PDA

View Full Version : 64 Bit part 2 (or is it 3 or 4?)



TSpyrison
01-30-2004, 08:30 AM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5150336.html?tag=nefd_lede

I see this as being good for everyone...

Let the debates begin!
(ya know its gonna happen)

:D

WizCraker
01-30-2004, 08:46 AM
I remember a few months back that Intel was Licensing AMDs technology for 64bit, makes you wonder if they are pulling a Microsoft.

TSpyrison
01-30-2004, 08:52 AM
If I remember..
Microsoft said they were only gonna do one version of a 64 bit os right?

So that kinda forces intel to follow AMD's lead..

I wonder if Intel can do it better....

Exper
01-30-2004, 10:46 AM
Yes!

Microsoft said they'll work on a single 64bit Windows version, but maybe Intel could ruin this hope! :(

Bye.

TSpyrison
01-30-2004, 11:07 AM
I think whatever happens.. im going to wait to see what Intel has before upgrading my machine..

(its not terribly slow now, I can afford to wait a bit)

WizCraker
01-30-2004, 11:28 AM
I can't say anything about the next version of Windows [something about an NDA] but maybe later this year I will share.

As for the entire 64bit disscussion this has been argued to death already.

KillMe
01-30-2004, 05:57 PM
all i need to know is will win 64 run on opterons? if inte produce something and mircosoft adopt it then i'm gonna be really annoyed i jsut ordered a opteron workstation =/

Beamtracer
01-30-2004, 06:36 PM
The industry has known for a while that Intel's Itanium processor has no future. It's finished. It's dead.

The Itanium project will go down in history as one of the biggest corporate losses ever, along with Motorola's Iridium satellite network.

I posted a thread here some months ago that Intel was going with AMD's "x86-64" architecture, rather than creating its own 64-bit extensions to x86. We've known this for a while, even though no official announcement has been made.

It would have been a good time to buy shares in AMD. Probably still is! Every time Intel makes a processor it must pay AMD some licensing fees.

The biggest loser is Hewlett-Packard who shared the development costs of Itanium, and axed their own processors in favor of Itanium. What a disaster!

A few years ago, Newtek demonstrated a prototype of Lightwave 3D running in 64-bit mode on an Itanium processor. That went nowhere, though at least it means LW's code is now 64-bit clean to make it easier to go 64-bit on other platforms (ie AMD/Apple).


Originally posted by TSpyrison
I think whatever happens.. im going to wait to see what Intel has before upgrading my machine. We've just said that Intel has lost control of the future 64-bit processor market. No point waiting for the company that has been the worst performer in the 64-bit space.

The biggest selling 64-bit processor right now is the IBM-970, renamed by Apple as the G5, and driving current PowerMacs.

Next is AMD's Opteron. As soon as MS releases a 64-bit OS (people say it's coming this year), the Opteron will probably become the biggest selling 64-bit processor.

Both AMD and Apple machines will be able to run future 64-bit applications, but can also run legacy 32-bit apps.

If you buy a current Intel Pentium or Xeon, it will always be stuck in 32-bit land. When MS releases the 64-bit OS, you won't be able to upgrade to use it. When Lightwave64 eventually comes out, you won't be able to run it.

So buy a 64-bit machine now (if you want your machine to last), and you'll be able to run the next generation of 64-bit applications.

For Windows:
AMD64 / Opteron

For Mac:
The 64-bit G5 PowerMac

CaptainKirk
01-30-2004, 06:59 PM
You could buy a machine based on AMD 64 3000 which is only about $220 ( for the chip ).

But , there is nothing wrong buying a machine with 32 bit chips if they are faster for what you need today.

By the time Apple or Microsoft come out with 64 bit OS, chips you buy today will be considered garbage anyway. G5 is already garbage since a single AMD chip outperforms a dual G5 in many instances even with MP aware apps..

Don't be fooled with this Apple has a hybrid64 bits, bla..., bla.. nonsense. Fact is neither Apple nor AMD can really run any 64 bit application and it will remain that way for about 2 years.

Remember also that you should never take advice from any of the Apple fans ( you can see from their posts like those stating as fact: "G5 at 2.6 mhz arriving in early January", that they are full of it )

Beamtracer
01-30-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
G5 is already garbage...
Remember also that you should never take advice from any of the Apple fans Did an Apple user hurt you as a child, Captain Kirk?

ikaruz
01-30-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
The Itanium project will go down in history as one of the biggest corporate losses ever, along with Motorola's Iridium satellite network.
Oh yes I remember the Motorola's Iridium satellite network from my Economics class when I was in school....lol. One group had to do research as to why it was such a failure. Kinda of funny when you think about it, now that Intel's Itanium chip is facing the same path.

Beamtracer
01-31-2004, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Exper
Microsoft said they'll work on a single 64bit Windows version Actually, not so. Microsoft allowed both Intel and AMD to each develop a 64-bit platform. It's just that Intel's IA-64 (Itanium) has not done well in the market, and so Intel then wanted to develop a second 64-bit platform (extensions to x86) and Microsoft said no.

Now Intel will be forced to license AMD64, which they'll call Intel CT. Some have joked that 'CT' means "Competitor's Technology"!

For Intel fans, I still think Intel will be very dominant in the processor market, even if they do license AMD64 rebranded as "CT".

AMD will become a bit stronger, and and more competitive with Intel. This will force both companies to work harder at R&D and build better processors.

I really believe Windows users will be better off with more competition in processors. Think of the extra competition as a positive thing.

I stand by my comment that it's better to buy one of the new 64-bit machines, whether it's Windows, Mac OS or whatever.

Microsoft says they'll have their 64-bit Windows ready in a few months. Newtek could probably have Lightwave64 ready soon after that. You want to be able to run these things.

Current Pentiums are 32-bit. Also Mac G3 and G4 machines are 32-bit.

AMD64, Opteron and Mac G5 machines are all fully 64-bit hardware. When Intel brings out their "CT" processors they will be a good buy also.

Hervé
01-31-2004, 02:56 AM
this thread's soo funny, each time there is a "combat between Beam(fan) and a PC(fan)" it's always very fun. I had a good laugh with the "did an apple user hurt you as a child..." keep posting please.... ahhh this Saturday starts good... 'like that !

later.... Hervé

Exper
01-31-2004, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Actually, not so. Microsoft allowed both Intel and AMD to each develop a 64-bit platform. It's just that Intel's IA-64 (Itanium) has not done well in the market, and so Intel then wanted to develop a second 64-bit platform (extensions to x86) and Microsoft said no.Misunderstood!
I was speaking about the same thing: Microsoft will allow only a new 64bit Windows!

A big sorrow goes to HP and thier PA-Risc (one of the most powerful CPU then double died transforming to Itanium)!

Bye.

P.S. Hervé... I'm agree! ;)

Beamtracer
01-31-2004, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Exper
A big sorrow goes to HP and thier PA-Risc (one of the most powerful CPU then double died transforming to Itanium)!
Yes, Hewlett Packard's PA-RISC processor was one of the best around, and would be today if it still existed.

I don't think PA-RISC morphed into Itanium, though. In the 1990s everyone (including Intel) thought RISC was the future. Intel had no RISC experience, so they partnered with Hewlett Packard who had extensive RISC experience.

HP is the big loser, and it'll be interesting how this affects their relationship with Intel, and also Microsoft.

js33
01-31-2004, 07:11 AM
HP designed the Itanium with Intel from the beginning.

HP was a loser the day that *** Carla Fiorina started ruining, I mean running, HP. :mad:

She's been laying off everybody and getting the board to give her raises and bonuses. She got something like $100 Million dollars for ramming the Compaq merger fiasco down the boards throat.

The HP board of directors MUST be on drugs.

It sounds a lot like the Eisner at Disney situation.

Carla to the board:
Carla: OK heres what were going to do guys. We'll lay off all the talented employees, ruin the company and give ourselves HUGH raises before the company goes in the toilet.

Board: Yeah that sounds great. By the time the stockholders realize what's going on we'll be long gone with the money.

Corporate America. Don't you love it.

Cheers,
JS

Hervé
01-31-2004, 09:19 AM
I love that Carla episode, now that one's good.... the board all finishing in Hawai getting tan on the beach;... h

Meaty
01-31-2004, 09:31 AM
Actually, what Fiona did was this. When HP merged with Compaq there were a lot of redundancies in the product lines between Compaq and HP. Sooooo.... they looked at each competing product from Compaq and HP and chose the superior of the two. Once you dump the production of a product there is no need to continue supporting it, so they had to let go of some people. HP or any business arent running a day care center for employees. Its not just corporate america, it is the corporate world.

Thanks to Fiona HP has a 3.5% profit margin (that means they are profitable) and they are on par with industry standards for debt:equity. Schwab has assessed HP to Strongly Outperform the market in the next 12 months and have given them an 'A' equity rating! So yeah... I don't think investors are going anywhere.

Sorry, I just hate the attitude that because people are laid off, this means that the person in charge is somehow evil. Difficult decisions have to be made and it all boils down to accounting analysis and strategic decisions. So don't go drawing horns on her head and throwing darts at her face just yet. She may very well have had to make difficult decisions which will benifit the company and its employees in the long run.

If you want to scream at anyone, scream at IBM and Intel who have fired thousands of coders and chip designers and subsequently hired thousands of coders and chip designers in India.

reminds me of... this (http://www.despair.com/discovery.html)

CaptainKirk
01-31-2004, 11:10 AM
Yes. It is a childhood trauma.

I grew up and realized that Apple was a lie just like Santa.

Beam obviuosly still believes in santa as he runs Lightwave on his imaginary 2.6 ghz G5 and his imaginary 64 bit OS.

Ignorance is bliss as they say, so maybe I'm also jealous of all that blissful ignorance I'm missing. Rendering times I'm getting now are nothing compared to what I could be getting on one of those imaginary Apples. Hell, it's so fast I probably wouldn't even need to open Lightwave and model and animate. Just think about it and it is already in my DVD player rendered, burned and ready to watch.

Beamtracer
01-31-2004, 03:16 PM
Captain Kirk, on second thoughts maybe it is better for you to discuss these nasty Apples that were so mean to you. It's better to express your inner feelings rather than keep it all bottled up inside. Tell the group about your fears.


Originally posted by js33
Carla: OK heres what were going to do guys. We'll lay off all the talented employees, ruin the company and give ourselves HUGH raises
Actually, HP did sack most of the talented people who were working on the Compaq Digital Alpha processor.

These people who were sacked had enormous experience in 64-bit processor technology. Most of them are now working for AMD.

KillMe
01-31-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Actually, HP did sack most of the talented people who were working on the Compaq Digital Alpha processor.

These people who were sacked had enormous experience in 64-bit processor technology. Most of them are now working for AMD.

heh thats good news for me then =)

Hervé
02-01-2004, 01:23 AM
Thanks Beam Excellent news for me as well.....
(I knew I was right to choose the AMD route.... he he)

Ade
02-01-2004, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Yes, Hewlett Packard's PA-RISC processor was one of the best around, and would be today if it still existed.

I don't think PA-RISC morphed into Itanium, though. In the 1990s everyone (including Intel) thought RISC was the future. Intel had no RISC experience, so they partnered with Hewlett Packard who had extensive RISC experience.

HP is the big loser, and it'll be interesting how this affects their relationship with Intel, and also Microsoft.

Isnt Itanium based on EPIC? and not risc?
IBM has been doing 64bit as long as DEC alpha..I hope it shows its fuition..

BTW Captain Kirk is a pirater and should not be taken serious.

Exper
02-01-2004, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Actually, HP did sack most of the talented people who were working on the Compaq Digital Alpha processor.

These people who were sacked had enormous experience in 64-bit processor technology. Most of them are now working for AMD. Sorry... I cannot resist:
AMD rulez! :D

Exper
02-01-2004, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
I don't think PA-RISC morphed into Itanium, though.Misunderstood... again! ;)

Itanium is a really ne one, I know, I was complaining about HP bad move: lost PA-RISC (a well valued RISC) for a marmalade Intel's project!

Bye.

Beamtracer
02-01-2004, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Ade
Isnt Itanium based on EPIC? and not risc? Intel calls its Itanium architecture 'EPIC', but I think it shares a lot of RISC-like functions.

In the 1990s everyone thought x86 would not be able to be extended much further. In the end, x86 processors were ramped up in speed more than most expected. Now AMD will take it to the next level with AMD64 / Opteron.

On the Mac side, Apple was previously using Motorola as its supplier of 32-bit processors. Apple's switch to 64-bit IBM-made "G5" processors has seen significant improvements in speed.


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
maybe I'm also jealous That's a possibility.

Tesselator
02-01-2004, 09:03 AM
All modern CPUs are RISC and CISC.

64 bit is good. Whatever happens, happens! I'm waiting
for something bigger though:

Power5 anyone?

js33
02-01-2004, 09:49 AM
Yeah baby. 8 cores on one chip. Now if they put those in a Mac I bet everybody here would switch or at least add a Mac to their stable of machines. Well one of these days all processors will be multicore. That's the only way to ramp up speeds as they continue to get closer to the limits of processor technology.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
02-01-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by js33
Yeah baby. 8 cores on one chip. Now if they put those in a Mac I bet everybody here would switch or at least add a Mac to their stable of machines.
Ha!!! I think there'd be at least one person who would not buy a Mac no matter how fast the processor becomes! ;)


Originally posted by js33
Well one of these days all processors will be multicore. That's correct. Multicore is the way all processors are going... basically putting more than one processor on a single chip. It's a bit like having a dual processor machine, except both processors are inside one chip.

IBM will be the first to release dual-core processors for desktop machines, but the others will follow soon after. AMD has entered a technology sharing arrangement with IBM, and Intel recently announced that its future processors will be dual-core.

The problem is that it requires the applications to be 'multithreaded' before any advantage can be seen. Multithreading allows an application to take advantage of dual or multi-processing.

This makes it very important that Lightwave is one day modified to be completely multithreaded.

js33
02-01-2004, 03:38 PM
Well once everything is dual core or higher I think the OSs will be modifed to be multithreaded at the kernel level. This way apps won't have to be specifically coded multithreaded they will be multithreaded automatically.

Cheers,
JS

Tesselator
02-01-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by js33
Well once everything is dual core or higher I think the OSs will be modifed to be multithreaded at the kernel level. This way apps won't have to be specifically coded multithreaded they will be multithreaded automatically.

Cheers,
JS

OS's? Aren't they now? Mine is. :)

App advantage? You only need to run two apps to see some
advantage. :)

For Mac? Heh! I hear that the Power5 is specifically designed
for use in Amiga. 8 cores that you see on THAT side! Turn it
over and there's Ultra Obiese Agnus, Big Edna, Gigantic Garry,
Pure-Power Paula, Light-bendingly dence Denise, and all of our
other friends. :D

Mac -- pspspspspssss... :confused:


hehehe...

KillMe
02-01-2004, 04:48 PM
what about those fancy pci co processor boards - i dont know if they can work with things like 3d apps but they seems to give your average pc ( perhaps mac too ) a serious performace increase what was it - 6 or 7 of them in your average pc and you can start calling your machine a super computer - at least thats what i ehard however i am terribly gulible when it comes to such things

www.clearspeed.com

i had also heard that chip manufacturere were looking at abandoning silicon for chip manucatuing and mvoing to somethign else as they were reaching the lmiits of silicon at room temperatures ( pretty sure that i read that in new scientist magizine)

ah well i shall be happy with my opteron for a while i'm sure meanwhile i will eagerly await the day of desktop quatum computers with that memory gell for ram and storage :D

and if they come up with a ncie neural interface for 3d too taht would be even cooler =) but i shall hold my breath for none of it

if macs suddenly become alot faster than pc's which i doubt since pcs development have far larger finaical reserves to call upon i will have to move over but i'd rather not

i doubt all my wireless keyboards and mouse would word with it and my monitors =/ hm half my software =/ would cost a fortune to switch over actually =/

js33
02-01-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Tesselator

OS's? Aren't they now? Mine is. :)

App advantage? You only need to run two apps to see some
advantage. :)

For Mac? Heh! I hear that the Power5 is specifically designed
for use in Amiga. 8 cores that you see on THAT side! Turn it
over and there's Ultra Obiese Agnus, Big Edna, Gigantic Garry,
Pure-Power Paula, Light-bendingly dence Denise, and all of our
other friends. :D

Mac -- pspspspspssss... :confused:


hehehe...

Well yes but I mean that app developers won't have to worry about coding multithreaded apps or plugins. That they would automatically all be multithreaded due to running on an OS built for a multicore processor.

Power 5 in an Amiga. That would be cool but I haven't heard anything about Amigas in years.

Well I said in Macs because the current G5 processors are variants of IBM's Power 4 so it just follows that the next PowerPC processor will be a Power 5 variant.

But it would be cool to skip the watered down desktop processor and just put a full Power 5 in a desktop machine.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
02-01-2004, 05:36 PM
Mac OS X is already multithreaded, and does it very efficiently due to its UNIX heritage. WinXP is also multithreaded. However both OSs also require the applications to be multithreaded to really take advantage of this.

When multicore processors become commonplace, what will become of applications that can't take advantage of it?

PowerMacs will go multicore later this year. I think AMD will release one in 2005. It's really important for all rendering apps to be completely multithreaded.

32-bit machines are "hopelessly outdated"

I found an interesting quote (a bit over a year ago) from AMD's Chief Technology Officer, Fred Webber:


Originally spoken by AMD's CTO Fred Webber
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/27650.html
"This is what 4GB of memory looks like," he said holding up 4 DIMMs. "It costs less than $1000, and anyone who needs 4GB can go get it now."

"The question is when will the 32bit x86 PC become a hopelessly outdated machine?" he said later. "You can follow DRAM trends to answer that one: some time by 2005 and 2006. It's unsustainable."
Think about that before you put your money down for a new 32-bit computer. 64-bit machines are now the way to go.

js33
02-01-2004, 06:28 PM
Oh yeah 32 bit is outdated and then 64bit will be outdated and we will all be screaming when are those damn 128 bit machines coming out. Hehehehe

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
02-01-2004, 07:36 PM
The theoretical absolute maximum amount of RAM you can install in a 32-bit computer is 4 Gigabytes.

In practice, most 32-bit machines can only be loaded with 2GB of RAM. Many Lightwavers need more than this amount of RAM now, especially if they are creating projects that use large image maps.

A 64-bit computer can theoretically be loaded with over 18 billion Gigabytes of RAM, so JS, I don't think you'll exceed this RAM limit for some time to come! ;)

In practice, many of the current 64-bit machines have slots for 8GB of RAM. That should be enough for most large image maps!

js33
02-01-2004, 09:15 PM
Well it won't be just about how much ram you can put in a machine. You know 128 bit will be able to do twice as much work per clock cycle than 64 bit etc...

Cheers,
JS

KillMe
02-01-2004, 09:29 PM
18 billion gb you say? well i'm afirad thats jstu not going to cut it gonna have to send back my opteron when it arrives =)

CaptainKirk
02-01-2004, 09:42 PM
Nobody needs 2GB of RAM today or in the near future.

Most artists interviewed by Newtek still use old, below 1Ghz Pentium 3 machines, some as slow as 300 - 400 mhz with 1GB or so of RAM.

It could help to have more RAM, but we are entering a territory of masturbation here. Knowing how to use these machines and software that runs on them is much more important than whether you have that extra GB of Ram.

Calling 32 bit machines outdated is ridiculous especially since they still outperform both 64 bit AMD and G5 in a lot of tests.

I don't need to tell you that this is a Lightwave forum and when it comes to Lightwave there is no contest. Pentium is by far the best choice. ( Apple hardware can't even run Lightwave anymore, and who knows what their next OS upgrade will screw up ).
We are still at least 2 years away from the real 64 bit world.

Freak
02-02-2004, 01:43 AM
Captain Kirk Wrote:
"Nobody needs 2GB of RAM today or in the near future. "

(Cough, Cough, Bull****, Cough, Ahem)
Of course we could do with more Ram......
It's all about Mhz and Gb's....... and you can never have enough of either.

Have you heard of REALTIME?
Well the more Ram, the more that is able to be buffered to Ram,
and hence offers much more realtime performance.

Compositing at HDTV or @ 2K film res, NEEDS huge amounts ram,
and the more that can be done in realtime....
The more layers of FX you can view and preview in REALTIME.

The more memory you have the more you can do at once....
I'm sure you will see Digital Fusion take that extra ram, and utilize
it's power in only a matter of months...
God knows, i can max out LW's memory already....

In theory in means LW could handle countless more polygons...
It also means, that plugins which just could not be made, now...
will be able too when this amount of ram is available to us....

And now that we have all this extra memory, expect Windows,
to be coded even sloppier, so that it needs a minimum of 12Gb just to run notepad. :)

I doubt very much Newtek think we are all using 400Mhz PII's for production, sure, people will make the best of what they have, but too far, is never far enough..... everybody knows that....

True, some software will take some time to be coded to provide the maximum benefits of the 64Bit processers and larger ram amounts, but make no mistake, countless off the shelf programs in areas like graphics, 3D, music, and editing and compositing would already benefit from more memory, today.

Apple are doing the right thing, optimizing their graphics, editing, OS and hardware, at the same time... This could well put them in front of the rest, over the next 2 years...

It's just tad unfortunate, that they will always be Apple.... :)

Beamtracer
02-02-2004, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Nobody needs 2GB of RAM today or in the near future.I've got an Apple G5 that already has more than 2GB of RAM installed. I've got scenes that no machine that takes <2GB of RAM could ever render.

If your machine can't load up the scene it doesn't matter how many megahertz it has.

Probably most jobs you can still do in sub 2GB or RAM. But every now and then one complex job comes along that needs more.

This is why I suggest that Windows users buy AMD64 now, or Intel CT when it is released. Mac users should go for the new 64-bit G5 and forget older 32-bit G4 machines.


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Apple hardware can't even run Lightwave anymore My Apple G5 machine runs Lightwave as well as anything else out there. Saying you can't use Lightwave with Macs is pretty silly.


Originally posted by Freak
Of course we could do with more Ram......
It's all about Mhz and Gb's....... and you can never have enough of either. I agree with Freak. You can't have enough RAM. The more RAM the better.

If you buy a 64-bit machine now, you can then install more RAM further down the track. You can load huge image maps. You can cache video to RAM. You can run the new 64-bit operating systems and applications when they arrive.

I think there's enough reasons to choose 64-bit hardware.

WizCraker
02-02-2004, 11:03 AM
I have to agree with Freak and Beam on this. Can never have enough memory.

Also Capt. Kirk where do you get your info from as with the many polls posted on these forums majority of users are clearly using something better tha a P3 400.


And now that we have all this extra memory, expect Windows, to be coded even sloppier, so that it needs a minimum of 12Gb just to run notepad.

Actually the next version of windows will be cleaner than previous versions. MS is working from the ground up and working around the .NET Framework. It will be the First OS to be written completly with Managed Code. Also new to the Windows platform is the GUI is getting a major overhaul and the old Bitmaps are getting scratched. MS is implementing Vector Graphics from icons to other graphics in the GUI. We will see a new Content based File System. Also a cool thing is you can customize Applications in a new language based off XML called XAML. Simple enough for the non programmer yet extremely powerful for the developers. The cool thing is if you know XML you can make a simple Application. Anything more complex than a Hello World App or Simple GUI design you would need to use something like C# or VB.NET.

CaptainKirk
02-02-2004, 12:20 PM
I'm not talking about this forum's members.

Interviews with well known artists show that a lot of them use very slow machines by today's standards

More RAM is always better, but nobody NEEDS 2 MB today.

You can do anything with a lot less. The fact that Beam has scenes which couldn't be loaded on machines with less than 2MB of ram speaks more of his lack of knowledge than anything else. Much like Microsoft programmers who are lazy and develop bloated applications because they figure hardware can handle it.

There is nothing Beam or anybody else can do with whatever RAM, that somebody couldn't duplicate on a machine with only 1GB of RAM. There is more than one way of doing things.

And HDTV, please lets not get into that. That won't be NEEDED by anybody in 4-5 years. Anyway, I personally know there are things shot in high definition and edited on crappy 400mhz G4 AVID systems. And these are network TV programs. So if they can do it on that, why would anybody NEED 64 bits and more than 2GB of RAM.

You guys are into "my dick is bigger than yours" thing a little too much. It's probably people like you who are responsible for this ridiculous race towards more and more fireballs and effects while neglecting all of the really important things in movies.

If you absolutely NEED 2GB of ram to do something today, you shouldn't be doing it, you should go back to flipping burgers and spare us more crap.

Tesselator
02-02-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
Nobody needs 2GB of RAM today or in the near future.

I run out of memory at 2gigs sometimes. Most of my boxes now
have 4gigs.

Most artists interviewed by Newtek still use old, below 1Ghz Pentium 3 machines, some as slow as 300 - 400 mhz with 1GB or so of RAM.

Hmmm a reflection of the US ecconomy? Or an old interview?
I don't know any artists in Japan currently that has less than a
P4 2.8 (HT is prized) with less than 2gigs. I think the standard
here now is 2gigs. These specs seem to hold true for any
of the graphic artists I know wheather working in 2D or 3D.
You know a P4 2.8, 1Gigs, 40gig HD and like a GF4 or FX or
ATI 98/96 is what most Jr. HighSchool kids get for gamming and
costs about $700 ~ $900 depending. Surely working artists
have, need and can afford better tools? No?

Calling 32 bit machines outdated is ridiculous especially since they still outperform both 64 bit AMD and G5 in a lot of tests.

I don't need to tell you that this is a Lightwave forum and when it comes to Lightwave there is no contest. Pentium is by far the best choice. ( Apple hardware can't even run Lightwave anymore, and who knows what their next OS upgrade will screw up ).
We are still at least 2 years away from the real 64 bit world.

I donno about all that but I think 2 years for 64bit to be in wide
use sounds about right to me.

Shrug! When will those atomic computers be out? Hurry up guys!

mlinde
02-02-2004, 12:45 PM
Actually (and it galls me to say it), CK is correct, sort of. If you look at the render farms of big studios, or even small studios, many of these machines are PIIs or old PIIIs. Whether the hands-on production machine is a TOL Xeon or Athlon or Pentium4, the older machines are still used to churn out frames. In addition, freelance artists and small (1-3 person) studios often can't afford the brisk upgrade path offered in hardware. I was working on a P2/200 as recently as 2001, although it was a bit painful by then. I still have and use a G3/450 (with a whopping 256MB of RAM) as a render node today. Some people are (a) lucky or (b) rich or (c) in debt enough to buy new machines often, but many of us do not and cannot. Many times, artists continue to work with the machine they are comfortable with (and the software version they are comfortable with) until they can't, for whatever reason. I actually know someone who is still happily churning out work with Lightwave 5.6d on a Pentium2 workstation. If it works for him, and he doesn't need the speed or features of a new version, there's no real reason to spend the cash.

Beamtracer
02-02-2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by mlinde
Actually (and it galls me to say it), CK is correct, sort of. You think so? Let's look at what he said:


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
nobody NEEDS 2 MB today.

You can do anything with a lot less. The fact that Beam has scenes which couldn't be loaded on machines with less than 2MB of ram speaks more of his lack of knowledge than anything else. Well, looking past the personal insults, and that he probably means gigabytes rather than megabytes, it still makes no sense.

If you have to break your scene into portions and render each object separately to get around RAM limits, it would make life harder and slower.

Time is money.

Wasn't it Bill Gates who also once said nobody would ever need more than 1MB of RAM?

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
And HDTV, please lets not get into that. That won't be NEEDED by anybody in 4-5 years. Anyway, I personally know there are things shot in high definition and edited on crappy 400mhz G4 AVID systems. And these are network TV programs. So if they can do it on that, why would anybody NEED 64 bits and more than 2GB of RAM.
You're referring to "offline" video editing. They make a low res cut with no fx and no rendering, then they later pass it on to a high definition production suite to be recompiled in high res.

I wonder who created the opener to this program? You can bet your bottom dollar they were working on equipment more substantial than an old 400MHz computer.

Next time a client calls up and wants some high definition graphics, just use Captain Kirks line... "sorry, I can't do that, because HDTV is still another 5 years away!" :p


Originally posted by CaptainKirk
If you absolutely NEED 2GB of ram to do something today, you shouldn't be doing it, you should go back to flipping burgers and spare us more crap. I never worked at McDonalds, but Captain Kirk, your next school project should be to find out what kind of equipment was used to render the fx in McDonalds TV advertisements.


In the end, it doesn't matter what machine some struggling artist is using. We're talking about those who are about to purchase a new machine, and whether they should buy a new 64-bit Opteron/Apple G5/Intel CT (when it's released), or settle for a 32-bit G4 or Pentium instead.

js33
02-02-2004, 01:49 PM
Hehehehe. The old Beam and CaptainKirk show. I love it. That's what I come to this forum for is all the fireworks. Hell they should charge admission to this. Where's my popcorn. :D

But seriously. I agree with Beam that anyone buying a computer today should definately get a 64 bit machine. Sure studios are probably using slower machines for their renderfarms as it just cost too much to upgrade 100 or more machines constantly. So they probably will use them until they all die or won't run the OS anymore due to upgrades.

I will wait to see what Intel comes out with but I'm not ruling out a Dual 3 ghz G5 either.

Cheers,
JS

CB_3D
02-02-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk


If you absolutely NEED 2GB of ram to do something today, you shouldn't be doing it, you should go back to flipping burgers and spare us more crap.

It´s actually pretty standard these days to have 2GB installed in professional workstations. And i have no problem using it all up with a LW scene open to render pre-viz elements and at the same time comping them into a HiRes psd in PS. With a tight deadline better hardware CAN be a lifesaver. Of course an artist who works without deadlines can do most of this with 512 mb. I have only 392 at home and use it to model without problems.

Freak
02-02-2004, 04:40 PM
Mlinde Wrote:

"CK is correct, sort of. If you look at the render farms of big studios, or even small studios, many of these machines are PIIs or old PIIIs. "


Nah he is really not! :)

If i remember correctly around 18months back ILM bought 600 P4's to add to their 2000 machine renderfarm, mostly Xeon's
for workstations, they also have a few AMD and SGI machines
in that renderfarm...... Pixar has over 1000 2.8Ghz Xeons, It's a similar story for Dreamworks too.... Sure there are exceptions to the rules.....Renderfarms are slightly different ball game anyway,
Rhythm and Hues, use over 100 Dual AMD's MP's daily, and are already moving up to Opterons...

You are probably not going to need 18Gb's of memory, on every machine in a renderfarm, but would want it on every workstation.

Most studio's i know, play a constant game of leap frog,
they finish one large project, inject the profits from that, into new hardware, to be able to accomplish more in the next project....
(that cycle continues forever)

Sure a 4cyl can still get you from point A to point B,
But it will slow down at hills, perhaps even stop if it's big enough, and the V8 Ferrari will look good, go faster, and get you there in style, all with much less effort.

As Beam mentioned:
CK, How many segments does it take you to do a complicated scene at Print Res???????????? with 512Mb Ram?
Answer = TOO MANY! (if you could do it at all)

One could name countless other examples of how, 18GB's
could do countless more things than 256Mb......

The more RAM, the more you can do with that RAM.....
honestly people, how hard is that to digest?

I won't argue the HDTV, and film res argument, with CK, because obviously it seems you have no idea, when it comes to this.

Anyway, it' seems most people here already know, which way is up and which way is down, some people never admit they are wrong, and therefore, it's a waste of time continuing this argument.... Although it always a bit of fun.. :)

zippitt2
02-02-2004, 04:50 PM
I purchased a 64 bit system with the premis that Intel sort of screwed up by letting a major release fall into AMDs hands. (Well I did to more research than that :) ) And well, there isn't a 64 bit operating system available to me it kicks butt in 32 bit mode. I could only see it getting better with 64 bit...for the prices of processors on the market I couldn't see a reason to purchase a 32 bit processor when you could get 64 for around the same price. So if you ARE going to upgrade, from my simpler standpoint, get 64.

NanoGator
02-03-2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer



Think about that before you put your money down for a new 32-bit computer. 64-bit machines are now the way to go.

Apps permitting, maybe. I wouldn't be predicting the death of 32-bit processing just yet.

ikaruz
02-03-2004, 06:54 PM
Looks like Microsoft just released Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for public previewing for anybody who has a 64 Bit system. I'm assuming this release if more of a public Beta, is that correct?

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp)

Beamtracer
02-03-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by ikaruz
Looks like Microsoft just released Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for public previewing for anybody who has a 64 Bit system. If anyone here with an AMD64 or Opteron machine gives this Win64 beta a tryout, I'd be interested to know how it goes.

Can you run 32-bit apps from within the 64-bit OS? Or, do you have to load two OSs on your machine (one 32, the other 64-bit)? Post your results on this thread if you can.

I wonder if it will be much effort for Microsoft to maintain both a 32-bit and a 64-bit version of Windows simultaneously. I guess they'll have to do it for a while before they phase out Win32.

hrgiger
02-03-2004, 08:42 PM
Personally, I'm sticking with 32bit until there is more support for 64 bit computing. I don't see any significant performance gains for the prices they carry.

bri
02-04-2004, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
If anyone here with an AMD64 or Opteron machine gives this Win64 beta a tryout, I'd be interested to know how it goes.

Can you run 32-bit apps from within the 64-bit OS? Or, do you have to load two OSs on your machine (one 32, the other 64-bit)? Post your results on this thread if you can.

I wonder if it will be much effort for Microsoft to maintain both a 32-bit and a 64-bit version of Windows simultaneously. I guess they'll have to do it for a while before they phase out Win32.

U can run 32 bit apps without problem, only 1-2% slower, the apps run as if they were in a plain windows xp. Now you need your device drivers recompiled for 64 bits, and that's the main problem now. but it won't be too long that every manufacturer does it

Microsoft will have more than 2 versions of windows: 32bits, 64bits for amd, and probably 64 bits for intel (as the inquirer said, it will be called widows elements)

Beamtracer
02-04-2004, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by bri
Microsoft will have more than 2 versions of windows: 32bits, 64bits for amd, and probably 64 bits for intel (as the inquirer said, it will be called widows elements) I think as far as desktop computers go (the computers we use) there'll only be one Win64, and that'll be for AMD.

Intel's own Itanium processor is dead, so Intel will now make desktop processors using AMD64 technology, and rebadge it as 'Intel CT'.

js33
02-04-2004, 06:48 AM
Well there already is a 64 bit Windows for Itanium. I think Intel will make a desktop chip with the AMD64 extensions and there will be one 64 bit Windows version for the desktop. Intel will keep the Itanium for the servers and MS will continue to make Windows for it as well. Then gradually as we don't need 32bit anymore Intel will phase out the hybrid chip and only make the 64 bit Itanium in the future. The Itanium is a more forward looking processor than x86 because it doesn't have all the legacy baggage that x86 chips have. The mistake that Intel made was thinking that people wouldn't want/need 64 bit on the desktop until the end of the decade so they made a 64 bit only chip for the server market. It will emulate 32 bit instructions but not very fast although I read that they are getting the speed up on it.
I think all this means is we won't see Itanium on the desktop for awhile if ever.

Cheers,
JS

zippitt2
02-04-2004, 09:22 AM
Um, I don't know about anyone else owning a 64 bit system...but I'm not about to subject my new machine that's running great to a eval OS on a system that is currently running perfectly. However if you could run both 32 bit and 64 bit with dual boot I would give it a shot. If any one know about the dual boot please let me know.

DaveW
02-04-2004, 01:52 PM
Assuming MS hasn't changed their policies, when you load the XP64 installer it will detect your previous Windows install and ask if you want to dual boot.

Beamtracer
02-04-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by js33
The Itanium is a more forward looking processor than x86 because it doesn't have all the legacy baggage that x86 chips have. That's exactly it's downfall. Intel's biggest asset is x86. Break away from that and start a new architecture (with Itanium) and there's no reason anyone should upgrade to it.

Itanium doesn't natively run any legacy applications. It doesn't natively run any 32-bit applications. "Emulating" 32-bit means it has no 32-bit ability at all. There are virtually no native Itanium applications around, except maybe that Lightwave demo from a few years ago! :p

In contrast, AMD64 can natively run current 32-bit Windows apps, as well as new 64-bit apps when they come along.

The Apple G5 can also natively run current 32-bit apps, as well as being able to switch to full 64-bit mode.

js33
02-04-2004, 04:14 PM
Yes I totally agree with you. :D

If Intel had made Itanium a hybrid chip then they would still dominate and control the market instead of sharing it with AMD like they will have to now.

I don't know what they were thinking.

Well I guess when they started developing the 64bit only chip they were only concerned with going after the SUN and IBM server market and never intended it for the desktop.

But I would think the desktop market is MUCH larger than the server market so they were foolish to ignore it.

Well maybe not ignore but Intel has stated that we won't need 64bit on the desktop until the end of the decade.

Now that AMD has developed a hybrid 32/64 bit chip Intel is blushing with embarassment because they will have to license technology from the company that has been cloning them all these years. Kinda funny actually.

Cheers,
JS

Exper
02-06-2004, 09:30 AM
Some good readings! ;)

Microsoft Windows for 64-bit Extended Systems Available Now
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040205200658.html

Then... take a look here:
Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Extended Systems Beta Customer Preview Program
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/trial/default.mspx

then:
Microsoft® Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Download
https://microsoft.order-5.com/windowsserver2003evaldl/

and finally:
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for 64-bit Extended Systems
https://microsoft.order-5.com/windowsserver2003evaldl/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=MSTrialandEval&category%5Fname=Microsoft%AE+Windows+Server+2003+E valuation+Download&product%5Fid=DLWS64bit

Bye.

demus
02-06-2004, 12:54 PM
Hello,

Long time listener, first time caller...

---

I actually registered in order to post a reply to some of the most glaring inaccuracies about 64 bit processors, Film effects and compositing and HDTV/HD Video I have EVER seen. I use Lightwave for personal use at home. I use and support industry strength effects systems professionally. Let me tell you one thing they ARE NOT: 400MHz Pentium III AVID units.

Currently my studio uses an Inferno(tm) (http://www.discreet.com/inferno/) Suite and a Smoke(tm) (http://www.discreet.com/smoke/) Suite for effects and editing/compositing respectively.

The Inferno is an SGI Onyx 350 (8 way MIPS R16000 700MHz) with 16 GB (yes Gigabytes) of RAM and Optical SAN storage (i.e. fiber connected SCSI RAID storage to the tune of just under 2 terabytes (2,048 GB of drive space). It runs IRIX 6.5 which is a fully 64 bit variant of SVR4 UNIX.

The Smoke is an SGI Tezro Workstation with 4 way MIPS R16000 800MHz and 8GB of RAM. The Smoke has it's own storage options but can also be attached to the shared SAN array if need be. It also runs IRIX 6.5 as a fully 64 bit OS. (it's also brand new and cooler than hell, but that's beside the point).

The pricing for these kinds of systems is proprietary to Discreet but I can safely say in a public forum that the total cost of both systems approaches a half a million dollars ($500,000.00) NOT including support staff, backup systems and reserve parts.

We are currently looking to increase the total ram in the Inferno just to give it some breathing room for longer multi-source effects composites in SMPTE 292M (HDTV). Working in effects compositing requires a lot of raw bit crunching, and working in HD requires EXPONENTIALLY more bit crunching power. HD effects are expensive, and as much as you might want to believe that your consumer PC (or farm of Consumer PCs) rendering effects shots over WEEKS and MONTHS is as effective and powerful as Industry Strength solutions, the simple truth is effects houses NEED online effects processing power.

I wish Lightwave was still SGI compatible, but facing down Alias (Maya) just can't have made business sense. So I run a G5 at home, not as fast as current generation Intels, but I love UNIX and Lightwave, Photoshop and deep paint don't run under Linux. I realize the renderer is Linux compiled and I might use that if I ever get "serious" about Lightwave (I'm more of a hobbyist).

64 Bit OSs exist today, Sun and SGI both have very powerful and very mature offerings (and hell, a Sun Ultra 5 runs Solaris just fine and can be bought on ebay for a few hundred dollars). Apple's OS X is 64 bit enabled and someday will be a "pure" 64 bit solution. Windows will have a pure 64 bit solution. By the end of the decade our Onyx will sell on ebay for less than what we paid in shipping and installation :-(

To recap:

a) No matter what some people who lurk in their home studio's want to believe, there are already many real world projects that exceed the 2GB practical limitations of current 32bit systems.

b) No 5-year-old AVID system does HDTV, at least not the way professionals (and our clients) think of doing HD.

c) 64 bit exists in the industry now, and won't be truly replaced until alternative and superior technology come of age.

js33
02-06-2004, 01:23 PM
Were not worthy. :D

Well we all know SGI systems have been 64 bit for years and they kick *** but not many of us have $500,000 to spend on such systems.

Cheers,
JS

demus
02-06-2004, 01:33 PM
My point isn't anyone's worth or financial capacity (I sure as hell couldn't even afford to rent time on one outside the office), it's to correct some misconceptions about 64 bit applications and the ability of "off the shelf" pc's and apps to do true HDTV work.

I bought lightwave because it had the best mix of value and capacity for my dollar at the time. I bought a G5 for most of the same reasons. I DON'T expect it to do (or claim that it does) the work of current 64 bit top-of-the-line systems.

I'm also not going to mock anyone else's experiance because I think my "homebrew" PIII is the end-all be-all of computing just because I haven't worked a project that exceeds it's capacity...

ymmv

js33
02-06-2004, 02:21 PM
Yeah I knew what you meant.

I agree that people here are kidding themselves if they think that a G5 or P4 can compete with an 8 way SGI.

But then again Apples and PCs keep getting better at a much faster rate than the SGI systems do.

Also if you need a 200 machine renderfarm there's always respower.com.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
02-06-2004, 07:20 PM
Demus's post (above) shows that in a production environment you can easily exceed the abilities of 32-bit systems.

While we can't all purchase $500,000 SGI systems, the new AMD64 and Apple G5 workstations are going to allow us to gain the ability to work in higher RAM environments without SGI price tags.

CB_3D
02-07-2004, 02:47 AM
EDIT::p

Freak
02-07-2004, 03:19 AM
Demus Wrote:

a) No matter what some people who lurk in their home studio's want to believe, there are already many real world projects that exceed the 2GB practical limitations of current 32bit systems.

b) No 5-year-old AVID system does HDTV, at least not the way professionals (and our clients) think of doing HD.

c) 64 bit exists in the industry now, and won't be truly replaced until alternative and superior technology come of age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sing it sister" "Praise the lord!" "Hallelujha Brother"

Thanks Demus..... Welcome to the forums....
Mmmmm Inferno! (drool, slobber, slobber)
It's nice to here those specs, and your informed opinion.

However i do believe that in the next few years, (around 5+)
you will see Dual and Quad 64Bit machines surpassing the
expensive (Half Mill Ouch!) machines that you are lucky enough to
work with on a daily basis....

With the push for REALTIME, and the 64Bit evolution, along with falling DRAM prices, HD becoming an almost world standard..
Everybody has invested lots of money on HD being the standard for some time. (TV Stations, Governments etc)

Also take into account that Companies don't want to keep buying expensive proprietry hardware that outdates so quickly, like you mentioned.

I think you wil see software makers like Sonic Foundry and even Eyeon, push the envelope and do things in Realtime that even the Inferno has problem doing today. Of course a Hardware solution will always be in front...

I'm not sure if anyone has seen the "Cane Toad" short.... (Maya)
But it was all rendered at HD, the ONLY reason it was able to be completed in HD, was indeed they used Animal Logics Inferno, after hours, and on weekends....

I think the imagination will always push technology, further than
hardware or software will allow, but that won't stop anyone from trying to push either to their limit.

Beamtracer
02-09-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Freak
However i do believe that in the next few years, (around 5+)
you will see Dual and Quad 64Bit machines surpassing the
expensive (Half Mill Ouch!) machines that you are lucky enough to
work with on a daily basis....
NBC used to hire expensive 'Cray' supercomputers from Universities to create their station logos and animations. That was in the late 1980s, and the computer would take up an entire room. Now, most personal computers exceed the computational ability of that Cray.


Originally posted by Freak
...the "Cane Toad" short.... ...was all rendered at HD, the ONLY reason it was able to be completed in HD, was indeed they used Animal Logics Inferno, after hours, and on weekends....
Inferno is the high-end way to composit HD, but it's not the only way.

An Apple G5 (http://www.apple.com/powermac/) workstation fitted with an HD Kona (http://www.aja.com/kona.htm) high-definition video card and some very fast hard drives (http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/) will give you a pretty powerful high-definition system, at a fraction of the cost of Inferno. Just about every compositing application can handle HD resolutions if your computer is powerful enough to take it.

I think there's a fair number of Lightwave users who could benefit from a 64-bit workstation today. The hardware is already here from both AMD and Apple. So whether you're running Mac or Windows you can purchase 64-bit hardware today.

While current 32-bit applications can still access more RAM when running on a 64-bit computer, the biggest benefit will come when all the OSs and applications go pure 64-bit. That transition is underway now.

TSpyrison
02-09-2004, 02:41 PM
Anyone remember the "Raptor" (I think it was called)

I wonder how much $$ people paid out for stuff like that back then, and how slow it probally seems now

Freak
02-09-2004, 03:15 PM
[QUOTE]
Inferno is the high-end way to composit HD, but it's not the only way.


No but it's the only way to do Onlne Effects....

Sonic Foundry, have been providing REALTIME effects,
in products like Vegas Video (now owned by Sony)
for years, that competitors still can't do..

And Hardware like VT3 and Kona boards, will all help
accelerate the process...

Clever programmers, will overcome the limitations of HD,
fairly quickly, (Adobe generally doesn't have clever programmers)

With 64Bit, More memory, and more DCC centric OS's...
You will see clever programmers, do in real realtime....
what only Inferno's can do now. (quite quickly methinks)
And i'm not talking about 1 layer of FX, previewed in RT.

Beamtracer
02-09-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Freak
With 64Bit, More memory, and more DCC centric OS's...
You will see clever programmers, do in real realtime....
what only Inferno's can do now. (quite quickly methinks) Don't you think that Intel is crazy to be stating that 64-bit desktop machines won't be needed until "the end of the decade"?

This must rank as the most monumental mistake in Intel's history.

They have the 32-bit hardware market conquered (with the Pentium processor). Now it looks like they'll fluff it up in the transition to 64-bit hardware, and competitors will eat Intel's lunch.

From what I gather, Intel has recently learnt the error of its ways, and in a big U-turn is hurrying to develop the "CT" processor to market against AMD's Opteron.

However it seems that because of the CT processors late start, it may be years before it reaches the market. AMD64, Opteron (and Apple's G5 for that matter) were all released in 2003. I don't think we'll see the 64-bit Intel CT processor appear before the end of 2005.

Exper
02-10-2004, 08:32 AM
AMD still working... not sleeping!

HyperTransport Gets a Speed Boost
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20040209152542.html

AMD Gets EU Commission Approval for Fab 36 Investments
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040207150932.html

AMD rulez! :D

Bye.