View Full Version : lightwave + xp pro = hyper threading?

02-28-2003, 05:10 AM
HI everyone
im just wondering does lightwave run smoothly on XP pro thus taking advantage of hyper threading???? anyone got some idea on this?

02-28-2003, 05:40 AM
LW runs fine on XP Pro. Can't speak as to the advantages of hyper threading though.

02-28-2003, 04:30 PM
Well it is taking advantage of Hyperthreading...however that advantage seems to be very small.
Anandtech has a few pages with Athlon v.s. P4 rendering in Lightwave:

03-03-2003, 10:15 PM
XP pro supports multiple CPU's..... Dual Athlons or Xeons....

But from what i can tell, Hyperthreading, is an Intel buzzword that provides no performance benefits whatsoever...
It sounds cool, so it will sell CPU's....
Should not make a difference for LW.

XP does support it, however don't expect anything to show because of it

03-04-2003, 06:37 AM
Well Maya and Max are getting a nice 15-20% boost from HT (see my above link a few pages earlier for example), so i wouldn't say " Intel buzzword that provides no performance benefits whatsoever..."

But Lightwave's renderer doesn't benefit that noticeably, for whatever reason.

Btw, for a single CPU XP home supports Hyper Threading too.

03-04-2003, 12:37 PM
umm, i thought hyperthredding was for rich ppl with dual or more CPU's thats how it works more CPU's more threads works with other games though. Want to get overkill need 2K sever to get more than 3 CPU's going


03-04-2003, 01:54 PM
Hyper-Threading is intels attempt at simultaneous multithreading. The CPU shows up as two logical CPUs, and the OS can give each logical CPU a thread to execute, and the CPU internally schedules them to get better pipeline throughput than it would with one thread.

Since Windows XP can distinguish between logical and physical CPUs you can run a P4 with HT with XP home or a Dual Xeon with HT and XP professional.
Win2k can not distinguish between logical and physical CPU (unless there is a patch now), you'd indeed need 2k server for a dual Xeon.

03-04-2003, 03:14 PM
Can you point out where HT is faster than non HT??????
I'm sure their are minor performance enhancements sometimes..
But the links you provided do not show anything?

Nor does Intel's own LW benchmarks with HT.

They claim the 3.06Ghz CPU is 3 times faster than a 1Ghz Pentium III (What a surprise!!)

Imagine a 3Ghz CPU being faster than a 1Ghz CPU!
SSE2 is also a large factor in that. HT = buzzword. (IMO)

They only compare 2.8Ghz CPU's with 3.06Ghz with HT..
and the performance increase comes from clock speed not HT.

Again, if you can show me where LW benefits ??????
Or even Maya benchmarks would be nice.

This is just standard Intel Marketing, to make 2.6Ghz users say Ooooh I need a 3.06Ghz with HT... Typical Intel hype.

Intel claim games may benefit by about 20%... (untested)
Tomshardware claim more like 2.5%
It may get better when people compile for such a technology, but
i won't be holding my breath.

03-05-2003, 06:08 AM
Not much of a boost...


03-05-2003, 02:53 PM
Thanks Matt.....
Thats the one i was looking for.....

That actually shows Hyperthreading slowing down LW.
So if you have a 3.06Ghz CPU, you might want to disable HT..

It's one of the few benchmarks that tests the same CPU with it enabled and disabled. Might surprise a few people..

Intel are experts are creating hype, confusion and using smart
marketing tactics, to confuse and bedazzle customers.
The whole idea is to put a hole in Dual Athlon MP sales.

The sad thing is.............. It will work!

03-05-2003, 03:27 PM
Its simple, Intel are getting pevved that AMD are getting better sales, better CPU's and better liking, so they go and say 'ohh look what are new CPU can do' every dumbass goes out and gets one, stick with what you have, MT is for rich kids (me in 3months)!


03-06-2003, 05:43 AM
Aren't all the new (above 3ghz) Intel chips going to have hyperthreading?

03-06-2003, 07:34 AM
Yes, and possibly also some models below 3.06GHz.

And those Tomshardware benches are very cheesy IMHO...doesn't state which scene was rendered nor if multithreading was enabled at all (i bet it wasn't).
HT of course can't improve anything if you give it a single thread...how would you execute a single thread parallel??
And same for C4D XL, XL8 (and Cinebench 2003) now support HT much better, but even the old version should get a 10% boost IF you enable multithreading.

This benchmarks show some slight improvements with LW:
Of course i can't guarantee that those are correct, i can't test myself. For LW it's not that great, however quite a few other renderers benefit noticeably, and the by far biggest advantage is multitasking, if you're running another program while rendering/encoding whatever you can easily show performance advantages of 40% and more. Question is if someone actually does try to work besides heavy CPU workload.