PDA

View Full Version : Optimal platform for 8?



Gavin Scott
01-14-2004, 03:18 PM
Those of us who might be contemplating workstation upgrades this year would probably be very interested as to whether anyone at NewTek can comment about how 8 will be built as far as architecture-specific optimization options go. In other words, which platform(s) will it be tuned for (Intel, AMD, etc.)?

I believe, for example, that AMD-64 has some performance advantages (even for 32-bit applications) if you compile specifically for that architecture (extra registers, etc.). And even if you target a "generic" x86 architecture, you usually have the choice of having the compiler do instruction scheduling tuned for a specific implementation (P4, AMD, etc.).

It would certainly be nice to have an optimally built executable for each major x86 variant (but I'm not holding my breath of course).

Any comments on 64-bit Windows plans, or plans for 64-bit support (huge memory systems and/or making use of 64-bit data paths) in general?

I suspect Mac users would be interested in similar issues.

Thanks,

G.

Beamtracer
01-14-2004, 09:47 PM
I'd say whatever platform you choose, go with one of the new 64-bit processors.

At some stage, Microsoft is going to release a 64-bit version of Windows, and application developers will begin making the transition to 64-bit apps.

If you buy a 32-bit machine now, it won't work with any new 64-bit OS or applications. If you buy a 64-bit machine now, when MS makes the switch you'll be able to use the new 64-bit OS and applications.

On the Macintosh platform, all PowerMacs are now 64-bit hardware, because of the new IBM-made 64-bit "G5" processors inside.

The new Mac OS is part 64-bit (OS X can access 8 gigs of RAM) but also has quite a bit of 32-bit code in their as well. Apple is making a gradual transition to a pure 64-bit OS.

If you want to use Windows, go with AMD-64 / Opteron. With AMD you'll be able to run today's 32-bit apps, and also tomorrow's 64-bit applications.

However, the new 64-bit PowerMac G5 is worth a look at (that's what I use). The new PowerMac G5 (+ OS X) is an entirely different platform to the Macs of yesteryear, and should be considered if you're looking at a high-end machine.

Zach
01-14-2004, 11:38 PM
by the time ms gets a 64 working, dont' worry about it.

Get a 800 mhz fbs system with hyperthreading, or a new mac (I wouldn't trust mac yet though)

Just get a fast processor, lots of ram, and a good grfx card (like nVidia's latest or ATI or whatever.)

Don't be afraid to spend some cashola. Otherwise check NewTek Europe. They Interview all sorts of people with subpar systems that put out beyond subpar results.

http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/index.html

great LightWave Hype Spots!

BeeVee
01-15-2004, 04:10 AM
I am constantly amazed at some of the machines my interviewees use - I ***** about my 600MHz PIII not being fast enough at home and they are producing fantastic art on a PII at 400MHz... :)

I'd still like to have one of these though:

http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm

(apart from the fact that it would have a top of the range nVidia card, instead of an ATI...)

B

mattclary
01-15-2004, 05:39 AM
When it comes to pure rendering horsepower, it's hard to beat a P4.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941&p=10

I like the 64bit AMD chips, but render speed is my primary motivator, nothing else I do comes close to maxing my machine out.

If you keep in mind that those AMD chips are running at ~2 ghz, they ARE outperforming the Intel chips. Too bad they don't run faster.

BeeVee
01-15-2004, 06:02 AM
I just like the fact that with that machine there's no hard drive - just a 20GB flash disk - and that it has a colour LCD built into that front panel... :)

B

KillMe
01-15-2004, 12:36 PM
i'm currently comtemplating a nice dual opteron 248 - been given a pretty nice quote on a boxx machine if win 64 was out now i would buy it in an instant but hmmm i dont know hell i could get it an need another upgrade before win64 comes out

jorbedo
01-15-2004, 02:26 PM
You can configure a very good P4 HT and 1 to 2 Gb of RAM with an ASUS PC800 MB, and Serial ATA, for almost $1600 (No monitor), But I prefer a Dual Xeon 3.06Ghz and 2GB Registered RAM and SATA with a Dual Xeon MB from ASUS PC-DL Deluxe for Almost $1900.

Dual opteron 248 for almost $3500?, I prefer to have a P4 Modelling, Animation, Layout workstation and a Dual Xeon 3.06Ghz rendering slave for the same price.

Or much better a 2 Dual Xeons fro almost $4000. that will kill any 64bit advantage with only 2 Opteron 248, don't get me wrong, I love my AMD XP 2600, but P4 is still the king on SSE2 optimized code, ask yourself why tomshardware.com and others are benchmarking Lightwave only with the clouds scene?, I think that LW will have very good optimizations fro 64 until V9 or 9.5 arrives, (1 and Half year, maybe more) and you need to render as fast as you can.

The best way to know how fast is a cpu is to run LW is the Radiosity scenes, nothing can say more about raw CPU power than LW application, not maya neither MAx or Softimage, LW is king for benchmarking, (It's my opinion.)

Wait 1 more month for the new Xeon versions runnning at 3.2Ghz, maybe a facelift on the Bus speed too (I'm not very sure about this).

Check prices at www.newegg.com and www.pricewatch.com, confirm reseller at www.resellerratings.com

Beamtracer
01-15-2004, 07:36 PM
Lightwave 8 will change the benchmarks, anyway. Non-Intel platforms will receive more intensive optimization, for example, Newtek's recent press release about using Xcode to optimize LW8 for the Mac G5.
http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html

You want a computer that will run Lightwave 8 fast, not Lightwave 7.

When that 64-bit OS comes out, it's the end of the road for all current Intel machines. These Intel Pentiums and Xeons will never be upgradeable to any 64-bit OS.

That's why it's important to get a 64-bit machine today.

For Windows:
AMD-64 or Opteron

For Mac:
The 64-bit G5 workstation

Avalon111
01-16-2004, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Lightwave 8 will change the benchmarks, anyway. Non-Intel platforms will receive more intensive optimization, for example, Newtek's recent press release about using Xcode to optimize LW8 for the Mac G5.
http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/01-06-04b.html

You want a computer that will run Lightwave 8 fast, not Lightwave 7.

When that 64-bit OS comes out, it's the end of the road for all current Intel machines. These Intel Pentiums and Xeons will never be upgradeable to any 64-bit OS.

That's why it's important to get a 64-bit machine today.

For Windows:
AMD-64 or Opteron

For Mac:
The 64-bit G5 workstation

i think it will take 2 years until there is enough 64bit software and the winXP64 (maybe released in 03/2004) before it is cost effectiv to invest in new computer systems.

if i would buy new hardware in the next 6 month i think it would be 64bit.

Beamtracer
01-16-2004, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Avalon111
i think it will take 2 years until there is enough 64bit software and the winXP64 (maybe released in 03/2004) before it is cost effectiv to invest in new computer systems.

if i would buy new hardware in the next 6 month i think it would be 64bit.

You don't have to wait until most software is 64-bit. You only need one program to go 64-bit to make it worthwhile... Lightwave.

We know as a fact that Newtek has been planning the transition to 64-bit for some time. Some years ago, those writing the code for Lightwave made sure that everything was "64-bit clean". In other words, set up and ready to convert to 64-bit when the time comes.

I think that as soon as MS releases a 64-bit Windows for the AMD processor, Newtek would be pretty quick to release a 64-bit Lightwave to go with it. Newtek has already demonstrated a 64-bit Lightwave prototype.

AMD-64 and Opteron based machines have received a boost now that Sun Microsystems will be adopting them.

Mac users are already using 64-bit hardware with the G5. As Apple introduces more 64-bit features to the OS, the applications will transition across.

Beamtracer
01-17-2004, 11:28 PM
Quote from former Lightwave engineer, Arnie Cachelin, December 30, 2002



Originally posted by Arnie Cachelin
"NewTek actually showed a 64-bit LW 6 running in Itanium machines a couple years ago, when people thought there would be a 64-bit OS as well as hardware available. The fact that the codebase is "64-bit clean" means that if a market for Win64 applications somehow emerged, a version of LW for it would be ready. It is not clear that Win64 will be viable for some time, and aside from removing memory limits, it is not clear how much advantage would be gained from running that way"

It must have been in 2000 that Newtek demonstrated a prototype Lightwave64.