Processor Core Usage In Chief ?

[TheKitchenAbode]

A silly fundamental question for you guys...I cannot locate the "Shiny Stainless.jpg" denoted in Graham's file (see attached). I am also questioning my the whole texture thing. I can locate a material Metal Stainless, (Rough, Brushed and Polished) but when using them they look more "Black than the SS appliances in my home. When I check my system Texture folder it is empty except of the "Metal001" that was in Mick's folder. Is this how it is supposed to look? The loading and use of textures and materials does not appear to be working as smooth and as automated as I think it should.

 

Hi Scott - Here are the two files I downloaded for the stainless steel. Can't remember if I used the one provided by Kirk or Mick.

 

Graham

S.Steel_Metal_Material_Kirk.calibz

Stainless Steel Library_Mick.calibz

[Kbird1]

It looks like the error message mentions my File Graham , I guess you skipped reading Post # 136 Scott    

 

you should have it if you downloaded Graham's Texture file in post no# 165 too

[mrscott]

Got um!

[Digital_design]

There is a plethora of information available in this thread that I wished I had located years earlier.  In particular, how various hardware configurations can effect rendering and ray-tracing times in Chief, along with the the importance of a thorough understanding of light sources and their individual impact upon ray tracing.  Somewhere in this thread one of the participants states the value this information has to potential Chief clients and that cannot be understated.  The lack of concrete technical documentation that discusses various processors (i.e. I7-XXX vs Xeons), video cards (i.e. Nvidia GeForce 980m vs Quadro M4000) and how they directly relate to performance within various aspects of Chief Architect was ultimately the deciding factor for me to pursue Revit.  Despite it being more expensive and more complicated, I was able to source the afore mentioned information much more easily. 

 

It is important to know some of the geeky details, such as:

 

-Is a blazing fast processor more important than a top of the line video card?

-Does the amount of memory on the video card directly effect performance in Chief?  

-Does a SSD hard drive vs a mechanical one make a difference if we don't have a ginormous amount of RAM to begin with?

-How many CPU cores/threads can Chief effectively use, and when and where do we benefit from 24 cores vs, say, 8?   (this is the Xeon vs I7 debacle)

-At what point does added RAM no longer truly make a difference in Chief?

-At what point does the bottleneck of the system switch from CPU to GPU and vice versa?

 

 

When someone is building a machine for a very specific purpose it is of upmost importance to them to allocate their funds properly.  I have a feeling many other people like me have found precious little information on the specifics of just how Chief Architect software interacts and utilizes hardware.  It may not be the sexiest of information, but for many (including me) the lack thereof drove me to Revit.

[Chief_QA]

 

There is a plethora of information available in this thread that I wished I had located years earlier.  In particular, how various hardware configurations can effect rendering and ray-tracing times in Chief, along with the the importance of a thorough understanding of light sources and their individual impact upon ray tracing.  Somewhere in this thread one of the participants states the value this information has to potential Chief clients and that cannot be understated.  The lack of concrete technical documentation that discusses various processors (i.e. I7-XXX vs Xeons), video cards (i.e. Nvidia GeForce 980m vs Quadro M4000) and how they directly relate to performance within various aspects of Chief Architect was ultimately the deciding factor for me to pursue Revit.  Despite it being more expensive and more complicated, I was able to source the afore mentioned information much more easily. 

 

It is important to know some of the geeky details, such as:

 

-Is a blazing fast processor more important than a top of the line video card?

-Does the amount of memory on the video card directly effect performance in Chief?  

-Does a SSD hard drive vs a mechanical one make a difference if we don't have a ginormous amount of RAM to begin with?

-How many CPU cores/threads can Chief effectively use, and when and where do we benefit from 24 cores vs, say, 8?   (this is the Xeon vs I7 debacle)

-At what point does added RAM no longer truly make a difference in Chief?

-At what point does the bottleneck of the system switch from CPU to GPU and vice versa?

 

 

When someone is building a machine for a very specific purpose it is of upmost importance to them to allocate their funds properly.  I have a feeling many other people like me have found precious little information on the specifics of just how Chief Architect software interacts and utilizes hardware.  It may not be the sexiest of information, but for many (including me) the lack thereof drove me to Revit.

 

Do you have a link for this data?  I went to their website and I didn't find anything like you mentioned at all.  I wouldn't consider "most affordable processor" defining any performance criteria like you mentioned.  All I saw was some old outdated information involving a few laptops and a couple of HP desktop computers.  Nothing covering Windows 10 at all, in fact some of the listings didn't even have Windows 8.1, only Windows 8.  I especially like their Mac solution which is just run Bootcamp, no native solution at all.  Running a directX software based system on a platform designed for OpenGL would not be something I would ever want to do.

 

Do you know if they perform any OS certification testing like we do?  We are Windows certified for Windows 10 and have been doing this since their certification testing became available.  Our products are also used at Microsoft for their own OS update testing.

 

I would really like to see this data and how we could improve our system by just recommending a few high end systems or cards and eliminate the freedom of our users to "run what they brung"

[Digital_design]

I apologize for the general ambiguity of my previous statement, but I do not know how well criticism is handled on this forum.  Mentioning Revit, for all I know, could very well get me banished forever.  For what it's worth, I believe Autodesk is the software equivalent of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars.

 

With that being said, the link you requested is below:

 

http://hardware.autodesk.com/

 

 

However, what I was specifically referring to was an extensive article written by no one directly affiliated with Autodesk on a forum that isn't even on Revit's domain:

 

http://www.revitforum.org/hardware-infrastructure/75-revit-hardware-general.html

 

Something similar to this thread in particular would serve Chief well, as it's information applies not only to Revit but most any professional design program.  It is written by someone knowledgeable in computers who can, in a true (Idiot's Guide To...) fashion, translate the technical nuances of the software/hardware interaction into something that Architects and Designers can readily use to help make decisions.

 

Autodesk makes an attempt at devising a program to assist clients in making hardware decisions, but it does indeed have a multitude of flaws.  This doesn't mean that my point is any less important, rather, it gives Chief an opportunity to develop a (hopefully better) hardware selector of their own.  

 

If this information is readily located here somewhere please accept my apologies, as I was lead to the thread itself directly from a google search.  I was simply meaning to bring attention to the great information this thread had sprinkled throughout it.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Having taken a brief look at the suggested links I see nothing there other than generalizations. What the author fails to recognize or convey is that what determines ones' computer configuration needs is dependent upon the size of the project being handled by the software, the users workflow and what other software the user requires to run concurrently with the primary package. This is the determining factor which varies for each and every user and as such so does their system configuration needs, this is further compounded when there are budgetary constraints.

 

Graham

[Digital_design]

The generalizations are what is important, in this rare instance.  This is true simply because it is indeed extremely difficult to answer the (what appears to be) simple question "What is the best computer for me?" in regards to optimizing Chief/Revit.  

 

I remember being absolutely dumbfounded when it came time to buy a suitable desktop or laptop.  It took dozens of hours of research simply to begin to truly comprehend the difference between a workstation and a normal computer.  Nvidia Quadro vs GeForce.  Xeon vs I7-XXXX.  Yadda yadda yadda. 

 

I could have easily purchased a dual xeon motherboard with a Quadro M6000 video card and dropped a fortune on the rig, only to realize that it didn't really help me much when it came to running Chief or Revit.  Only in a true 3d modeling program like, say Solidworks or maybe 3dMaya would you begin to see a Xeon/Quadro combination really pull ahead.  I didn't (and probably still don't) understand how Chief/Revit truly utilize the hardware best.  

 

Put succinctly, it amounts to this:

 

Quadro M6000 card: $5000

Nvidia GTX980 Ti card:  $650

 

Intel Xeon E7-8890 V3: $7174

Intel I7-6970HQ: $623

 

These are extreme and blunt examples but it illustrates the point;  someone can easily drift FAR off course in the sea of computer hardware without a beacon of light to guide them.  To me, spending $12,000 to see the same or worse performance than the $1,200 version (in their specific application) would be enough to drive someone to.....ahhhhh...... post random rants on internet forums?  

[TheKitchenAbode]

Your examples are very misleading. One could build a dual processor system based on used Xeon chips that would easily outperform the I7-6970HQ for less than the price of that chip.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon-pc/

 

Graham

[HumbleChief]

Your examples are very misleading. One could build a dual processor system based on used Xeon chips that would easily outperform the I7-6970HQ for less than the price of that chip.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon-pc/

 

Graham

Interesting article Graham, thanks for posting that. If one were willing to build their own system that seems like a great way to go.

[Digital_design]

I am not saying Xeon's are bad processors, in fact they can be just the right thing if you're running software that can truly utilize all their cores or you need the stability of ECC memory.  My post was never intended to promote one CPU over another,  rather it was to comment on just how difficult that decision can be in the first place.  Many people only regard Xeons as "server" computers, and they can be used for much more than that given the right software.

[IanPellant]

I've been using Chief Architect since 1998. Many computers have been custom built for Chief over the years. Things have changed...

 

I needed to do a lot of Ray Tracing back in Chief X6. At that time, the advice was simply: the more cores, the faster the Ray Trace. I built a system with the hottest I7 of that day along with the hottest OpenGL graphics card.

 

Since then I began using a Microsoft Surface Pro 2 with an i5 processor and Intel HD Graphics. With an external HDMI monitor it works quite well. Only trap was to let Windows 10 play around with screen font scaling. 3D views were as quick as I had seen on the custom built computer. Ray Tracing took twice as long

 

To be blunt: a special purpose, "Gaming" graphics card is more an ego boost than a need in Chief Architect today. Serious renderings can only be done with Ray Tracing... and that needs fast CPU cores... as many as you can get.

 

My latest computer, built very recently, uses a Shuttle XH170V - a small 3 litre box - about 240 x 200 x 76 mm. Based on the Intel Skylake chipsets. I fitted an i7 6700 which runs up to 3.8HGz. Put in a 240GB Samsung M.2 SSD card for the OS and a WD 500GB HD for data. Graphics is the on chip Intel 530 HD Graphics which will support up to 3 monitors at 4K resolution each. I'm running 3 old monitors on it - brilliant for Chief: main for Plans, another for 3D views and the third for Layout. Ray tracing tests at 3.8 times faster than the i5 that maxes out at 2.4GHz. This Shuttle is so small and light, it carries easily from home to office.

 

Moral is: if you need to do photo-realistic work, you need to use Ray Tracing.

Ray Tracing is CPU dependent. Graphics card has nothing to do with it... spend more on the CPU and use built in graphics which are now quite good... don't get sucked into the Gaming Computer specs.

 

Autodesk have gone to a subscription based licence with Revit 2017. They provide a web based ray tracing service... it is much faster than most users can do on their own machines. Such servers probably use CPUs such as Intel Xeons, or similar AMD's, in parallel and no graphics beyond a console window. That is where Xeon's are intended to be.

 

On your personal computer: go for the latest Intel i7 that you can find / afford.

 

Cheers,

Ian

[TheKitchenAbode]

Ian,

 

Well written and well said. The only thing I would expand on concerns the graphics card requirements. I agree that there is not a great need for high end graphics boards under most circumstances when using 3D view cameras unless one needs to have a high level of smoothing and/or shadows when using these views. I never use this but I believe some users do, probably during client presentations. Of course one could always wait to see if this is needed and then add the board later as an upgrade.

 

Graham 

[HumbleChief]

Interesting point of view Ian and it seems you have found something that works for you and your business. I, on the other hand, would probably find that system under powered for my needs. It seems it would be fine for smaller models but larger models would slow down a bit with the on-board graphics card versus an "a special purpose, "Gaming" graphics card" which I find far from an ego boost and a must for rendering (not RayTracing) larger Chief models.

 

I haven't tried the system you're describing but before others choose the same, first understand your business and the size and complexity of your Chief models. If you have time to wait for RayTraces, and rendering large models is not in your business model, then perhaps the system you've described will work fine. For me it looks under powered but like I wrote I haven't tried it so hard to say with any certainty. Either way it's an option I hadn't considered so very much appreciate your posting.

[DRAWZILLA]

I don't do much ray-tracing so the video card is much more important to me. Anyway I can do very nice crappy rays in 5 minutes. For me its all the video card, as I do con doc's every day.

[HumbleChief]

I don't do much ray-tracing so the video card is much more important to me. Anyway I can do very nice crappy rays in 5 minutes. For me its all the video card, as I do con doc's every day.

Hey Perry, Do you think that a really fast video card is important for ConDocs? 2D? I'm asking because I was going to upgrade my vid card but only for faster rendering not thinking it would help with 2D Con Docs. Thanks

[DRAWZILLA]

Hey Perry, Do you think that a really fast video card is important for ConDocs? 2D? I'm asking because I was going to upgrade my vid card but only for faster rendering not thinking it would help with 2D Con Docs. Thanks

Yes, it also helps b/c elevations are renders but no color, and 2d also would be faster. I'm getting a new computer and trying to decide what the specs should be and I think I will stick with Alienware this time again. It's going to run me a little over 3000 but has everything I need.

[HumbleChief]

... I'm getting a new computer and trying to decide what the specs should be and I think I will stick with Alienware this time again. It's going to run me a little over 3000 but has everything I need.

Whoa that's exciting. Please share the spec's when you can.

[HumbleChief]

Yes, it also helps b/c elevations are renders but no color, and 2d also would be faster.

I didn't think about the elevations.

[mrscott]

Xeons are a good choice. They perform better than i7s, plus if you do a dual CPU setup you can get even more cores working for you for ray tracing.

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

Doug,

 

If I upgrade my XEON E5 -2620 v3 (6 core cpu) (CPU MARK 15856) DUAL CPU system with 32 GBs of ECC 2133 RAM to a XEON E5-2683 v3 (14 core cpu) (CPU MARK 22475) will I need to increase the ram to 64GB in order to fully utilize the higher core count on rendering. 

 

Another interesting POV, according to the Passmark Chart, is the XEON E5-2670 (12 core cpu) (CPU MARK 22330). It has nearly the same CPU MARK as the 2683 v3 CPU in a DUAL configuration.

 

In case you're wondering...I hate waiting on rendering.

 

Thanks,

[TheKitchenAbode]

Scott - I don't think you would need to increase your RAM. Best way to see is to open up the Windows Task Manager, it will tell you the % Ram utilization. On my system this never exceeds 7GB. Articles that I have read on RAM levels tend to indicate that having excess RAM has little or no benefit. I'm certain your 32GB is more than adequate.

 

Graham

[vampiria_t]

On 4/28/2015 at 0:11 AM, TheKitchenAbode said:

Joe - I have a quad core with the core always set to 3 max. I am just playing around here to see what it takes to bog down X7 or make it crash. I've been able to crash consistently 5 times now. Using core set at 4, 3 & 2. Error message below. Always crashes when I am flipping through the catalogs.

 

 

..\source\ChiefQtApplication.cpp(174): Error #272000999

" Assertion failed: An unexpected error occurred. You should use "Save As" to save your current work in a NEW FILE and restart this program."

4/27/2015 4:56:06 PM

Build: 17.1.2.2x32

 

Graham

Hi,

I've had the same "Assertion failed" and since I was not able to find any solution, I thought posting mine - maybe it helps someone.

 

What caused the error: I was running low on disk space on the system partition, and I suppose that when I closed chief architech some files were corrupted.

 

What I've tried:

-first I tried the "repair" option , restarted, same issue

-uninstalled and manually removed all registry references to the program (because just uninstalling leaves a lot of debris behind) ; restart laptop / then re-install; still no luck

-tried to search over internet for a solution with no clear or final answer

-did a backup of my "Chief Architect Premier X6 Data" from c:\Users\your_user_folder_name\Documents\  ; take special care to backup your "Archives" sub-folder

-removed the whole "Chief Architect Premier X6 Data" and started again the program with no error this time.

-recovered the subfolders in "Chief Architect Premier X6 Data" , one by one, and restarted each time the program to see what was causing the error

 

In the end I found out that the file "c:\Users\your_folder\Documents\Chief Architect Premier X6 Data\Toolbars\libraryItems.tbdata" was the corrupted one.

 

You don't have to follow all my steps, and can safely remove the mentioned file  (you can create back it up before if you really want) as it will be auto-re-created when you close the program. 

 

So the short solution should be: remove "c:\Users\your_folder\Documents\Chief Architect Premier X6 Data\Toolbars\libraryItems.tbdata" file, and restart chief architect.

[mrscott]

On 11/8/2016 at 5:11 AM, TheKitchenAbode said:

Scott - I don't think you would need to increase your RAM. Best way to see is to open up the Windows Task Manager, it will tell you the % Ram utilization. On my system this never exceeds 7GB. Articles that I have read on RAM levels tend to indicate that having excess RAM has little or no benefit. I'm certain your 32GB is more than adequate.

 

Graham

Graham,

 

I am completely BLOWN away! I just completed the upgrade and ran the "Riverstone" bath we used earlier. The E5-2683 v3 CPU's (Total cost for both $675 USD) is amazing. 14 CORES | 28 Threads (56 CORES used to RAYTRACE). See attached. Anyone need quick RayTracing? Send me your plan.

 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Scott - I calculated your 319 passes in 30 minutes, that's 5.6 seconds per pass on a decent sized pic. That's Quick!!!

 

Graham

[mrscott]

Yes it is! Check out the video. Video quality is poor because I had to compress it from 222MB to below 25MB for the upload but you will get the idea. Now I can experiment with all sorts of Raytracing idea without having to wait for quality images to appear.

 

 

Riverstone_Raytrace_Dual_Xeon_E5-2683_v3.mp4