TheKitchenAbode

Larry - The link below shows benchmarks for a number of dual CPU configuration. There are other benchmark pages for single CPU. Comparing may provide a general idea as to the potential performance gains. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html They also have benchmarks for other components such as vid cards, memory, etc. Graham

One way may be to compare this new configuration to your older system. Say for example the older system was 6 years old and was doing the job then the new system with 6 cores and all of the other significant upgrades will be a giant leap forward. Keep in mind that all of the additional cores will really only have an appreciable effect if your system is being maxed out. Also, the law of diminishing returns applies to computers. It can cost a ton of extra money to get that last few percentages of performance. Yes maybe you may leave a few cores (6 versus 8) on the table, but this is going to happen anyways no matter how many cores you buy today. A year from now or less the next gen processors will be faster with more cores or some other architecture. It's impossible to keep-up and that's exactly what the want!!! Graham

Hi Scott, It's really hard to find current benchmarks on Xeon processors, try a general Google search "Xeon processor reviews" and see if something comes up. In general the more cores you can afford the better, especially for multi-tasking. With the new Raytrace Core assignment it would allow you to better fine tune your system to find that sweet spot. If you plan to use 2 CPUs it is my understanding that they must be "exactly" the same, could be difficult to find if you wait too long. Would also consider using a SSD for primary file storage. Your plan loading & saving will be a lot faster than the SATA Drive. You can use the SATA for archiving or less frequently used file storage. Graham

Larry - For RayTracing that's pretty well sums it up. It's a CPU horsepower process. The issue that I believe many are experiencing is when multi-tasking. To get maximum Raytrace throughput you need all cores assigned in X7. For some this results in a discernable lag while the RayTrace runs in the background. To overcome this the dedicated cores may need to be reduced. As with everything there is always a trade-off, multi-tasking runs better but RayTraces run slower. I myself had this issue, after a lot of playing around the problem was traced down to my graphics driver. Contrary to popular belief, upgrade drives provide the best performance, I had to downgrade the graphics driver, now everything runs as it should, all cores assigned, CPU flat out 100% with more than acceptable multi-tasking while RayTracing. Considering my system is at least 8 years old I really can't complain. Graham

Robert - I also would like some greater clarification as to hardware recommendations. I am certain that the difficulty lies in the fact that we are all doing many different things and as such it is likely impossible to define a minimum. The hardware required by an individual really relates to the complexity of the model. Chief alone will run on almost anything, I have systems with integrated graphics and dedicated graphics and with the work I do I really can't tell the difference between them. Technically one is better but I just don't see it. Maybe they should have a Good, Better & Best type of guide based upon model complexity. Graham

I have had this anomaly also. For some reason Chief seems to be not calculating the offset correctly for multiple door height configurations and you can get the result shown in your Left pantry. I guess the ideal situation would be a separate DBX for each section that would allow us to define the handle type/position and even the door/drawer style versus the current global DBX. There are situations where the top drawer is solid and the lower drawers are raised or recessed panel type, really can't define this in the current cabinet configuration settings. Graham

You need to do your homework to ensure that the Xeon benefits will be worth the investment. These are commercial grade processors designed primarily for heavy duty server applications where the processors are running flat out 247. Yes they may be faster than say their consumer grade I7s' equivalents under particular situations but this ability usually requires software that has been specifically written to utilize certain built-in architecture. Regular software that we tend to use may or may not recognize this and might actually perform better on a consumer version processors. This comparison on Toms Hardware, link below highlights some of this in their benchmarks. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585.html They did run some 3d modeling software and the Xeons delivered exceptional performance, maybe with the new Raytrace core/thread optimization in X7 similar results might be reasonable to expect. While other software like Photoshop saw minimal benefit and in some functions the I7s were faster. Unfortunately there is no 100% definitive answer. There are certain generalizations that can be made such as faster is always better, the more cores the better and so on. The real question is how much better and at what cost and will this benefit actually be realized by the user. Graham

It's a problem as the built-in height applies to all doors within the cabinet regardless of their size. My work around is to build this with two cabinets stacked upon each other, now you can set the height for each. You could also remove the handles and float and position them from the catalog. Or you can make one of the door sets a drawer and control the handles that way. Each method has it's pros and cons, especially if you need the material list or use the built-in cabinet labeling function. Graham

What might help is to know what tools you are using to create the backsplash. Base cabinet DBX, Upper cabinet DBX or Wall Material Region tool or a combination of these. If you are using the Material Region then make sure the material thickness is correct especially if the cabinet below has the backsplash set in the DBX, the thicker one can mask out the other one. Looks, as Joe commented above, that there is a filler between the base cab and the wall. If so is the height & thickness & material set correctly in the Cab DBX or maybe it should be turned off (set height to 0") if you are using the Material Region Tool. Graham

I'm not aware of any built-in models that will accommodate this. I just use a cabinet and configure and size the doors and/or drawers according to the manufacturers specs. Not sure how this will be reflected in the schedules. If the you wish the fridge to be there just make the cab really thin and position it in front of the appliance. Graham

Pleased this worked out for you. Also do not forget about the technique Dennis suggested, I also use this quite often and it works very well, especially for paneled built-in fridges where you need to resize a library handle and float in place. Also, in my suggestion solution you are limited to only 2 different sections within a single cabinet, one using a door and the other a drawer. A third section, say a flip-down door would require you to float in a handle or you can use two individual cabinets and stack one on top of the other. The latter allows you to have any combination with complete DBX control of handles and placement. Graham

Done some further checking into drivers. Discovered a lot of gamers have been having similar issues, slower frame rates, game crashes and overall sluggish performance. Many have found that rolling back the driver to an earlier version helped them out. Why not? downloaded 9.18.13.2014 released date May 7, 2013. Did a custom install to eliminate stuff I don't need. Huge performance gain. Now running Raytrace with all 4 cores assigned (max), multiple tabs, multiple browser session, vid playing. Absolutely no problem at all. All cores running flat lined 100% steady for several hours yet everything is quick and smooth with a real sense of stability. Not sure my system has every performed this good. Even Raytraces appear to run much faster. Maybe going backwards is better than forwards when it comes to some of these new updated drivers. The attached Raytrace. 100 passes 25:51, that's only 16 sec per pass. All while multi-tasking. Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4GHz 4 GB Ram Geforce 650 Ti 2GB Graham

Make the lower one a drawer. Will screw up your material schedule but it will give you control over the handle. Graham

I agree Rich and this was what I was doing up until the release of Windows 8. I was a very early adopter, was running the preview version before the public release. At that time there were a number of manufacturers who's drivers had comparability problems with Windows 8. The only real assurance was to rely solely on Microsoft approved drivers as supplied through their update process. This has been the only time in more than two years that I have encountered what appears to be a driver related issue. At this stage I'm hesitant to say exactly what the cause is, is it just the driver, is it some change in Chief, is my system starting to show it's age. Maybe it's a combination of all three, a bit like the perfect storm. Seems for now things are working pretty good. Hopefully some other members who are experiencing sluggish performance may benefit from the discussions in this post and those of the respondents. Graham

Looking more and more like a driver related issue. With this new version 9.18.13.5012 from Nvidia I could not get X7 to crash. All cores on Raytracing and very aggressive catalog flipping. I could force a not responding for a moment but everything recovered as I would have expected. As mentioned above overall system performance appears to be much improved. I know drivers or compatibility with certain drivers is a known area of concern. It is also become apparent that the driver version you get when updating may vary according to how or who you update through. In my case the update driver in windows device manager installed a different version than the update driver detector on the Nvidia website. The latter appears to be the better driver for me. Once again Joe, your suspicion about my drivers along with Ed's forced me to set my ship on a new coarse, I can now see land on the horizon. Many Thanks, Graham

This is interesting. I went to the Nvidia site and used their auto detect for updating drivers. It installed this driver 9.18.13.5012. System performance has significantly improved compared to 9.18.13.4752 that windows installed when I selected the update driver under device manager. With 9.18.13.4752 I also noticed a response reduction in other programs, they just did not pop up as quickly. With this new driver things seem to be back to normal. Will keep my fingers crossed. Graham

Hi Ed - Just sent another report down. I updated the driver as you suggested and ran the test twice. Looks like there was some improvement as it was more difficult to replicate the crash. Did it twice but only if I had all the cores set to max in the Preferences Raytrace. If I reduced the cores down by one I could not crash it no matter how rapidly I flipped through the catalogs. As I always run with the cores reduced by one this problem should not be an issue for me anymore. However overall performance is now noticeably slower. There is a definite lag in DBX pop ups and zooming in & out is now jittery. If I double click a camera view it is definitely slower to generate. With a Raytrace tab open I clicked on a closed camera tab, it took about 4 seconds to transition. I think the best way to describe the effect is as others have, "it seems to be less snappy". It' like driving with your left foot resting on the brake. Many thanks for your attention to this issue and also to the other forum members who are providing really great advice and guidance in an effort to get this resolved. Graham

The new features in X7 over X6 makes it a keeper for me. Yes there seems to be a few situations where things appear a bit sluggish but it's no deal breaker. The odd crash I have encountered is obviously a bit disturbing but with the auto save set every 5 minutes I've never really lost much, and it is rare. It's not like the "BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH". I also know for me that this only happens when I've got a lot of stuff running, maybe it's just time for an upgrade. Graham

Thank goodness Joe. I was starting to really sweat up here. Thanks for your quick response. I really was starting to click through Chief & Windows settings trying to find it. I really enjoy a challenge but like to think I have at least a chance.

Ok Joe got me on that one. Can you guide me to that setting and I will give it a try. Graham

With the "Optimize for Multi-Core CPUs" turned off it was quite easy to generate a crash. Sent report to Tech. Had Raytrace set to maximum cores. Was running a Raytrace and then rapidly bouncing between different catalogs in the library. The crash seems to happen only when a catalog does not have enough time to fully display before another catalog is selected. It's as if it has difficulty dealing with multiple catalog requests. Graham

Thanks Jared - That's the one I wasn't aware of. Will give it a try and see what happens. Graham

I don't see this as an option in preferences. Are you referring to Chief or Windows?

WOW!!! It must have been a "bitterly" cold winter in Alaska this year "eh". Any relationship to Sara Palin? Not sure what I expressed has anything to do with the comments in your response. I just stated that it is up to the poster to determine the validity of the advice and experiences provided by others. Nothing more, nothing less. I for one do extensive research in order to gain as great a perspective on issues and problems in order to determine what best suits my needs. Yes there are others who may have greater experience than I. This however does not necessarily make them an expert in respect to my particular circumstance. If we were to take your thinking on this then every structure would just look like a Frank Lloyd Wright knockoff. A true designer goes beyond traditional thinking to create something unique. They learn from the experiences of others but are not bound by them. Graham

Joe - I keep my systems as up to date as possible, all auto update features are active and all windows versions are current. I should stress here that this crash is only something that I can induce by really putting my systems under severe stress. Under normal usage I rarely encounter a problem. However since X7 this has happened several times without me purposely doing anything special, at this point I can only assume that this stressing has always occurred at times during normal usage even prior to the release of X7. For reasons unknown to me it seems that X6 was able to handle this better. I also have X6 and ran a comparison with X7 on the same system. X6 definitely appeared to run smoother and faster than X7 under the same type of stressing and I could get X7 to crash repeatedly. Was driven to explore this from reading the other post concerning X7 Performance - Crashes?. Tech was expressing difficulty as they could not replicate their experience and users though experiencing problems could not find any specific association to help guide tech. What I have found may or may not be the cause, it is however something that can be replicated at least on my systems. Please keep in mind that many users including myself use Chief for far less demanding work than others. For myself I only need to render interiors, primarily kitchens & baths. I appreciate and often envy those users with truly cutting edge systems and understand that their work load justifies and requires this. It would however be a shame if these types of systems are required in order to do my type of work. Graham