PDA

View Full Version : New machine for Lightwave Pc or Mac



Scamp Vamp
09-10-2014, 09:53 AM
Hello, I hope this is the right forum to post this.

I am thinking it is time to upgrade my ageing Q6600 and I have been reading up on specs, builds and graphics cards.

I was just curious as to what people thought of using Lightwave on an IMac? I've often thought of making the switch to Apple but im finding it difficult to find any info on peoples experiences with Lightwave on OSX and general views on value for money.

All/any advice welcome.

JohnMarchant
09-10-2014, 10:53 AM
Well here we go another one of these debates. So here's the plunge and i will wait for the backlash :):).

LightWave on both, i hear that Mac version has some quirks but then again so does PC version. Plugins tend to be more PC than Mac from what i have seen, that's not saying there are no Mac plugins its just PC tends to come first, probably because LW has been around longer on PC than Mac.

Hardware wise that's a little different, IMO Mac's overall are more expensive than an equivalent spec PC, indeed my specs at the bottom of my page were not even available on a Mac 2 years ago. Having said that it might be different now. My rig back then cost about 1700, the closest a Mac came to that costs 3000 and it was a lower spec.

Things move on and times change so maybe now 2 years later its different. The Mac layout and OS i much prefer, i think the OS is still far more stable and relatively bug free compare to Windows. If i had the option i would use Linux but i dont, i could use dual boot or hackintosh but to be honest i don't want to play around to much as my Laptop PC does what i want it to do and more.

Its always going to come down to cost and spec and that's why these debates are kind of redundant, you can do the research and come to your own conclusion, depending on what you want to pay and what you want it to do.

Me i would build a PC desktop, indeed i did before but now im more mobile so that's the reason for this laptop. You will get far more hardware for your money than a Mac and you can reconfigure or upgrade as needed, which is harder,but not impossible and costlier with a Mac. Of course there will be the fan boys who will say different and that's why its a redundant discussion really.

raymondtrace
09-10-2014, 11:02 AM
What he said, well. :)

Danner
09-10-2014, 11:32 AM
I agree also, it comes down to preference, price, and if you are willing and knoledgeable enough to keep a Win-PC out of trouble.

bazsa73
09-10-2014, 11:37 AM
pc

Waves of light
09-10-2014, 12:11 PM
I recently upgraded my Q6600 rig - (8GB ram) to a hex core i7 4930k (OC @4.5ghz) ASUS p9x79 MB, 32GB Ballistix RAM, H60 cooling, Samsung SSD 120GB, WD 1TB.

You are certainly going to see a massive difference in render speed and VPR responsiveness, not matter which way you go.

The following thread has a lot of excellent examples of render times (using a benchmark scene) on different builds, both MAC and PC. It may help you decide what is best for you:
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here

Scamp Vamp
09-10-2014, 01:29 PM
Hey guys thanks for the quick replies.

I didn't mean to start a fanboy war and I'm glad to see we haven't had one :)

@John, Good point regarding what you can get price wise. I just put together a list of bits from Scan and its amazing, same spec as an imac for (give or take) 1000 less! Good point re build your own PC, I can do that myself and get exactly what I want. The iMacs are still a little behind in terms of CPUs but I don't think it would be an earth shattering gap. I could be wrong though.

@Waves of light, thank you for the link that is exactly the type of info I have been looking for. Very useful, I will go through this in detail :thumbsup:

Great info everyone and thanks again for the opinions and sensible discussions.

spherical
09-10-2014, 05:31 PM
I have both platforms, so there's no hard bias, fan-boy stuff here. I hate those "discussions" and I hope that this post won't turn this one into one; because that is not the intent. I've had four generations of Macs, staring with a Q800 that I still have. Actually, I still have all of them. I like Apple's design sense and appreciate all of the thought and work that goes into it on all of their products. I prefer an iPhone. My SO, an Android phone and a tablet. I maintain all of the hardware, so two-footed on those, too.

That said, I have never liked the Apple quasi-closed architecture and their method of spoon feeding. As John says, surgical upgrades are difficult and generally more expensive, if you can do them at all. But, what I really don't appreciate is the way that products are moved forward. A new product comes out and, after all the ballyhoo and the early adopter sales begin to peter out, they announce the machine that they really built and you really wanted, not the one you bought. I get the concept that the engineering investment of the new product is paid down by the first iteration that the people standing on line to buy the day that it is released, and everything after that is profit. It's a good plan.

Checking the specs of this second machine in the series, you learn that backward compatibility is not part of the plan. Different this, different that, that makes turning the machine you bought into the one you wanted impossible. Limited backward compatibility allows the tech to move forward faster, but at a price. Figuring how long to wait before buying in has always been problematical, as the "real" machine of this cycle isn't announced on a predictable schedule; sometimes not at all, because the one you bought is dropped entirely for a new architecture that is completely different or you waited too long and the one you bought in a series is the end of the line. No way to tell from the outside. They've gotten better over the years and have pulled back from the hard line that used to be, mostly when the move to Intel came along; which opened up a lot of options for users. It might be approaching the time for me to jump on a current Mac.

I've just had better bang for the buck hardwarewise with Windows boxes. Don't necessarily prefer the OS, but the ability to move a machine farther into the future with lower cost overall is a definite plus. I like choosing the hardware that will run together, based upon my ability to buy each component at a level of performance that I can afford. This allows me to throw more $$$ at one aspect of the hardware and opt for a lesser component in another, where the performance of it isn't as critical. IOW, I can shift the focus of the machine, stay within budget and get what I need. When finances improve, I can upgrade discreet components on the primary workstations and do a hand-me-down transfer of hardware to less critical machines and give them a boost. Once the technology progresses far enough that a new build is the better choice, because a lot has changed, most often the later upgrades that went into the workstations can be used in the new box. They'll get upgrades later. Rinse, repeat.

The software side of things is a different kettle of fish. In all of the forums, there is one continual repetition; that of Mac users asking when a Mac build of a plugin will be made coming. Sometimes, even on commercial software, there won't be one but, generally, if a software has had a Mac version in the past, rest assured that it'll be along.

Well, that was longer than intended. Just wanted to be clear that I'm offering a two-footed perspective; not trying to start an OS war. Goes against Proton's recent post on wasting time.