you are doing so, then you should be seeking information elsewhere. If not, and you don’t say what you need this, this thread reads like “Wow, look what I have!!”. That is all I have to say on the matter, Good luck.
Or 3.072THz from one Titan X for only 250w… Only just over $1k street price too. Hate to think what Intel charge for 7.2/14.4 2699s
There needs to be a warning on that Intel coolaide
I want to bring only one massage to rhino developer, there need to make rhino to run on over 64 cores machine, because I see many cores computer should be future and common on profession user. (rhino is only run on under 64 cores now). I remember Windows 32 bit to 64 bit. Most people asked same answer (no more program need more than 4g ram)
So your workflow does not require a super powerful computer at the moment, you just want them to be prepared for the future?
I have a feeling the developers at McNeel will recognize the need to expand Rhino’s capabilities to be able to run on a computer with 64+ cores when those computers become much more mainstream to their user base. They recognized the need for a 64bit application and produced one fairly promptly.
1 Like
The latest Nvidia GPUs have over 2,500 cores and, without modification, Rhino can use all of them, in parallel, for real-time display, as well as interactive physically-based photorealistic Ray tracing (with Iray). If you want to future-proof your PC, choose the right processor for the job.
I am very disappointed of pb-ft in gpu…, unless you are only work on simple model or more time for you to do that, and the power supply is a very very problem on it if you have over 4 gpu card in same machine.
Again, Iray is more more expensive and renting only…
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “pb-ft.” As for power requirements, GPUs are tens of times more efficient in terms of flops per watt than CPUs, but the newest Pascal GPU Nvidia just announced - not yet available in Quadro - has nearly 8 BILLION (with a “B”) transistors. Even at 16 nm, that much logic requires some electrical power. The latest ones are the most powerful efficient by far.
As for the cost of Iray, it’s a few hundred dollars per seat. If you are getting paid per image, rendering for clients, that cost should be more than compensated by the huge increase in the number of interactive itetations you can do with fast progressive rendering, and the speed and quality of the final photorealistic rendering it provides. If not, there are always CPU renderers that you can use more or less for free - if you’re willing to wait. But I, for one, will never go back to CPU rendering.
1 Like
Did you use a job on gpu?
Anyway I only want rhino to run on 64+ cores machine. there isn’t to use gpu question!
http://blog.boxxtech.com/2014/10/02/gpu-rendering-vs-cpu-rendering-a-method-to-compare-render-times-with-empirical-benchmarks/ - GPU rendering and computing is becoming much more prevalent due to the speed at which iterations can be processed (Some programs will even process on both simultaneously). The only downfall to utilizing a GPU is the entire process must be stored on its RAM which can be severely lacking when compared to CPU computing (however, that is quickly changing - GTX Titan X has 12gb of VRAM). Render farms exist to distribute the process across a plethora of CPUs and RAM to gain efficiency in computation.
Again, what is your use for a computer with 64+ cores?!?! Until you tell us your reason this discussion is pointless.
At the moment, I’m using a Dell Precision 7910 with a 14core Xeon. The only real performance enhancement over my previous 6core Dell is when rendering. Also the frame rate when moving objects in Rhino is a little bit better, but not significantly - here I hoped to get a bit more, also with the FirePro W9100 .graphics card, but it’s disappointing. Also, the overall performance of win10 is not much better than on my previous machine. IMO, the only thing that counts (in Rhino and programs in general besides rendering) is RAM and GHz. My current Xeon has 2.6 GHz, while the previous one had 3.3 GHz. I think, multicore is a dead end. They will move again to more faster processors with less cores.
I think Intel can’t to make a high frequency and more core cpu, I see the news, xeon v4 have a 4 cores 5Ghz e5 2602, but which have TDP of 165W and not for retail. your 7910 have 14 cores 2.6ghz, full load is 3.05g = 14 x 3.05ghz = 42.7 x 2 nos cpu = 95.4 Ghz.
You use 14 cores now, so 14 x 2 threads x 2 cpu = 54cores. You thing the next computer to use what cpu. I thing I should be more that 14 cores, at least 16 cores.
So Dual 16 cores x 2 threads x 2 cpu = 64 cores. It can’t to run rhino5 or 6. If you want to run rhino, you should disable 2 threads, but your system lose 30% efficacy and about same power and TDP.
And the other main question, Rhino is over 5 year to develop new version.
You will think how much cores of cpu after 5 years later.
p.s.
you understand that a single E5-2637 is going to run rhino noticeably better than 2x E5-2699, right?
and it’s way way way cheaper.
and look, i get it that all you’re saying is rhino should support more than 64 cores… that fine.
but in real world scenarios, does it make any sense? if you need or want cpu based render farm performance, why not just build a render farm?
.and run your applications on a separate, more capable and much less costly machine.
1 Like
If you feel right, that you go on, OK guy!