Hi Rhino World.
I am testing new Rhino 6 workflow and stability on my system ,compare the same file in both Rhinos 5 vs 6.
What i found was a Rhino 6 hungry resources. It consumes RAM and CPU all the way up.
Surprisingly the same file in Rhino 5 result an impressive workflow. Speed open and save, viewports rotates and Vray editor fast stability.
I wonder why this is happen? Does new Rhino 6 was made for the latest hardware in the market? Does 16 RAM and 4GB GPU and a 4 Core 2.7Ghz i7 cpu is good to go to Rhino?
Thanks
Update video driver.
Is this for real?
I just downloaded the latest geforce creator drivers and those are 419.67 so it seems to only affect the 430.xx to 430.64 drivers etc. (beta drivers?)
So no need to get new drivers then? A case of ‘don’t fix what ain’t broken’?
Yep. There is something SERIOUSLY flaky with Quadro driver 430.39.
I installed that and all versions of Rhino locked up solid while trying to load plugins.
I cleaned that out and went back to 397.64 and all is happy again.
Steve
Hmmmm. Further reading of the nVidia security bulletin makes makes me think my 397 driver might be affected too. See the list above that Holo posted.
I’m downloading 430.64 for Quadros now.
@pascal and @John_Brock
This probably needs a new thread combined with the plugin hang issue I was having the other day.
Aaaargh!
OK, that’s “interesting”
Installing the latest 430.64 causes the plugin non loading hang to happen again.
So I’ve gone back to 397.64 but that unfortunately has the nVidia vulnerability unpatched (won’t be fixed until next week apparently).
Hope this helps, Steve
Hi everyone, just my two cents… if any of u are running the NVidia GE-1070 like me and having bad screen lag/the Gumball disappearing/Selection Window turning invisible/other weird stuff…, reverting back to the 430.39 driver fixed everything for me.
Hi Andrew.
I can not think that is because of a nvidia driver update.
Rhino 6 simply eat all resources from my cpu and ram. GPU is intact as it shows by temps that stay in 40/43.
What i want to find out is the reason of Rhino 6 is more hungry and slowly then Rhino 5 SR 14.
Thanks
Anything relative to dynamic rotation on the screen is GPU related not CPU related. Rhino 6 makes much more demands on the GPU than Rhino 5 because it uses more recent OpenGL and has more sophisticated display modes.
As far as opening and saving goes, that will depend on where the files are located. V6 saves much faster than V5 to local disks, but is (much) slower saving to some network drives. This is a known problem, there are some topics here on that. Some of that seems to be related to the types of elements in the file, meshes being one of the prime suspects. Probably will not be fixed in V6.
As far as using more RAM for the same file (at idle) that shouldn’t happen. If you have example files that demonstrate this you can send them to tech@mcneel.com Otherwise, when you are running exactly the same command in V5 and V6, under exactly the same conditions, and you see that V6 RAM usage is much greater than V5, you should also send that file to tech with instructions on how to reproduce the problem.
Hello - Can you please run SystemInfo in Rhino and post the results?
-Pascal
Hello Helvetosaur. Thanks for your reply.
So if what you say is right, i assume that my “old” GPU 780M 4GB suppose have old OpenGL codes and because of that When Rhino 6 (more GPU tasks) consume all 780M resourses and my screen freezes and cpu / ram bottleneck .
Blockquote
As far as opening and saving goes, that will depend on where the files are located. V6 saves much faster than V5 to local disks, but is (much) slower saving to some network drives. This is a known problem, there are some topics here on that. Some of that seems to be related to the types of elements in the file, meshes being one of the prime suspects. Probably will not be fixed in V6
Yap. I am working on external HDD drive 3.5" usb 3 connected all because i am cleaning and organize my 3D and Textures Librarys. So thats why Rhino 6 is less responsive when saving to external drives. Understood. Thanks
Dunno, I have an “old” 780 (not M) with only 3GB and it does OK, but am not working with huge files.
I don’t consider an external drive connected via USB to be “network”, but rather local. However, I have not tested saving speed to one of those as opposed to an internal disk.
External USB drives are much slower than internal drives.
Mh, that’s certainly true for USB 2. For a true USB 3.0/3.1 connection all the way through, that’s actually faster than one of the elder (internal) SATA specifications…