PDA

View Full Version : Anybody here actually have an Athlon 64?



SLAYER
09-29-2003, 08:47 PM
With all of the various threads about the Athlon 64 mostly turning into Intel versus AMD flame wars, I am curious if anybody here is actually using one and if so, how is it?

js33
09-29-2003, 09:16 PM
I'm sure there are some but maybe not LW users yet. Until there is a shipping version of Win64 and LW64 there isn't much need to get one just yet.

Cheers,
JS

DarkLight
09-30-2003, 03:07 AM
I believe that you can already get 64 bit version of windows.

Exper
09-30-2003, 03:20 AM
Beta version available.

DarkLight
09-30-2003, 03:30 AM
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/

I get 64 bit versions for both AMD and Itanium version of Windows XP with my MSDN subscription.

Beamtracer
09-30-2003, 04:09 AM
Beta software cannot be considered reliable for professional work.

james_dmi
09-30-2003, 05:09 AM
Neither could the first versions of OSX. Apple like to release betas to the public but not let you in on it they call it final but you really need to wait till the .1 update to get that.

mlinde
09-30-2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by james_dmi
Neither could the first versions of OSX. Apple like to release betas to the public but not let you in on it they call it final but you really need to wait till the .1 update to get that.
Touché.
Of course, I recall HUGE problems with drivers on the release of Win2K. That wasn't the same thing though, was it ;)

And let's not bring up software that really needs a .1 or .1b to be final, OK...

james_dmi
09-30-2003, 08:46 AM
I just read my post back it did sound a bit inflammatory sorry. I use both Macs and PCs and from my experience, hate them as I do, MS does have better pre release testing then apple. Yes some driver issues were present at all the OS releases but then they are the responsibility of the third party’s, and this is more a symptom of the infinite configurations of the PC platform.

That aside it just seems silly saying the Mac is ready for 64bit Lightwave when the latest OSX only has 64bit extensions that allow "some" specially written apps to take advantage of the 64bit G5 and lightwave is not one of them. This will of course change when Apple gets their proper 64bit version of OSX out but I have not seen a date for this.

Of course there is no way to run 64 bit lightwave on the AMD 64 either even with the beta WinXP as Newtek have not recompiled it for x86-64.

So thus far the only 64bit Lightwave solution is the Itanium running the non beta WinXP64bit (non extended version) Of course I’m not including the versions for MIPS or Alpha on Win NTas these have been dropped by Newtek.

SLAYER
09-30-2003, 12:38 PM
Again this is turning into Flame War, but OSX versus Windows.

Aside from the 64 bit OS, the Athlon 64 can be run now with regular 32 bit OS with significant improvement with LW as is.

This is what I am wanting to know.

jcool
09-30-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by mlinde
Touché.
Of course, I recall HUGE problems with drivers on the release of Win2K. That wasn't the same thing though, was it ;)

And let's not bring up software that really needs a .1 or .1b to be final, OK...

Minor correction here, although the overall point about unfinished software is valid. The driver issues surrounding W2K were the result of hardware makers, not Microsoft. The driver architecture changed in W2K, for good reason, and hardware makers, even big ones like HP, put off releasing new drivers until long the OS was released. This caused a lot of people to try to install hardware with old, incompatible drivers.. Bad news. Very annoying to users, because W2K was in beta practically forever (originally as NT 5.0), so there was no good reason why the hardware makers couldn't have the drivers ready.

js33
09-30-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by SLAYER
Again this is turning into Flame War, but OSX versus Windows.

Aside from the 64 bit OS, the Athlon 64 can be run now with regular 32 bit OS with significant improvement with LW as is.

This is what I am wanting to know.

Well that kinda depends on what you are running right now.
The Athlon 64 would be good if you want 64 bit capability soon and run 32 bit now. But as far as pure 32 bit speed the Intels still outperform the Athlons in LW. When a 64 bit version of LW is available that may change.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
09-30-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by james_dmi
it just seems silly saying the Mac is ready for 64bit Lightwave
Apple has recompiled the kernel of OS X to 64-bits, and the OS is currently a hybrid 32-64-bit OS. At some point in the future Apple will probably remove the legacy 32-bit compatibility from its OS, but I would imagine that would take some years.

Applications running on Apple's G5 can access many 64-bit features with a relatively small amount of modification. For example, a single application can access 8 gigs of RAM on the G5, something that no pure 32-bit operating system can do.

The Windows situation will no doubt change in the future, when Microsoft releases a 64-bit operating system for AMD's processors. I don't think Intel's IA-64 ("The Itanic") will be a contender for 3D apps in the foreseeable future.

However, as it stands now, the only desktop computer with a mainstream operating system able to perform 64-bit functions (such as >4gigs of RAM) is the Apple G5.

js33
09-30-2003, 05:02 PM
I would like to see a benchmark of an Itanium to a G5. I haven't seen any because LW isn't 64 bit. I bet the G5 would be badly beat as the Itanium is said to have monsterous floating point performance. I remember a couple of years ago Newtek was saying they either had an Itanium version or were going to have one.

Cheers,
JS

Jockomo
09-30-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Beta software cannot be considered reliable for professional work.

Neither can operating systems that don't run all software and plugins.

The most common question I hear from mac guys:
So, when are you going to release this for mac?

Beamtracer
09-30-2003, 10:24 PM
First of all I'd like to say that I think that AMD is doing a superb job against the monolith, Intel. I hope that Microsoft manages to release a 64-bit OS for AMD sometime next year (hopefully not too far into 2004) so that the Athlon 64 can be shown at its full strength.

Regarding Intel's Itanium processor:
JS: The Itanium is not very fast. That's why its sales have been nothing but abysmal. The British magazine The Register crowned the Itanium the world's slowest processor.

For 64-bit Windows, I think that AMD shows much more promise, and I think that AMD will win market share with its AMD64 processors.


Regarding Apple plugins: All the major Lightwave plug-in makers (such as Worley Labs) have their plug-ins available on Mac OS X. I don't want to disagree with anyone who loves Microsoft Windows, but for my purposes there is more useful software available on the Mac than Windows:

-Final Cut Pro is taking the professional video market by storm.
-DVD Studio Pro is still the best DVD authoring app out there.
-Shake, the compositing app used on Lord of the Rings, and most other blockbuster movies.

If you're into other areas, maybe things like accounting and financial software, there may well be more available on Windows.

If you're into media content creation, the apps that I see as being fundamental are all available on the Mac. Many aren't available on Windows.

The newly released 64-bit G5 workstation has changed the hardware situation on the Mac as well.

WizCraker
09-30-2003, 10:45 PM
hey you forgot about Logic 6 Platinum (http://www.emagic.de/products/ls/platinum/) [Also you can take a look at Apple's Website (http://www.apple.com/software/pro/logic/)about Logic] This is some pretty nice software and I'm a Windows user.

js33
09-30-2003, 11:18 PM
Logic was available for both Mac and Windows until Apple bought it and killed off the windows version.

Beam,
I think you are refering to the first version of the Itanium which was about the speed of a P2 300. :D But have you seen benchmarks for Itanium 2? It beats the IBM Power 4 in SpecFP2000. :D Also the reason you don't see it on the desktop is the same reason you don't have a Power4 in your Mac. Power hungry and expensive. Also the Itanium runs best on IA64 as it was never really meant to run in 32 bit mode. It's still not clear at this point if Intel will try to make the Itanium a desktop CPU or just make the next version of P5/Xeon a 64 bit chip. I know that Intel has a license to use AMD64 extensions so that is probably what we will get for the desktop in the near term from Intel.

Cheers,
JS

Hervé
09-30-2003, 11:18 PM
.... ah aha ha... any PROFESSIONAL in the imagery business needs both PC's and MAc's to be really efficient in today's forest of apps....

So what's the point with "my machine is winny, ... no it's mine, .... no it's mine.... mama John Doh is cheating on me....

I'd say buy both platforms.... no flames, no war (the one in Irak is enough no? ) and let's go making good renders...

Have a nice day Holly LW'ers...!
Later, Hervé

Beamtracer
10-01-2003, 04:48 AM
Someone in another thread asked about AMD64 and Lightwave plug-ins.

Suppose Microsoft brings out a 64-bit OS for AMD in February, at a guess. Then Newtek releases a 64-bit Lightwave for AMD processors in March.

What about all those Lightwave plug-ins? Will they work with Lightwave running on a 64-bit Windows?

I don't know the answer here. Maybe someone else who knows can fill us in.

Noclar7
10-01-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by js33
Logic was available for both Mac and Windows until Apple bought it and killed off the windows version.


cough, cough. ahh "SHAKE" .. hummm kuhum excuse me :D

WizCraker
10-01-2003, 03:27 PM
I used a Cray a few years back at LANL that was 32-64bit and it ran the 32bit apps normally side by side to the 64bit apps.

duderender
10-01-2003, 04:44 PM
AMD64 will shine with Windows64.

I think where people are not thinking right is that people assume the 64bit architecture makes things faster.

It doesn't. Well.. somewhat. I hope I illustrate my point:

You will not see leaps and bounds of performance speed compared to 32bit architecture. Even the CPU speed should give most a clue. Even the benchmarks give hint, and yes even compared to the G5 using 64bit addressable memory.

What people should realize is that the gain is in PRODUCTIVITY. With 64bit, we can do more and in less time than before because we are doing more at once not faster. Kind of an oxymoron. If you were to do what you do now, and I mean exactly the same, your render speeds won't be faster by much. However, your renders could be more detailed with more geometry because with 64bit we can address much more memory.

With 64bit you will have more efficient productivity because you will be able to load that super large scene with tonnes of data rather than working in smaller data sets.

KillMe
10-01-2003, 05:25 PM
well jsut to chip in wasn't lightwave 8 running on 64bit amd opteron boxx workstations at siggraph - might not been taking advantage of the 64bit but if the athlon 64 is much like teh opteron it seemed to run pretty damn quick ( from what little i saw in the streams)

DaveW
10-01-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
-Final Cut Pro is taking the professional video market by storm.
-DVD Studio Pro is still the best DVD authoring app out there.
-Shake, the compositing app used on Lord of the Rings, and most other blockbuster movies.
[/B]

Although I use FCP at work, I have to say that I like Vegas better. I don't know how they compare feature-wise, but Vegas doesn't lack anything I've ever needed.

I wouldn't say DVD Studio Pro is the best DVD authoring app either; Sonic DVD Creator has a better muxer, has much better compression, supports every single crazy feature in the DVD spec. It also handles large DVD projects much much much much much better than DVD Studio Pro. Unfortunately Apple has been trying to kill Sonic by giving them a bunch of false info about Apple systems specs. That's why Creator still only runs on single processor OS9 machines. Sonic also makes a PC solution called Scenarist, but I haven't used it so I can't really compare it.

And don't forget Nuke and Digital Fusion on the PC :)

Beamtracer
10-01-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by duderender
AMD64 will shine with Windows64 I'm sure that a mainstream 64-bit OS will allow the AMD64 processors to be shown in all their glory. I think AMD would gain more sales if they had a Win64 available now, to show off it's 64-bit features.

Video apps should do better on a 64-bit processor, and maybe run faster too, because they deal with such massive files. Programs that do computations involving very large numbers should benefit also. Anyone who needs large amounts of RAM will also gain from using a 64-bit platform.

There were quotes in earlier threads from game developers, who said that a 64-bit platform is necessary for them to release more advanced games over the next few years.

In the years to come, even the average home user will need a 64-bit platform. You don't agree? Next year's Microsoft Windows will require over a gig of RAM just to load the operating system. Then you need space for the applications. That's just to get it going. If you're a power user you'll need more. With file sizes like that it won't take long to exceed 4 gigs of RAM.


Originally posted by DaveW
Although I use FCP at work, I have to say that I like Vegas better.

It's fine if you feel that Vegas is the best video editing application for your needs. My earlier comment was referring to large budget broadcast television editing, where Final Cut Pro is eating it's competitors for breakfast. In this area Avid is FCP's main competitor.

Final Cut Pro is a juggernaut that keeps getting growing stronger.

DaveW
10-01-2003, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

It's fine if you feel that Vegas is the best video editing application for your needs. My earlier comment was referring to large budget broadcast television editing, where Final Cut Pro is eating it's competitors for breakfast. In this area Avid is FCP's main competitor.


Yeah, I love FCP to death, but I was completely shocked when I used Vegas for the first time. I think it doesn't get taken seriously because it started out as more of a low-budget consumer video editor and it's PC only, but the latest version is outstanding.

Elmar Moelzer
10-02-2003, 11:41 AM
Personally I use what is convenient.
I can do a lot with my PCs and can run a lot of apps on them.
They are cheap and I can get replacement for broken parts in every media- store without having to wait for weeks.
I am sure it is better in the US, but having to wait for 3 weeks for a semi- pro soundcard to arrive was my last experience with a Mac here in Austria.
Things like these are what kills the Mac here.
You know if a dealer for PC- parts sucks here, I can just switch to anotherone which is a few blocks down the road.
There is one Apple- dealer here in my town, so if he sucks, I cant just go to anotherone.
Also some Mac- hardware seems to be overpriced compared to PC- equivalents. Things like graphics- cards i.e.
I also prefer having a larger selection.
I.e I dont like ATi. Their hardware is powerfull, but their drivers suck (as you Mac- users already know too well). I prefer Nvidia- cards, which are hard to get for the Mac, but I can get them in every grocery- store (well almost) for PC.
Dont get me wrong. I think Macs are cool to work with, but personally I just feel to limited with them.
CU
Elmar

Elmar Moelzer
10-02-2003, 11:51 AM
One more thing:
I am not sure whether Apple is doing any good to the users with buying software and selling it for very low money.
I think competition is good. AFAIK Mac- users will have very little choice regarding video- apps since Adobe seems to be discontinueing their line of video- apps for the Mac.
Not that I am too much a fan of Adobes products, but without any competition there is no need for progress, you know...
CU
Elmar

Beamtracer
10-02-2003, 10:55 PM
Hi Elmar,

You could look at it the other way 'round regarding Adobe. Adobe Premiere was going nowhere. Final Cut Pro was a much better application.

Now Mac users have a much much better video editing application. There's no doubt about that. But as a result, Windows users will also get improvements to Premiere.

Do you think that Adobe would ever have released Premiere Pro (couldn't they think of a more original name) if Final Cut Pro didn't exist?

This is a good example of how both Mac and Windows users benefit from Apple innovation.

I know the city of Graz in Austria, but for some reason Apple doesn't have a big presence in Austria. In most other countries the percentage of Mac users is much higher, so the support better.

Apple machines differ from Windows machines, in that Apple has it's own motherboard, and they use the new 64-bit IBM processor.

Apart from that, the other components in new Macs are fairly generic, for example DDR RAM, or the ATA hard drive and DVD burner.

Sorry to divert from the AMD Athlon thread topic. I think there are some Lightwave users with Opterons and 32-bit Windows. I'm sure many more will use AMD64 when Win64 comes out next year.

js33
10-03-2003, 12:38 AM
Don't forget about Apples other innovations like buying Logic and killing off the PC version. Good thing I use CuBase. :D

Buying Shake and charging double for the Windows version as opposed to the Mac version. Good thing I have DFX. :D

Buying Spruce which was Windows based and killing off the windows versions to make DVD Studio Pro. Good thing Adobe Encore is coming out. :D But I also have iDVD on the Mac anyway.

If Apple drives all their software vendors away they will have to make all their own software too. Could be good or bad. Then we will have a mini-monopoly on the Mac side. :D

Cheers,
JS

Elmar Moelzer
10-03-2003, 02:52 AM
Hey Js33!
This is what I am a bit concerned about.
Competition is good for the end- users.

Hey Beamtracer!
Yeah, the presence of Apple in Austria is not that great, but there are a lot of Macs in use at the local universities, hospitals and other institutions.
So maybe they are concentratig more on this market here, than on the mass- market.
Not sure whether this is much different in other countries in Europe.
I am sure the situation is much better in the US, making it a very valid option there.
Here I am forced to taking what is available.
BTW, those pics of the opened Mac - case are great!
Very clean inside and very well built, I like that.
The case- design looks cool as well.
CU
Elmar

Tronam
10-03-2003, 09:20 AM
Yeah, it's hard to forgive Apple for screwing over the PC Logic community like they did. It was like dropping a bomb on the professional music world and really angered a lot of people. The way that the whole thing was handled (along with axing half of the development team) was very cold and business-like. For years, Emagic had kept Logic at near perfect version parity between both platforms too. But, life goes on. Fortunately, I used Cubase most frequently and it didn't affect me as heavily, but many of my friends were very upset. Emagic had been hyping their new Logic Control hardware control surface (and Logic 5.0) all that Fall/Winter and *tons* of Logic users pre-ordered (and received) the $1500+ console. Then, right after it and Logic 5.0 ships, the blunt announcement arrives that all future PC support will be dropped. You'd think they would have offered refunds to all those people that pre-ordered new versions of Logic and Control, but no such luck.

-Tronam

js33
10-03-2003, 04:39 PM
If Apple wants to buy companies and discontinue PC development they should be required to give the PC users a Mac as well.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
10-03-2003, 08:35 PM
It's completely ironic and amusing to see Windows users complaining about Apple limiting cross platform development.

You guys are promoting Microsoft, who is responsible for more non-cross platform proprietary behavior than any other company in history.

You guys are promoting the company that has manipulated crushed or destroyed more companies than any other.

I mean... you can complain about Apple not making their products available in Windows format if you want to. That's fair enough.

But don't promote Microsoft as the open standards alternative. That's a laugh!

Tronam
10-03-2003, 10:05 PM
Tsk, tsk. Now, since when did I ever praise Microsoft for supporting open standards? Actually, for that matter, when did I ever say that I even liked Microsoft? Saying that I prefer one operating system GUI over another has nothing to do with my feelings for the companies behind them. Regardless, all I am relaying is a recent event that left a bad taste in my mouth and especially in many of my friend's. I'm really quite new to 3D graphics and am really more involved in the audio industry, so it touched me far more directly. Besides, just because this is the kind of thing that Microsoft is/has been guilty of, how does this somehow justify Apple pulling the same tactics? It was cold business, no matter who did it.

-Tronam

SLAYER
10-15-2003, 05:39 PM
Alright this has strayed away from its purpose as usual and become a debate thread again. I guess that this is always going to happen.

Now that the Athlon 64 has been out for awhile and numerous magazines have boasted that it is the fastest cpu they have ever tested I have had my questions answered.

I am intersted in the FX-51 which is spendy, but appears to be worth it.

Since this has turned into a debate thread, primarily of Mac vs PC (againa), I guess I will chime in. Yes Mac had 64 first and it even beats it in one or two tests on certain programs, but sorry Mac people, the FX-51 appears to be smokin' the competition. I guess this latest quote on Toms Hardware says it well:

"Tests putting an Athlon 64 FX-51, and a 2GHz dual Opteron up against a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and two PowerMac G5 systems have AMD's 64-bit offerings mashing up the Apple and pulping the Pentium."

Anyway I am never one to debate about such meaningless threads, but since this is what my thread has turned into, I figured what the heck.

I leave you with this:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp

KillMe
10-15-2003, 06:03 PM
hmmmmmmmmmm boxx had amd opterons shipping before the g5 at leastto the comsumer market i remember thinking when they first came out and they claimed the first 64 bit home machine i was liek hmmmmmmm i damn near orderd a opteron workstation nearly a month ago

Adrian Lopez
10-15-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by DarkLight
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/

I get 64 bit versions for both AMD and Itanium version of Windows XP with my MSDN subscription. You're not supposed to use MSDN software for day to day work. According to the license agreement the software you get through MSDN is meant for software testing and development, not for use in a production environment.

I do hope Microsoft changes its current policy on sales of 64-bit versions of Windows. At the moment you can only get 64-bit Windows through MSDN or by purchasing factory-assembled computers. It would be a shame to have the homebuilt market stagnate because of Microsoft's refusal to sell 64-bit versions of Windows over retail channels.

A Mejias
10-15-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by mlinde
Touché.
Of course, I recall HUGE problems with drivers on the release of Win2K. That wasn't the same thing though, was it ;)

And let's not bring up software that really needs a .1 or .1b to be final, OK...

No, it was not the same thing, because MS is not responsible for writing drivers, that's the responsibility of the hardware makers - who dragged their feet to make them and have them available in a timely manner. It’s been the same with every version of Windows. It's not like they couldn't get SDK’s from MS. The same was somewhat true with OSX, but in that case Apple didn't make all the SDK available on time, because they were still working on OSX even after it was released.

But they are not fully to blame either, I big fat finger should be pointed at customers that want to run all the latest programs and demand “backwards compatibility” on 5 year old computers. It’s worse in the PC market than the Mac market, because Mac is only about 5% of it. So there are fewer computers that need upgrading and Mac users are typically more fanatical about keeping up with the “latest coolest Mac.” But there is still a big chunk of design and publishing houses that are still on beige PowePC’s running Quark 3.

A Mejias
10-15-2003, 09:14 PM
For the record…
I believe about 1/2 of what Microsoft say and about 1/4 of what Apple says.
I believe they both do everything possible to close open standards round their own standards.
I believe whatever you buy from either camp will do about 3/4 of what you really need it to do.
I believe they'll both crash about 5% of the time, but look like 50% of the time if your in the other camp.
I believe Microsoft is like the Catholic Church and Apple is like the Church of Scientology (or maybe the Unification Church).
I believe Linux is like the bad part of Islam, if we are not careful they’ll take over the world and make everyone use a command line.

mlinde
10-15-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by A Mejias
I believe Microsoft is like the Catholic Church and Apple is like the Church of Scientology (or maybe the Unification Church).
I believe Linux is like the bad part of Islam, if we are not careful they’ll take over the world and make everyone use a command line.
Man, you are just putting yourself out their with a can of gasoline and a box of strike anywhere matches, eh?
I'm not going to actually comment on this, except to say that comparing ANYTHING to a religion is asking for someone to come along and pick a fight.

SLAYER:
I haven't looked at the prices of the FX-51. However, I would suggest you compare price to performance benefits. In other words, if the chip costs 30% more than a different chip, you should get at least a 30% speed boost. Otherwise you are better off buying something a step down in price and performance, because price usually comes down faster than performance does.

A Mejias
10-15-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by mlinde
Man, you are just putting yourself out their with a can of gasoline and a box of strike anywhere matches, eh?
I'm not going to actually comment on this, except to say that comparing ANYTHING to a religion is asking for someone to come along and pick a fight.

Well, for those that may not get the irony...
My point is that the no matter what computer you use they all suck and the platform wars are as useful and pernicious as religious persecution and racism. Now I'm being literal.



SLAYER:
I haven't looked at the prices of the FX-51. However, I would suggest you compare price to performance benefits. In other words, if the chip costs 30% more than a different chip, you should get at least a 30% speed boost. Otherwise you are better off buying something a step down in price and performance, because price usually comes down faster than performance does.

Right, you usually get your best bang for the buck by getting a CPU that is one or two steps down from the top. The only current exception to that is the new Dual 2GH G5. Dude! You're getting 2 of 'um!