PDA

View Full Version : Is LW8 on AMD going to be faster?



koots
02-07-2004, 09:39 AM
I have become depressed because i didn't realize P4's were so much faster, I am thinking about selling my comp. from this thread i downloaded the scene file and it too ke 22min to render the person who made the scene file took him 9 and 1/2 min his comp is a P4 1gig comp. so it is at least a year old. my comp which is a brand new AMD took 22 min:( i should have researched more. I am thinking about building a new comp and putting the motherboard and processer on e-bay... anything think that is a good idea, or know anyone who wants a new AMD??
thanx for your help in advance
-jonn

koots
02-07-2004, 09:40 AM
this is the thead if anyone wants to test there speeds out who can do it the fastest???
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17645

mattclary
02-07-2004, 09:47 AM
The reason the P4 is faster is it uses the SSE2 instruction set. The AMD chips (32bit ones, anyway) don't have this instruction set available, so the P4 will stay faster even if there is a speed increase with 8. The new 64bit AMD chips have SSE2, so are somewhat competitive with P4s, but due to their lower clock speed, still tend to lag.

js33
02-07-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by koots
this is the thead if anyone wants to test there speeds out who can do it the fastest???
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17645

Koots,

I don't know how he got render times of 9.5 minutes per frame with the settings from that scene on his Dual 1Ghz P4.

I tried it with the scene as is on my single P4 2.53Ghz machine and it took 17 minutes. So someone either misspoke of the settings used or the machine used to render it.

A single P4 2.53 Ghz is faster than a dual 1 Ghz P4 so somethings wrong there. Maybe he really has a Dual 2 Ghz P4?
That would make more sense.

Cheers,
JS

Freak
02-07-2004, 05:55 PM
Unless your testing identicle configurations, brands and setups...
(hard with Different boards, ram and chips)

Then it's hard to compare, your friends with yours....
I can drop 10 seconds per frame, just by setting up XP correctly...
Identicle configurations can even have a 3%+ difference...
Bios's Drivers, there are lots of variables at play...

As Matt said.... SSE2 is the big difference.....
Athlon64's have SSE2, (So Intel have now released 13 new instructions in SSE3)

It's leap frog AMD's were much faster than P4's for there first 12 months of operation.....

And indeed, in applications that require real FPU, AMD's are still much better equipped. Only SSE2 will make the P4's compete..
However SSE2 really helps only in certain situations, Hypervoxles for instance, there are places in LW, where the AMD is still faster.
But yep overall, P4's are better for LW when using SSE2...
Athlon64's are cheaper than the new P4's....

How many hours, and much money, do you want to spend, to gain a few seconds?

Rich
02-07-2004, 08:25 PM
I tried the scene and it took my computer 13min 30s.

My specs are P4 3.06ghz 1gig PC2700 ram Windows 2k

shermanlu
02-07-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by js33
Koots,

I don't know how he got render times of 9.5 minutes per frame with the settings from that scene on his Dual 1Ghz P4.

I tried it with the scene as is on my single P4 2.53Ghz machine and it took 17 minutes. So someone either misspoke of the settings used or the machine used to render it.

A single P4 2.53 Ghz is faster than a dual 1 Ghz P4 so somethings wrong there. Maybe he really has a Dual 2 Ghz P4?
That would make more sense.

Cheers,
JS

oh... it's my mistake... I didn't check the spec. of the machine after I've done the preview... the one I used is sitting between two dual 1Ghz comp... the one I tested on is Dual 1.7Ghz Xeon...:p

js33
02-07-2004, 11:06 PM
Yeah that's more like it. :D

But still a dual 1.7 is pretty fast compared to a single 2.53. :mad:

It took 17 mins on mine. :mad:

But if I needed to render it I would probably knock the setting back as much as I could without losing quality.

Cheers,
JS

Aegis
02-08-2004, 04:50 AM
Don't feel too bad js33 - it took 9 mins 30 secs on my dual 3.06Ghz Xeon to render the scene as set up in the .zip so I think shermanlu might want to take another look at those render settings.

Here's my system's benchmarks:

Dual 3.06Ghz Xeon - 8 Threads - time in seconds:

DOF - 5.4
Nebulae - 49.6
Radiosity Reflective Things - 26.8
Radiosity Things - 2.3
Raytrace - 51.1
Sunset - 77.8
Textures - 3.5
Tracer No Radiosity - 183.4
Tracer Radiosity - 226.5
Variations - 99.4
Variations Smoothness - 100.2
Variations Thickness - 30.2
ZBuffSort - 3.6

Aegis
02-08-2004, 07:24 AM
Oh, and my other PC (Dell Dimension 8200, single P4 2.53Ghz) took 16 mins 13 secs to render that waterpool scene.

js33
02-08-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Aegis
Don't feel too bad js33 - it took 9 mins 30 secs on my dual 3.06Ghz Xeon to render the scene as set up in the .zip so I think shermanlu might want to take another look at those render settings.


So it took the same time to render on a Dual 3 Ghz as it did on a Dual 1.7 Ghz Xeon. OK someone's lying. :D And it's not Aegis.

Cheers,
JS

DredPiratThomas
02-08-2004, 02:40 PM
Tom's hardware recently looked at some AMD 64 benchmarks, and they showed that the AMD 64 rendered faster than a number of Intel P4 setups.


See here:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-29.html

mattclary
02-08-2004, 03:10 PM
12m 21s on my P4 3.0ghz, 1gb ram

Beamtracer
02-08-2004, 04:30 PM
Lightwave 8 may change the benchmark landscape.

If Newtek can optimize it for the new generation processors there could be some changes as to what is the fastest processor.

guardonduty
02-17-2004, 01:46 PM
Intel releases its 64 bit chip to compete with AMD. Will lightwave 8 take advantage of these new speed

Verlon
02-17-2004, 10:27 PM
AMD athlons starting with the 32 bit Barton core (333+ FSB) have SSE2.

Due to legal fallout from the 90s, AMD and Intel have the rights to use each others instruction sets.

Intel's instructions for Yamhill are AMD64, though I do not think you will hear them say that.

themaxx
02-17-2004, 11:09 PM
9 min 32 seconds on a dual 2g g5 (while surfing the web, listening to music, etc)

Hervé
02-18-2004, 12:26 AM
24.22 Min. on a dual AMD 1900+, woaw how much the older machines....

Exper
02-18-2004, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Verlon
AMD athlons starting with the 32 bit Barton core (333+ FSB) have SSE2.Are you sure?

mattclary
02-18-2004, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Verlon
AMD athlons starting with the 32 bit Barton core (333+ FSB) have SSE2.

Ummmm.... No they don't. If you want to check for yourself, get Sandra from Sisoft and run the CPU analysis module. It will tell you which instruction sets are included on the CPU.

http://www.sisoftware.net/

Exper
02-18-2004, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by mattclary
Ummmm.... No they don't.For sure!

Take a look:
Key Architectural Features of the AMD Athlon™ XP Processor
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_3734_3738,00.html

Bye.

3Demon
02-18-2004, 11:40 AM
Hey Guys,

...
cross-posting, hijacking post has been removed.
AAAND...at no extra charge, this user has been banned. ;)

mattclary
02-18-2004, 01:33 PM
I see this:

52 SSE instructions with SIMD integer and floating point additions offer excellent compatibility with Intel’s SSE technology

but no mention of SSE2

WizCraker
02-18-2004, 03:59 PM
Nobody will be able to answer the original question as 8 has not shipped yet. Therefore you will not be able to get a solid answer on if it will run faster or not. Also since Win XP 64 has not shipped either you will be getting incorrect results.

3Ddemon
02-19-2004, 03:42 AM
SPAM removed by moderator Kurtis.
Both of his user accounts have been banned already.