G5 or Intel? [Archive] - NewTek Discussions

Darth Mole

02-01-2006, 02:29 AM

I was dead keen on buying the Quad G5, but when the Intel machines were announced I sort of had second thoughts. I can get a good discount on one, and all my apps are, of course, PPC. So, my question is...

When the Intel Quad machine invariably arrives, how much faster will it be in terms of processing power, do you think, than the Quad G5? If the current dual cores are 2.3 to 2.5 GHz, will we see these used in the new Pro Mac lines, or will there be faster processors this year? Any ideas?

Captain Obvious

02-01-2006, 02:36 AM

They will obviously be a lot faster, but there's always a faster machine just around the corner. If you need a machine now, buy a G5. It's really fast, it's compatible with your software, and it'll last you a long while. If you don't need it now, you might as well wait.

Darth Mole

02-01-2006, 04:57 AM

Ah, but that's the tricky part: if I buy a Quad G5, I'll be happy with the speed bump, as I'm on a dual 2GHz at the moment. But if Apple produce, say, a Quad 3GHz Intel machine, which has a significant speed increase over the G5, I'll be kicking myself.

If it was only slightly faster than the G5, it woudn't be a major issue - a few MHz here or there isn't a worry. My question is what sort of speed differential do you think we'll see? The iMac is twice as fast because it now has a dual-core chip in it, rather than a single CPU - but if it had a dual-core G5 in it, how much slower would it be?

Captain Obvious

02-01-2006, 06:39 AM

The iMac is twice as fast because it now has a dual-core chip in it, rather than a single CPU - but if it had a dual-core G5 in it, how much slower would it be?
Not all that much. The dual-core G5 is actually a bit faster than two equally clocked single-core G5s. The new iMac seems to be about as fast as the lowest-end Power Mac. Sometimes quite a bit faster, sometimes a little slower. However, the "Mac Pro" will probably get Intel's next workstation chip which will clock a LOT higher than the Core Duo, so it'll probably be significant performance increase. It's hard to say. Also, Lightwave rendering on the quad Mac will be a LOT faster than Lightwave rendering in Rosetta on the quad Intel Mac. ;)

Do you feel that your current machine is too darned slow for you to work efficiently?

Darth Mole

02-01-2006, 08:16 AM

Oh, god no - it's perfectly adequate. But I'm a techno-addict, early adopter. After about 2-3 years, I get a real yearning to upgrade the hardware! Gimme more speed!

I don't do 3D for a living (although I do earn cash occasionally), so if I'm mucking about, the faster I can do test renders or animations, the less time I spend looking at the scanline/timer bar/whatever.

With regards LW, let's just say it's not my only source of modelling and rendering...

Thanks for the advice. The thought of getting some really fast metal in a new machine is probably enough for me to put off upgrading till later this year. I just hope the Pro machines appear sooner, rather than later!

eblu

02-01-2006, 08:33 AM

Darth,
I have some advice for ya. Stay away from intel till LW is announced for it.
actually, let me rephrase that...
stay away from intel until <insert main app here> is announced for it. in this forum I have to assume that we're talking about lightwave.
why am I saying to stay away from intel? because the speed bump, if you are comparing desktops to desktops, will be negative... IF you are relying on Rosetta. So, until Lightwave is shipped in a Universal binary format, stick with a g5. Especially in the case of Lightwave.

Lightwave uses a great deal of math functions that are inefficient under Rosetta (as per Apple's evaluation of Rosetta, they say 3d rendering is not a good thing to do in Rosetta). So using Lightwave on an intel mac, well... its going to be a slower experience than the quad G5 for certain.

Now, if Lightwave Universal Had been announced, or at least a Time frame was mentioned... then you could actually try to plan around it. maybe hold out, or at the very least know that beyond a shodow of a doubt that a new Quad G5 is a good purchase. But Lightwave Universal is still just a pipe dream, and we don't know when it might become a reality, in any official capacity.

quad G5 all the way.

TomT

02-01-2006, 10:23 PM

I'm using a Quad G5 today. Given Adobe's time-line and NT's lack of time-line, I think it will do for some time to come.

Captain Obvious

02-02-2006, 12:55 AM

You'll probably see a bigger render speedup by buying Fprime than by buying a new computer, Darth Mole. ;)

mike_stening

02-02-2006, 03:27 AM

have to say the rendering speed bump on the Quad G5 compared to the dual 2.7 is quite a bit, everything feels snappier. and like you darth i dont do purely 3d work, the bulk is in photoshop and that shows some cleaner heels under the quad, personaly or couldn't retouch on a dual 2ghz machine, we have a couple here along with some 2.5's and 2.7s and the quads are easily the fastest. and like the guys say, as nothing has been converted to run on the intel machines you will see a speed drop, for a while until the specific versions of software appear.
just make sure you order the 7800gt card with the machine as you cant seem to get them afterwards, still trying to get the place that we got our machines from to get the 7800 as the onboard card (6600?) is not as good as the ATI 9800pro i had in my older 2.7 machine. but that is a small problem compared to the bonuses of having the quad.
and turning on the activity monitor CPU winow and watching 4 bars jump around while Lightwave is processing is very very satisfying. :D :thumbsup:

Darth Mole

02-02-2006, 05:35 AM

Okay, I'm convinced. I'm about to update After Effects, and the state of both LW and Adobe makes me think a Quad will be a nice filler while this whole Intel migration takes place.

I already have FPrime, Cap'n (it's genius) and I'm hoping that things like m*d* 201's fast renderer, and some general algorithm-tweaking will help as much as new hardware.

Anyone know how loud the Quad's run?

mike_stening

02-02-2006, 05:39 AM

to be honest darth my quad is quieter than the dual 2.7, hardly hear the fans cycle up, might be a bit noisier with the 7800 in (extra fan) but still should be quieter than the dual.
is FPrime really that much better and faster than the built in renderer?

Captain Obvious

02-02-2006, 06:50 AM

According to most reviews I've seen, the quad is surprisingly quiet.

Darth Mole

02-02-2006, 06:54 AM

Okay, my order's in. The missus was overjoyed when I told her 8~

Glad to hear it's quiet. My 2.5 is a little noisy so it could be even better - although I've got the 7800 card in it.

Have you not used FPrime!? It has its limitations (due mainly to the LW SDK), but my God it's amazing. I've done Radiosity renders with reflection and refraction in an hour or so that would have taken - literally - days using a straight F9. To the point where you hit F9 and the screen just stay black for ages - it can't even generate one scanline! (FPrime is like a multi-CPU render farm for $500).

FPrime is SO useful for getting instant feedback on textures and lighting. Trouble is, it's all still a bit flaky in LW8.5 - I'm hoping that 9 will help reduce the number of crashes with it. But I think for professional users, it would pay for itself in about a week. Month, tops.

Captain Obvious

02-02-2006, 08:26 AM

I'm not a professional user, I'm a broke user... ;)

mike_stening

02-02-2006, 09:49 AM

cheers darth, sounds like a good time saver, doing a test render with HDr radiosity and 1 area light and it is taking ages but still alot quicker than on the 2.7, drread to think how long that would have taken.
you already have the 7800?
as the card slots in the quad are PCI Express only! hence the problem we had when we got sent 2 ATI X800's and couldn't work out why they wouldn't fit (though didn't take long to work it out)
so i would have thought in the 2.5 you have the 7800 would be an AGP?

Darth Mole

02-02-2006, 10:23 AM

Mike - go and buy FPrime today. Seriously. If you're doing HDR/area light renders - and as long as you don't have third-party shaders or anything - it'll shave hours off your times. Possibly more!

The video clips on www.worley.com should be enough to persuade you!

I've ordered the Quad with the GeForce 7800GT - the 6600 has been slagged off, and the Quadro is way too expensive!

And now I like, the Cap'n, am seriously broke.

Anyone want a specced-up Dual 2GHz G5?

mike_stening

02-02-2006, 10:45 AM

did try to get them to buy me the quadro but it didn't go down too well :stop:
yeah the FPrime video's do look good but i am a bit of a sceptic about things until they are used in jobs.
would be good for a job we have coming up but as we havent been using Lightwave here for long its hard persuding them to part with money for something they personaly don't see a benifit in.
have to try it when we have another big job come in.
how does it handle things like Hypervoxels?
and yeah the 6600 ain't great. handles most things but the 7800 should make life alot easier. :hey:

jeremyhardin

02-02-2006, 11:29 AM

mike, it's well worth the funds for Fprime.

HV's aren't faster in FPrime. It mostly shines in ray tracing functions (shadows, reflections, refractions, radiosity). In intense ray tracing scenes, it really is 20ish times faster. Print resolution renders are finally doable without render splitters too.

Captain Obvious

02-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Anyone want a specced-up Dual 2GHz G5?
How much do you want for it? ;)

jeremyhardin

02-02-2006, 12:05 PM

Anyone want a specced-up Dual 2GHz G5?
indeed. how much? :D

mats4d_

02-02-2006, 06:50 PM

Darth ,

get the quad, you wont regret it..

the 7800 is noisy.. but check this out

http://www.hardmac.com/articles/54/

I did it, and it runs cooler AND much much quieter..

if you can get the quad now, complete projects on that machine faster and make money off it, do it now.. dont wait for the next intel machine.. (powermac? - promac?)

Especially after adobe's update plans and NT lack thereof

just my advice.. :D you can always get the intel machines when they come out if they are worth it and the software platform IS there for them :D

matt

Darth Mole

02-03-2006, 02:57 AM

Hi mats - the Quad is on order! That new fan trick looks interesting - I'll see what the noise is like and possibly perform the operation!

For anyone in the UK (South West preferably), my trusty dual 2GHz is up for grabs. 1.5GB RAM with X800XT card. Perfect condition, still with original box etc. Offers!

(A new one with less memory and a poorer card will cost £1,400).

mike_stening

02-03-2006, 03:14 AM

yeah but are HV's more reliable in Fprime?
certainly looks worth it aas i can make changes from the creatives in realtime and they can get some instant feedback, then leave it to trundle off the rest of the render once sorted.

not had any probs with print res renders apart from trying to make sure they go over a weekend so i don't loose seat time. though the biggest i have done so far is A2.

Darth Mole

02-03-2006, 04:41 AM

Dunno about 'more reliable', but they work - just not in preview mode. I gather print res work is fine in FPrime, especially now it can re-render small areas of the image, and just overwrite the original file. All very clever.

I hope it's more closely integrated in LW 9...

fabmedia

02-05-2006, 01:14 PM

if I buy a Quad G5, I'll be happy with the speed bump, as I'm on a dual 2GHz at the moment. But if Apple produce, say, a Quad 3GHz Intel machine, which has a significant speed increase over the G5, I'll be kicking myself.

What you are saying tells me that you are unsure of buying a product. You sound like you're afraid to actually buy something that is going to be better next month. Sorry to say, but that's inevitable. Don't buy another platform just because it may be quicker. You're investment in PPC is huge. You'll layout another $2000 for a decent machine, then you'll have to buy LW, and all the other apps that you have to make it worth while to use that machine. The Dual Core G5 is by far the best solution at this moment. If you have the money, buy the G5 Quad. The reason being is that the $2000 that you put into a PC and the additional cost of the software would be about the same cost. You'll have a system that will work for you very well over the next 2 years. By that tiime, you'll have enough cash to make the next transition to the Mactel systems. IF you are hesitant, then don't do it. It sounds like you are hummiing and hawing over the decision and that does not make for a good puchase. Don't do it on a whim. I'm currently using a Dual G4 867 w/1.75 Gb RAM. It's not speedy, but it works. I have 2 other computers here as well that makes it a bit easier for rendering out sequences. I admit, it's time for a new machine, but it's also time to pay bills, fix the house, clothe the kids, buy food, and all that other jazz. There will always be an excuse, but make sure that if you do make whatever purchase that you decide on, that you are confident and commit to it. You sound a little inexperienced in this sort of thing. It's only my opinion, and I have been buying systems for over 20 years now. I've had a couple of OMG experiences, but realized that it's par for the course.

Good luck.

Darth Mole

02-05-2006, 03:24 PM

Unsure, possibly. Inexperienced - not really! Just ordered the Quad and it'll be my seventh desktop Mac. Should arrive in two weeks... :)

sjon

02-05-2006, 04:44 PM

Believe me, you will love the power of the Quad G.5. I origianlly had the Quadro FX 4500, but am now using a 7800 GT (half the price - three times quieter - no noticable speed difference), along with a 6600 (3 monitors). LW8.5 just zips along and with the upcoming LW9 and it's rendering speed increase, I no longer am envious of Wintel LW users. I can do anything they can do - yes I can, and as fast. Just get a lot of RAM (I'm running 8 GB).

Sjon

Darth Mole

02-06-2006, 02:51 AM

Yeah, I went for the 7800 after reading posts about the alternatives. Are you running a beta version of LW 9? Any other good stuff to report? What's stability like - I hear Mac LW is behaving itself now.

jasonwestmas

06-26-2006, 09:23 AM

Will lightwave binary work better or worse on a my old Mac G4 I wonder? Worse, I imagine.

Chilton

06-26-2006, 09:51 AM

Hi Jason,

Will lightwave binary work better or worse on a my old Mac G4 I wonder? Worse, I imagine.

A Universal Binary on a G4 should be exactly as fast as a native PPC app on a G4.

-Chilton

jasonwestmas

06-26-2006, 09:59 AM

Nice to know I'll still be able to get some use out of this expensive machine when that day arrives :D Set that baby up for some rendering!

sjon

06-26-2006, 12:12 PM

This is the first I have heard of a "Binary" Lightwave. Is that really a possibility?

Sjon

Chilton

06-26-2006, 12:20 PM

This is the first I have heard of a "Binary" Lightwave. Is that really a possibility?

Sjon

Hi Sjon,

Yes, Chuck and Jay have both stated publicly that a Universal Binary version of LightWave will happen inside the v9 development cycle.

-Chilton

sjon

06-26-2006, 12:26 PM

Cool, I just got a MBP 17".

Jeff7802

06-30-2006, 04:06 PM

Chilton

06-30-2006, 06:17 PM

HI. I also recently purchased the Quad G5 (w/Intel and the GF 6600) I have 8 Gig RAM as well. Is it possible to simultaneously run the NV 7800 GT card and the 6600? How would I set this up? Sorry, I know very little about these things and I am new to LW, but if anyone could help with the good and possibly unexpected experiences I might encounter, I would appreciate it!

I noticed that LW 9 open beta does not support the Quad G5 w/Intel. Is this going to be true with the full ver LW 9.0?

SOooo much to learn, SOoo little time!

THNX

Hi,

There are no Quad G5s with Intel based chips, at least not publicly. The PowerMac G5 refers to the PowerPC based chip of the same name. The Intel based Mac will probably be called the Super Mac Screaming Death Ray 9000 Pro, or possibly something better than that, but they have not been released yet. Probably at WWDC though. The first release of v9 will not support Intel *natively*, but it will run on Intel, and probably quite fast on the beasty they'll be releasing at WWDC. The Universal Binary will ship inside the v9 product cycle. No set time for when that will be has been made public yet.

-Chilton

Darth Mole

07-01-2006, 04:32 AM

What are the bets on a Quad dual-core Intel machine - like, a 17-18GHz Mac!

Haven1000

07-01-2006, 05:38 AM

What are the bets on a Quad dual-core Intel machine - like, a 17-18GHz Mac!

Yeh, and you'll have to keep the thing in a freezer when your rendering with 8 threads!

Darth Mole

07-01-2006, 07:07 AM

No problem for you - you live in Scotland :-)

ACLOBO

07-01-2006, 03:33 PM

I would personally just build a decent PC. Then you can have the speed you want. Also, there are a lot of plug-ins (free or commercial) that aren't available to the Mac. Also, as I understand it, there is no 64-bit version of lightwave on the MAc as of yet - I don't know if this is still the case as I don't follow these forumns religiously.

And with the money you save on building the machine, you could buy something else that is really cool....

-Adrian

jasonwestmas

07-01-2006, 05:57 PM

Yes, many of the Mac Users are fully aware of this. ^ OSX is the real reason anyone uses a Mac, not to have every plugin ever made for lightwave and certainly not to save money.

Darth Mole

07-01-2006, 06:03 PM

Personally, I would rather own a professionally made, high quality machine with a great OS, rather than something I'd cobbled together out of old bits from Radio Shack - however cheap.

Please let's not have another affordable PC vs expensive Mac debate. They're worse than pointless - people on this forum have already made up their minds, thanks.

sjon

07-01-2006, 06:41 PM

I've got a Mac and a PC all in one box. I get to use all the plug ins.

Sjon

marble_sheep

07-02-2006, 12:14 AM

Yeah, the whole "PC's are better because they're cheaper" argument was always kind of lame, but now it's just downright inaccurate. The Intel-based Macs run Windows, and run it pretty well I'm told. So when the Intel desktops are released, for the price of a high-end PC workstation, you'll have a high-end Mac workstation, plus a fully functional Windows machine. Sounds like a bargain if you ask me....

jasonwestmas

07-02-2006, 10:14 AM

It is quite the bargain to run two of the most popular OS's on the same machine. I'm waiting on the Intel Desktops myself. I don't expect them to be a steal though! :)

BazC

07-02-2006, 12:33 PM

It is quite the bargain to run two of the most popular OS's on the same machine. I'm waiting on the Intel Desktops myself. I don't expect them to be a steal though! :)

Me too, it will be the first pro machine I've purchased. How do you folks feel about buying into the first generation of Intel workstations? I've often read you should wait for the second generation to avoid the worst of the bugs!

sjon

07-02-2006, 01:35 PM

Mine (a 17" MBP) is doing great, but I understand that at the end of the Summer, the MBP's will be a little faster. So, if you can wait until then, I would say "do so." I haven't experienced any "bugs," and this machine is fast (I maxed out the RAM and added a second LCD monitor), almost as fast as my old 2.5 GHz dual processor tower (but slower than my new Quad G5 with 8 GB RAM). I plan to set up both machines as a renderfarm with 6 processors.

Sjon

Captain Obvious

07-02-2006, 06:55 PM

On the subject of a 64-bit Lightwave Mac version, there are a few things to remember:

*There are no 64-bit Intel Macs, so even if you ran LW for Windows on your brand-spankin'-new Macbook Pro, you still only get the 32-bit version.

*There is no Fprime for 64-bit Lightwave, right? Well, that kind of sucks, doesn't it?

*The 64-bit issue is much less of an issue on a PowerPC Mac than it is on an x86 Windows machine, for a number of technical reasons:
-Applications in Mac OS X can use 4 gigabyte of RAM, unlike the 2/3 gigs in Windows.
-PowerPC has always been 32/64-bit, right from the start. There are NO advantages to running in 64-bit mode on a G5 except that you get more RAM (and 64-bit integers, but LW doesn't use any). On an Athlon64, there are some actual advantages other than getting more RAM.

On the subject of the "Intel Power Mac," here are some of my guesses:

*"Pro Mac" or "Mac Pro" seem like obvious name choices. I don't think they'll keep the "Power" in the name.

*Three models, as always: "Good," "Better" and "Best" (and possibly an "Ultimate").

*Starting model, and possibly the middle one as well, will have a single CPU. Either a Woodcrest or a Conroe. The top-end, and possibly the mid-end one as well, will have two Woodcrests. I hope all the models will be quad-core (two dual-core CPUs), but I doubt it. The top-end model will use the fastest Woodcrest available, most likely, or at least as a BTO option.

BazC

07-03-2006, 01:38 PM