PDA

View Full Version : AMD 64bit and screemernet



KeithJ
06-10-2004, 06:43 AM
Hi,
I am considering building a duel "AMD Athelon 64" PC as the first addition to my renderfarm. However after a little research I came across this statement:

"Second, by adding 32-bit extensions to the x86 ISA, AMD has created an evolutionary alternative to Intel's Itanium chips, which break almost entirely with the industry-standard x86 software infrastructure. Naturally, code will have to be recompiled for AMD64, but AMD64 is familiar enough that retooling compilers for it should be relatively painless."

I am now conserned as to whether Screemer Net and Lightwave will work correctly on such a system.

Any ideas?
Keith

Lightwolf
06-10-2004, 06:50 AM
It will. It is 100% compatible to 32bit software, which means you cun run a 32bit OS and 32bit software, or a 64bit OS (if available in the case of Windows) and both 32 and 64bit software.
Obviously though, the 32bit software will not gain from the additional performance increase in 64bit mode.

Cheers,
Mike

benhaines
06-10-2004, 10:16 AM
Note that Intel cpu's almost always out perform their AMD counterparts.

Shame I know, its down to the intel compiler newtek use. Personally I've just bought an AMD 64 3000+ so I'm not complaining :)

Regards, Ben

KeithJ
06-10-2004, 04:04 PM
Thanks Mike,

I wonder how long it will be before Lightwave and screemernet is re-compiled to make use the 64 bit power.

I wonder that because I'm also thinking about what Ben says regarding intel performance. Should I just build a duel Pentium4 based on the same budget?

If 64 bit addressing is coming soon then AMD will get my money but if not then will intel be a better choice.

Also I am sure the competition will be dealing with this issue very soon, so maybee for once Newtek could beat them too the punch!

I am not much of a gambler (because I work too hard for my cash), so if anyone has any inside info (maybee somebody from NEWTEK) then I'm sure I wont be alone in being very grateful.

Thanks
Keith

Lightwolf
06-11-2004, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by benhaines
Note that Intel cpu's almost always out perform their AMD counterparts.

...Not quite true, it depends on the benchmarks. If you use SSE2 optimized code, yes they do (the SSE2 logic has the same speed on both processors, in relation to the clock speed though). On the other hand, the Opterons have a much faster FPU and memory access.
LWs raytracing and radiosity code is heavily SSE2 optimized, this is where the P4/Xeons shine. However, if you look at volumetrics for example, the AMDs really start to give the intels a run for their money.

Cheers,
Mike.

Lightwolf
06-11-2004, 01:24 AM
Hi Keith

Originally posted by KeithJ
Thanks Mike,

I wonder how long it will be before Lightwave and screemernet is re-compiled to make use the 64 bit power.

I wonder that because I'm also thinking about what Ben says regarding intel performance. Should I just build a duel Pentium4 based on the same budget?

If 64 bit addressing is coming soon then AMD will get my money but if not then will intel be a better choice.

Well, I wouldn't expect a re-compile before XP64 is released by MS (currently it is in beta).

I'm in a similar fix at the moment, and I find that a dual Xeon is much cheaper than the equivalent Opteron (in most LW benches). I'd love to get the Opteron, but it would cost me an extra 1000,- Eur or so...
I will however add a bunch of Dual AthlonMPs to our renderfarm (they are dirt cheap right now...).
May be next year (or by the end of this year) I'd favour the Opteron, right now it's the Xeon as far as a workstation is concerned.

Cheers,
Mike

Eric Pratt
06-11-2004, 04:30 PM
I've done a lot of research on this lately, one of the more useful pages I've found on this topic is this: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=8 which shows that an Opteron system costing $500 more still isn't outcompeting a dual Xeon in almost every catergory except for volumetrics (in which AMD has a heavy advantadge)
It would be nice to get a quad Opteron 850, but currently I don't have 10k to fritter away, and for that price you could build yourself 12 athlon 2400MPs and get yourself an extra 30Ghz to boot :)
But I guess to answer your question, if you can build more than 2 Athlon 64 3400s for the price of one Dual Xeon 3.2s go for it.

Lightwolf
06-12-2004, 07:49 AM
Actually, the Opteron 250 is doing quite well in those benches you linked too.
The Xeons have the advantage of HT, which gives them another 10%-20% in multithreaded renders (best witnessed using CineBench).
On the other hand, a 3.2 Xeon is definately _not_ cheap.
I am currently shopping for a WS do use in 3D and for heavy compositing work (loads of 2K comps), and the Opteron would be my prime choice for that, hands down (just because of the sheer memory bandwidth). Alas, my budget is constrained :(

Cheers,
Mike

Eric Pratt
06-12-2004, 10:52 AM
You might think about waiting for the 64bit FSB800Mhz Xeons due out soon (august or so). No, the opterons didn't do bad in the benches, in fact they did better in other areas than lightwave tracing/radiosity, but that's my prime application and a pair of the 250s would be another $250 above the same Xeons.

Lightwolf
06-12-2004, 11:50 AM
Well, at the moment it seems the Xeon 3.06 (especially after the latest price cuts) has the best price/performance ratio for LW (...unless you need fast volumetrics, which I do for the current project, 2 Minutes of clouds in 2K :D ).
The larger cache sizes on the higher end Xeons seem to be a waste of money as far as rendering in LW is concerned.

Cheers,
Mike

Exper
07-08-2004, 09:41 AM
Just to remeber this page...
take a look:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000309

I'd personally stay between AMD arms! :D