Wow…that was a pretty long conversation with not much of a result!
I am using an I7 with 32GB ram, Quadro 2000K GPU (at work) 4000 at home, rendering/modelling blah blah and have found this setup more than enough. Sure, I could go for more ram but I do really have to wonder what one could be modelling/simulating etc. with Rhino to warrant the need for such extreme specs.
Perhaps the biggest lesson I have learned over the 15 or so years I have been using Rhino and it’s cousins for is to model economically. What I mean by this is making sure I use only what I need, make my models clean, use layers correctly and exploit the tool sets for the specific work I am doing at the time.
Hardware specs help immensely but combining hardware with other strategies is also key.
heh, not really.
get something decent and it’s going to run rhino great… get something insanely expensive etc and it might run rhino a little better than the other.
maybe 3-4% of applications are going to make use of 10core @ 2.5 ghz… maybe.
where as 100% of applications would benefit from 1 core @ 25 Ghz.
idk, i personally think the best setups into the next decade will be fast quads or 6cores which are generally sweet for running applications while being plenty for multitasking and/or OS background stuff… rendering will be done mainly on GPU or via cloud.
you don’t understanding the frequency of 1 cores to be limited in solid physical in the world on cpu now.
You know why cpu manufacturer made the many cores cpu?
I feel you have only a little bit knowledge of pc hardware
so people will continue to buy into the ghz race even though the race ended last decade?
Have you tried setting affinity prior to starting rhino? You can do it with shortcut and adding some commands. I haven’t tried if it works but I just thought of it while reading this thread.
Edit: Maybe I should clarify… you set how many and which cores a program can use in the Task Manager, but it can also be set through command line. So I thought that maybe you can limit the number of cores before starting Rhino, by doing this maybe you can get it running at least? As I said I have no idea if this works
Your mention of iRay for Rhino is the most informative post in this thread - I’m surprised there hasn’t been more buzz about it. The YouTube examples look incredible; I wonder what kind of hardware is required to get that performance?
I think you have a point to some degree.
However, when you start to combine Rhino with other software, primarily rendering using the likes of Keyshot or Maxwell, hardware specs really do make a huge difference. Sure, using Rhino only one can get away with minimal power…at one stage while travelling I was using Rhino on a $300 HP netbook…
hmm. my point isn’t necessarily that rhino will run ok on crappy hardware… more that it will run very well on $2-3000 computers.
even in macland 
…that thing works great for rhino and it cost a bit over 2000 (refurb)
if i had a $20000+ machine like being discussed in this thread… i.e. :
… it’s going to run rhino slower than my imac will.
if you need this kind of cpu power for, say, rendering… you’d be better off if you used the boxx for that then had another $1500 computer to run rhino on.
not because “you can get by with CAD on a cheap computer”… more like, CAD is going to run better on the cheaper computer. (in this comparison)
Must be substantial. I tried it today just for a gag and it was so slow it was unusable on my M2000M.
I thought that would be the case. I will probably download the demo when I have some spare time and try it. I know I won’t get anything like the performance shown on YouTube with my lowly K1200, but I would consider an upgrade if similar performance were possible with a top end card. I wouldn’t (actually couldn’t) invest in anything too fancy though.
I think their demo is using NVIDIA DGX-1 
Yeah. I’m pretty much stuck with what’s available in laptops. And Maxwell’s “fire” preview works so well that I have a hard time seeing any need to invest in something else. The interface/plugin with Rhino is a little clunky but tolerable. Core functionality is there.
64 cores??? Good god… why stop there. Lets have rhino cure cancer too 
Yes, but Bob isn’t here discussing, no McNeel person sound that…
perhaps you missed a post?
I wonder if anybody has tried Rhino WIP on a 64+ core machine yet…
/Nathan
Rhino is my mainly program usage. I can’t to buy 64+ cores computer because I know rhino can’t to run on, so I bought 54 and 48 cores only
@l1407 [quote=“l1407, post:59, topic:32091, full:true”]
Rhino is my mainly program usage. I can’t to buy 64+ cores computer because I know rhino can’t to run on, so I bought 54 and 48 cores only
[/quote]
Why did you buy 54 and 48 cores machines to run Rhino? What tasks do those machines accomplish faster than a 4 or 8 core machine?
One computer isn’t to run rhino only 
If the computer is only to run rhino, i3 is ok, not say anything…