I have a AMD system Skt 939 with a 3500 single core CPU and 2GB memory on XP 32 bit. While its good for everything else I do, on returning to TG after a few years away, and getting the latest versions, its now not really powerful enuf to render an image with lots of detail and cloud stuffs and atmosphere. I have tried with an image I made and some downloaded clouds and after 7 hrs rendering it had barely covered one corner :(
So am thinking about upgrading. I see that the new versions of TG have capability of handling multiple cores.
Should I upgrade to an Intel E8400 dual core CPU or a Quadcore Q6600 instead. Will probably put in 4GB memory and load up the /3GB switch.
Im not terribly technical, and Im struggling to understand is a faster clock speed dual core option better or worse than a slower clock speed quad core option?
Help?
Given a reasonable price equivalence I'd say 4 cores is generally going to be better than 2, even with the difference in per-core speed taken into account. Most apps, including TG2, do get less efficient with more cores/threads, but 4 is still a good number, especially with plenty of memory (and the /3GB switch).
I'd say TG2 probably loses about 30% efficiency at 4 cores. If you have 4 cores at 2.4Ghz you have a theoretical total of 9.6Ghz, minus 30% for lost efficiency you still have about 6.7Ghz. The 3.0Ghz dual core has a theoretical 6Ghz, and there's probably 5-10% lost efficiency there too. So the quad will probably be slightly better.
*However* each additional thread does use more memory so if you're working on seriously demanding scenes at high resolution it may be better to render with fewer cores at higher clock speed since you may need the memory that would be otherwise taken up by additional core render buffers. Ok so maybe I've just talked myself out of the quad core, hehe. Either one will be a good option and will ultimately render at similar speed, with the quad probably being a bit faster in most "average" cases. If you have other apps that take advantage of multiple cores the quad may ultimately be better for your overall needs.
- Oshyan
One of my life philosophies is, if you have a tool, you can choose not to use it. If you need a tool and don't have it, you're... in deep trouble. ;D If you can afford the four cores, as Oshyan said, you can probably make use of them under some if not all circumstances. Worst case, you can be rendering on two or three cores and doing something less demanding on the other(s). Are you familiar with the Affinity option for limiting which cores an application will run on? Although, I'm not sure that would be necessary with the new version of TG if you set Max Threads less than your total core count... Any thoughts Oshyan?
Theoretically if you set the max threads to less than your available cores, you should have available processing power equivalent to the remaining unused cores. Looking in the Task Manager you would probably see each CPU active to some degree, setting affinity just ensures that one or more entire and specific cores are unutilized.
- Oshyan
If you're planning on putting 4 gigs of ram into that baby, I'd highly suggest going 64 bit instead of using the /3gb switch. The /3gb switch allows programs to use memory over the 2gig mark... but if windows can't see that memory you cant really use it. The reason that I suggest this is that when windows loads ram, you wont see all your 4 gigs (most likely). A chunk of that will not load due to the way the ram is loaded, video ram is loaded before that. So I have a 1 gig video card, that 1 gig of video ram is loaded first. Along with some other stuff windows 32bit showed my 4 gigs of ram at a glorious 2.7 gigs if i remember correctly. I havn't run into any compatibility issues with 64 bit except with very very VERY old programs. Everything else runs fine 32 bit wise even on 64bit.
So if your paying for the ram, I'd say go with the 64bit upgrade too to get your moneys worth on ram. If you're running vista I know you can pay Microsoft like 5 bucks and they will send you a 64bit cd, and your 32bit cd key works for the 64bit too. Though some people don't see as much of their 4 gigs not show up, it depends on some other factors with the computer and its hardware. Some only see ~ 200 mb or so not register (vs my 1.3gigs).
Also I'm loving my quad core. When doing some rendering I often have set the new one to use only 3 cores so that the remaining 1 is left to me to use the operating system as normal (as not many of my programs really use much of the processor except terragen, so one core does almost everything i could want to do while waiting on renders).
Hello! I am new to TG2, but already addicted apart from the rendering time... Has anyone had experience with PC cluster or parallel rendering system? I know that in sciences academia this is used, would TG2 work in such a system? Has anyone of you used it? Thks, mhleo
Bluerose,
I recommend you the Q6700.
Q6700 recently prizedropped from 400 to 220 (220 before was q6600 prize)
The q6700 is slightly higher clocked and is excellent for overclocking.
I'm running mine Q6700(2,66) now @ 3,2 stable on stock cooler ;D
Your decision would be one of the new 45nm generation or 65nm. I'm still a bit sceptic about the overclockability of the new 45ers.
The times when clock speed was a good indicator of power are past. Todays multi core systems have much lower clocking than the last single core cpus but are still much faster.
I suggest using a benchmark to compare hardware components. You can find some at thg: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors/3d-studio-max-9,369.html
I read the new Q9***s consume much less power btw.
Attached is the quote for the options Im looking at - in case the prices are shocking, Im in NZ.
I was considering the E8400 cos its the new proc out with 6mb cache (does that make a different to TG) and its only $50 more to go to Quad core, so no dramas there.
Im hearing the comments about going to 64bit to get the memory availability, Im just not sure if everything I have is 64 bit compatible - tho I spose you dont know til you find out the hard way - I only have the one puter and prefer it to be as stable as poss.
I forgot to mention Ive also got a 7300 GS(?) 128 MB nvidia graphics card, but I dont game, so I dont have a need for more than that, just wanted a reasonable card with potential for dual monitors if I wanted it later (or when I get a bigger house and have room for two LOL).
So the impression Im getting is 50/50 hi end Dual core or entry Quad, but consider going to 64 bit windows? I read in another thread that TG isnt fully 64 bit, just enuf to utilise the extra memory capacity? If I change to 64 bit OS, can I still run 32 bit programs at the same time as running TG? Seeing as Im fairly sure all my other software is only 32 bit.
Those prices seem very high, you could shave a couple hundred bucks off using www.newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com).
But yes, with 64bit you can run 32bit programs just fine. It used to be somewhat of an issue when 64 bit first came out, but these days I haven't had a single problem except with some very old programs that run a little iffy (but hell, I got roller coaster tycoon installed on it, the original ;)). 64bit now just means that you can run 32 bit programs fine, its just they can't take full advantage of the abilities of 64bit unless you get a 64bit binary that does. So 32bit programs can't go over the 32bit limitations of ram; however, a 64bit program can use almost all of it that you put in there. When I built my new computer few months ago, i bout 4gigs of ram, and I plan on buying 4 more probably this summer, so I just went 64bit (especially since when I loaded into 32bit windows I only had 2.7 gigs of ram).
Though, with 64bit you might need to look into different antivirus/firewalls for a 64bit computer (i use kaspersky internet suite and love it).
NewEgg is the bomb. I agree with neuspadrin.
Newegg's value wouldn't really apply in New Zealand. ;)
If you can get good prices on the Q6700 it may indeed be the best deal as Xpleet suggested. However if the price is much higher than the Q6600 then go for that. I doubt you are considering overclocking if you're not a system builder yourself so the "stock" clock speed is what matters. And yes, clock speed is not all that matters anymore, but if you're considering 2 CPU's of the same architecture/family (i.e. Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad), then the clock speed can be compared directly, providing you also taken into account the additional cores (which I tried to do in my example calculations above).
- Oshyan
Yes NewEgg and NZ - hmm not really...
I am sure that 1 month from now all this will be wrong.
but for 6700 vs 9300 this link is a good discussion.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/250041-28-9300-6700 (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/250041-28-9300-6700)
If you're going to overclock then then its 6600/6700.
If you just want a hassle free system then the 9300 uses less power.
YMMV
Oh sorry, I must've skipped over that first line, sorry. Yeh that kinda sucks... I live off NewEgg for hardware. Well, besides the prices I still suggest 64bit quad core ;).
meh i would say get 45NM quad. People say you cant oveclock Q9300 much because of 7.5 multiplier. Well i think its bullshit, to get good overclock from 65NM you need some HARD ASS cooling to go over 3.2ghz. Q9300 can get 3.2GHZ with default cooling.
Quote from: buchvecny on May 18, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
meh i would say get 45NM quad. People say you cant oveclock Q9300 much because of 7.5 multiplier. Well i think its bullshit, to get good overclock from 65NM you need some HARD ASS cooling to go over 3.2ghz. Q9300 can get 3.2GHZ with default cooling.
Q6700 too.
Easily. Cooler still running on 2/3 fanspeed on full load lol.
What this benchmark shows is disappointing.
Q9300 OC reaches 5100 points at 3.5 gigaherz! 5100 is what I get with my Q670@3,2!!!
(http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/01/11D17A36-7ADF-9306-8CD612A6910332673DMark06_CPU_score.PNG)
well... thats pretty strange. Must be the cache. However in overall tests q9300 is superior by 4-5 percent. Its less effective when playing games (cache). However its more effective when encoding video (sse4.1).
...not sure if the 3DMark performance would tell you anything about render performance, especially when multi-threaded.
Quote from: FrankB on May 21, 2008, 08:38:38 AM
...not sure if the 3DMark performance would tell you anything about render performance, especially when multi-threaded.
Yes you can.
If you do compare quad to quad. Definatly. Compared mine with a dualcore I had earlier and it fits perfectly. Also compared my non-OC with now OC'ed q67.
3DMark06 runs a test that pushes the CPU to it's max. It's known to greatly advantage Quadcores over Dualcores (like it's supposed to be) in opposition to games, which put Quad and Dual in the same box because it's hard putting physics, computing, sound and other minor things in 4 equal threads. Because Physics and Computing is still the two most relevant and heavy things, therefore Dualcores are still being produced today!!! You simply don't need more there.
Hey this is the most official and professional 'BENCHMARK' and who is to say that you can not really compare performance in it?
I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that those 3D benchmarks don't use the CPU cores in the way a renderer would, and that much of the 3DMark performance would be related to the GPU power....
Quote from: FrankB on May 21, 2008, 10:24:34 AM
I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that those 3D benchmarks don't use the CPU cores in the way a renderer would, and that much of the 3DMark performance would be related to the GPU power....
These are CPU-only tests. Sort of extra scores just for the CPU. They run a test that runs just 3fps in 640x480. These results from the quadcores are real I can confirm, I tested myself.
:-\ Im a bit lost, what are you guys saying here?
Im still not certain whether to go dual or quad - I like the idea of dedicating 3 cores to TG and leaving one to do other things, that is tempting. Pricewise its much the same so for me at this point its about performance.
Quad of course.
What he said.
Go for a Quad only if it has high spec, i.e 2.66Ghz or more, 8MB cache ideally, the 45nm yorkfields are very good and can be overclocked a lot more than 60nm's without heating up too much because you don't need to increase the voltage unless you go for 1.3GHz overclocking rates or higher.
So in NZ something like this is pretty good (the US based people can feel sorry for us now OK)
http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?item=WKSPB2191&PHPSESSID=99d7c0777405f70da7ca30b326eefec7 (http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?item=WKSPB2191&PHPSESSID=99d7c0777405f70da7ca30b326eefec7)
from: http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?page=2&s=PB%20SYSTEM (http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?page=2&s=PB%20SYSTEM)
Quote from: PG on May 22, 2008, 01:02:04 PM
Go for a Quad only if it has high spec, i.e 2.66Ghz or more, 8MB cache ideally, the 45nm yorkfields are very good and can be overclocked a lot more than 60nm's without heating up too much because you don't need to increase the voltage unless you go for 1.3GHz overclocking rates or higher.
the tests i showed above speak for themselves.
Not really, benchmark programs are notorious for being one track minded. When it comes to real world testing they just aren't a true representation. The Geforce 9600 for example, didn't do brilliantly inder 3d mark, yet it runs call of duty 4 better than an 8800GTX. The intel core 2 duo E8500 had a massive improvement over the 8400 under 3d mark, yet in real world testing it makes no significant difference and can;t be overclocked nearly as far. I wouldn't advise taking benchmark results too seriously. Find tests from game and other program benchmarks. There needs to be a comparison between programs.
Tom's Hardware is a good place to look for these sorts of tests. And Sharky's.
If you don't want to overclock, here's a chart comparing some processors: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/3d-studio-max-9,369.html?p=1273%2C1272%2C1271%2C1270%2C1269%2C1275%2C1268%2C1267%2C1265%2C1266%2C1264%2C1263%2C1262%2C1257
You can change the benchmark and add other processors for comparison using the drop-down boxes above and below the chart. For this chart, I chose 3DSMax because it's a renderer too.
The general conclusion you can draw is that Intel doesn't try to fool you. The more cores and the higher the number, the better the performance indeed.
Another lesson you can learn from this thread is, that overclocking leads to endless benchmarking-madness. ;D
I just posted you some facts, take it or leave it.
But I tell you this, saying "take this because it's new!!1111!1" or "take it becuz it's have a nicer cache!!1111" are inarguable statements.
If you want real values and truthes, digg them up in the internet, it's big enough.
If you want to be a sheep and feed the company, alright don't listen to the tests and benches out there and go ahead just buy what's cool and new.
well xpleet yes, the fact q9xxx series is newer doesnt necessary mean its better. However instead of whining about your q6600 excellence you should provide more proof. More than a single test from 3D mark. I personally like super PI test. Its simple and easily understandable. Or you could just scan something truly real to us such a benchmarks in Vue, which is similar to TG2 in terms of rendering.
Or use fraps to benchmark a selection of your games,at least 4, one that will be easy for it to run, one that it will struggle with, one that will particularly stretch the RAM and CPU and one that will stretch the GPU. You can test any other games to get median values.
Dang, can't find more of the 9300 but tests of the Q9450 confirm the same thing.
This tests shows that a Q6600@ on 3,6 equals almost the results of a Q9450@3,6 that is alot more expensive!!! 3,6 Gigaherz is the maximum for the Q9450 due to the low multiplier.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287
All OC people run tests on 3DMark06 and take the CPU results. As I said earlier it has a brilliant CPU bench in it.
I say sorry but everything I find tells me that the Q9ers are SHIT for OC'ing and can be equaled, if not topped by the Q6er series. The Q9450 seems to get a little better 5% on it's max overclocking than the Q6600.
But below Q9450 and not mentioning that it's hell of expensive, it's non worthy to get a 9300 or 9350 if you want to overclock!
I mean Google it for yourself don't believe me.
I think by "proof" they mean something more substantial than google or some forum. From my experience you can find any opinion about a product if you google for it.
Here are some benchmarks with oc'd q9300 and q6600: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_8.html
btw, one last remark: If it's that hard to decide which one is better then the difference is probably very small and thus irrelevant anyway.
Im not into overclocking and find the benchmarks a little hard to understand - it would be a LOT more useful if someone did some specific benchmarking around Terragen and the assorted possible hardware combinations, that would make this a lot easier for someone like me who wants good performance but isnt into the technical side of things that much.
The sad news is it turned out more expensive than I thought when you throw in the need to upgrade to 64bit Windows, so wont be happening anytime soon (not unless I get a spectacularly good bonus at work sometime :D )
Thanks everyone for the comments, advice and feedback, its been a really interesting discussion, and I certainly learnt lots for when I do get a chance to do the upgrade.
http://tg2bench.kk3d.de/ A TG2 benchmark. Some of them are overclocked, but the clock speed is included in the table so there should be no problem to pick the ones who run at the default speed.
If you buy a windows - buy the system builders edition. It's a lot cheaper and the only thing that's missing is the support - but who has ever used microsoft's support line?
Quote from: Xpleet on May 25, 2008, 07:29:24 AM
I say sorry but everything I find tells me that the Q9ers are SHIT for OC'ing and can be equaled, if not topped by the Q6er series. The Q9450 seems to get a little better 5% on it's max overclocking than the Q6600.
But below Q9450 and not mentioning that it's hell of expensive, it's non worthy to get a 9300 or 9350 if you want to overclock!
Is the Q9 series a 45nm processor? because the idea of that is that you can overclock with higher voltages while producing less heat. Whether it still outperforms other processors is a different story.
I had a look at the two processors and found that your Q6600 has a 65nm process and an 8MB cache running at 2.4GHz while the Q9450 has a 45nm process, a 12MB cache and defaults at 2.66GHz. I couldn't find anything on thermal power of the two but I would assume that the Q9 was lower. This would mean that the Q6600 can overclock further without needing to increase the voltage but the Q9450 can can go further on much higher voltages.
I can definitly recommend the Q9450. I installed it manday, and today I ran the 3dmark06 test (free version).
It surpasses my expetations without OC.
Compared with the rest of the system, the difference between Q6600 and Q9450 is not frigthning.
But some of us don't like to pay so much for a q9450, while at the same time with OCing we can bring the Q67 at Q9450's level and higher. I have seen multiple evidences now affirming the sad fact, that the Q9ers don't get much %power/mhz-fsb. And the problem here is, that there is also a low fsb limit due to the multiplyer. So you can't get a Q945 past 3,6 (450x8=3600) and sadly 3,6 brings a Q9450 to 5100 points in 3Dmark06.
Well, with a stock cooler and a cheap prize I have my Q6700 stable at 3,2 which means 5060 points for me, and with a little modification I could get it to 3,6 which brings it to about 6000.
I don't like the fact that it is that way, the new ones imo should be outstanding compared to the old 65nm quads but it's not the case.
In conclusion the Q9000ers are on option
-if you want a lot less power consumption
-you do not want to overclock
-less heat production(?) and vcore, should require a lot less fanspeed and therefore make a quiter pc. Haven't confirmed this.
The difference between 2 or 4 cores depends on, what they are used for ...
3D-Mark is good for testing overall gaming performance - that's the main reason, why this benchmarking tool got programmed - but not for applications like 3D programs !
If you look through all the tests being done, they are mainly focused on calculating moving realtime 3D gaming graphics - cpu + gpu or only cpu, but that's misleading in the end and only reliable for gamers. ;D
All 4 core cpu's are good for playing games, but there are the fastest 2 cores, which are doing better in gaming, simply because most nowadays games don't support 4 cores directly, because this is a more complex programming in games, due to all of the different things that have to be calculated in games - like graphics, physics, artificial intelligence, sound, playing music, gameplay logistics and so on ...
So that's way with 4 cores, each core only get's used roughly like between 25 to 50 percent of it's power, the rest get's wasted. Still - the 4 core cpu in such a situation doesn't get pushed to it's limit compared to a 2 core, which might be using both cores up to 100 percent. So - a 4 core cpu won't be heating up like a 2 core - meaning overall lower temparature and quieter machine - less strain on the hardware.
If you need a cpu, which is excellent to work with applications like 3D programs, here we need render power - like Terragen, 3DS-Max, Cinema 4D, Vue, Poser ... and all those well known programs more - it's a total different picture !
Here, like the newest build 1.988.1 of TG2, they will use 2 cores or 4 cores to their full 100 percent - but if you have 4 cores run at 100 percent and only 2 cores at 100 percent, then the situation is twisted around - the 4 core cpu can show it's full potential and it will pay off !!
With the newest build of TG2 and my Q6600 at 2.4 Ghz each of the 4 cores (no overclocking), 6 GB RAM, Vista Ultimate 64bit SP1, the calculation time in the tg2bench-test was 1 minute and 22 seconds. If you check the listing at http://tg2bench.kk3d.de/ you can tell, this is way faster then an overclocked Q6600 with the older build version of TG2 !!
And you won't reach such a rendering result with a 2 core - even the fastest 2 core can't compete !
What helps even more with those 3D programs nowadays, is for sure the use of 64bit operating system, because the pipeline got a much higher bandwidth to send/receive data and can use a lot more RAM than a 32bit operating system.
Here one more link to a conclusion from a test at tomshardware.com - which compared 2 and 4 core cpu's in different situations and the conclusion tells the story:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING,1700-8.html
If you want the fastest rendering times, get a 4 core - if you want the fastest gameplay right now (until all the newest games in the future will definitely use 4 cores and more) still get a fast 2 core. If you want a good mix of both, i believe a 4 core stays the winner !
WOW! Thanks tenth, thats an incredibly helpful answer, and what I really needed someone to tell me.
Quad core with 4 GB memory and 64 bit upgrade it is then!
yay took time to convince your for quad
ups
If you can wait, I would highly highly recommend waiting a little while longer. Intel is releasing its next generation processor Q4 '08/Q1 '09, the Nehalem. Not ONLY will it have at least 4 cores (2,4, or 8, depending which version you want), but it has a nice little feature called Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMP) that executes two threads on the same core. So essentially, you can process 8 threads at a time, equivalent to an 8-core processor. BUT even better, is that an early version that was tested on a motherboard that wasn't ready yet scored much better than the 2.66GHz Penryn core (the Q9450) at the same clock speed (2.66 GHz). The reason it outperformed the Q9450 is because of many advances and changes in the archetecture (moved loop detection to the decode stage of the pipeline, increase most if not all of the buffers on the chip, got rid of the FSB and instead goes with a memory controller on the chip which can access memory much faster than the FSB, and many other changes). Nehalem is going to be a BEAST. And Intel SUPPORTS overclocking with it (and it'll be easy to overclock on just air because it's a 45 nm chip like the Q9450).
Check out the preview here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=1
SMT is just an improved version of Hyperthreading. It is *not* the equivalent of 8 cores. From the article you reference "Note that as in previous implementations of Hyper Threading (or other SMT processors) this isn't a doubling of execution resources, it's simply allowing two instruction threads to make their way down the pipeline at the same time to make better use of idle execution units. Having 8 physical cores will obviously be faster, but 8 logical (4 physical) is a highly power efficient way of increasing performance."
That being said in some cases the exhibited performance *is* pretty impressive as compared to an 8 core non-SMT CPU.
- Oshyan
Well the price difference between an 8 core (physical) and 4 core (physical) processor is probably high enough that most would settle for a quad core with SMT.
And to the OP, you should definitely wait. Even if when they are released, you can't afford the new Nehalem series of cards, keep in mind all the older cards will probably all have price drops. It's always disappointing to take the jump and then a week after you buy your gear you are surprised to find a new series of cards was released. Although this is a very frequent problem right now - graphics cards and processors are both advancing at an extremely fast rate.
Quote from: Oshyan on June 10, 2008, 12:40:38 AM
SMT is just an improved version of Hyperthreading. It is *not* the equivalent of 8 cores.
- Oshyan
I know, I tried to imply that by saying "essentially the same" :P I figured that if someone would be asking "which is better, dual or quad?" I wouldn't need to go deep down into the difference of Hyper-Threading and another core :P
It's still pretty awesome though.
Ive been reading a bit on quad cores, and tho the Intel Nehalem sounds pretty jazzy, the AMD quad core seems to be the quiet performer esp in the range of power saving and efficiency.
Electricity is getting expensive, and if we dont get some rain soon, its going to be rare as well, so power efficiency is a fairly important point for me.
But I dont know much about these new Nehalems?
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=4205.0
Quote from: BlueRose on June 12, 2008, 05:04:43 AM
Ive been reading a bit on quad cores, and tho the Intel Nehalem sounds pretty jazzy, the AMD quad core seems to be the quiet performer esp in the range of power saving and efficiency.
Actually, Intel's 45nm chips are excellent in terms of power effeciency and power-saving techniques when they are idle or lightly used (the 45nm includes any of the Penryn cores such as the Q9450 and the upcoming Nehalems). The 65nm chips not so much. And if you want performance, don't go with AMD right now (if it was a few years ago, I would have told you the opposite). AMD is behind Intel and seems to be falling farther and farther behind. The only thing witht he Nehalems is that you'd have to buy a new motherboard (which I'm pretty sure you'd have to do now if you wanted to upgrade to a dual-core or quad-core you probably don't have a motherboard that can use those CPUs) and you'd have to get DDR3 RAM instead of DDR2. DDR3 is superior to DDR2, but it's new and the price is still a bit high (but there will likely be a price drop by the time the Nehalem comes out).
meh dont bring the nehalems yet... they will go on somewhen (new word?) in late winter, and nehalem means new mboard DDR3
Yeah, that's what I said. But if he wants to upgrade from a single-core, he's likely going to need a new motherboard anyway. And DDR3 is more expensive now, but it's better than DDR2 and the price should come down before the Nehalems come out.