PDA

View Full Version : Can you say jump ship?



Tony3d
02-04-2005, 06:11 AM
WHERE IN GOD'S NAME ARE THE 3 gig DUAL G5 MAC'S????? I'm pulling out the swim trunks and standing on the edge of the plank. Steve forgive me I know not what I say. :confused:

Captain Obvious
02-04-2005, 07:13 AM
Apple will most likely bump up the PowerMacs this spring, possibly to 3GHz. They have obviously not gotten there yet, or they would have announced them at SF a few weeks ago.

Anyway, do those extra 500MHz really matter that much? Is the only thing keeping you on Mac the promise of faster PowerMacs? I don't understand your reasoning. Yes, we'd all love faster machines, but when let's face it, it won't make a huge difference, and it's not really worth abandoning the best OS in the world just because it happens to be marginally slower than the competition (and it can be disputed if it really is at all!).

eblu
02-04-2005, 07:31 AM
quick tony... jump!
heh heh,
o and if you want to get rid of any g5s you might have lying around, I can't imagine their worth too much, but I'd give you a fair price. who knows, maybe I'll be able to set them up as decorations, because a 2 Ghz dual or a 2.5 Ghz dual really doesn't have enough power ;) to singe toast.

I have myself a 933 quicksilver, and it rocks. Thats a G4 btw. outclassed and out-performed by the mac mini these days. well except for the GForce 4Ti. Sure I'd like a 13Ghz quad mac Pro Block of aluminum, and I'm sad that I can't buy one, but I think its a bit crazy/silly to :
threaten a company that is already trying to do what you want them to
threaten Apple in a Newtek forum (apple doesn't look here... officially)
consider moving to windows (for me its personal preference)

but hey thats just my opinion. and were all entitled to one... so about that g5...

Captain Obvious
02-04-2005, 08:07 AM
Sure I'd like a 13Ghz quad mac Pro Block of aluminum, and I'm sad that I can't buy one

All is suffering.

Desire is the cause of the suffering.

The only way to end the suffering is to end the desire.

;)

Johnny
02-05-2005, 11:58 AM
What's he going to do when wintel fails to deliver on a promised date for some new software improvement, or some new chip? Guess there's always claymation..clay is as fast now as it will ever get...

there are people here with G4s who positively kick my glutes in LW, so I'd say that having the absolute latest machine isn't the whole story in doing great work.

J

riki
02-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Hi Tony here's that script. Align to Rail.

Best

r

riki
02-05-2005, 05:48 PM
And another variation with Requestor.

marinello2003
02-18-2005, 09:18 AM
Tony,

I just purchased a Dual 2.5 PowerMac with 8GB of ram, and it is like StarTrek fast compared to my older Single Proc 1.4GHZ G4 with 768MB ram! I can render in LW and do like 10 other things and it will still render 6-8 times faster than my G4 would just by having it do nothing else but render! I also got the ATI X800 card with the 30" Cinema display. It is like IMAX for your computer! It is like I just stepped on board the starship Enterprise and we jumped to warp speed. I purchased a refurbished mac, which has the same coverage as the regular and saved $500.

Also, here is what I think will happen for the new PowerMacs. Apple will introduce a Dual Processor Single core 2.8 GHZ Antares based chip at WWDC. Then later will introduce the dual core version. You probably won't see 3.0 GHZ until next year when they debut the PPC980 with multiple cores - based on the POWE5. So my suggestion would be jump in, the water is very warm!

By the way, what are you using right now?

-Brent

Tony3d
02-18-2005, 09:27 AM
I'm currently using (don't Laugh) a G4 500 mhz sawtooth tower with a 1.250 gigs of ram. Now that I've been using radiocity lighting that makes the machine useless.

Johnny
02-18-2005, 10:22 AM
I'm currently using (don't Laugh) a G4 500 mhz sawtooth tower with a 1.250 gigs of ram. Now that I've been using radiocity lighting that makes the machine useless.

holy cow! even a mac mini would seem like a romulan war bird compared to that!

J

Captain Obvious
02-19-2005, 04:29 PM
What's with all the Star Trek mania?

*goes to dig out his old space shuttle, aka PowerMac 6100* ;)

Cinewalt
02-23-2005, 10:32 AM
Doesn't this come back to IBM failing to deliver?

Captain Obvious
02-23-2005, 04:15 PM
Doesn't this come back to IBM failing to deliver?
Yes, it's IBM's fault, in a sense.

Nakia
02-24-2005, 07:17 AM
Greetings
I think the Power5 will make it to Apple but when who knows. The Power 5 is already in the comm rooms. I work on many Power 5 servers and they truly truly rock. Being that they are out there eventually the price will drop, heating issues solved, and lower spec model will be produce. If Apple don't get the Power 5, the high end Macs will become weak compared to the Dual core AMD 64bit coming out.

Nakia
02-24-2005, 07:19 AM
quick tony... jump!
I have myself a 933 quicksilver, and it rocks. Thats a G4 btw. outclassed and out-performed by the mac mini these days.

AHHHH a fellow 933 owner we are a rare bunch. Something special about the Powermac G4 933 Quicksilver.

Kainlamond
02-24-2005, 03:58 PM
Greetings
I think the Power5 will make it to Apple but when who knows. The Power 5 is already in the comm rooms. I work on many Power 5 servers and they truly truly rock. Being that they are out there eventually the price will drop, heating issues solved, and lower spec model will be produce. If Apple don't get the Power 5, the high end Macs will become weak compared to the Dual core AMD 64bit coming out.
I don't think apple will go for the power5 to many issues...

I think there going to get there hands a the "The Cell" its runs at 4.6Ghz, duel-core with 8 sub-cores. That would fit in nice after the 3.5Ghz G5s...

harlan
02-24-2005, 04:29 PM
WHERE IN GOD'S NAME ARE THE 3 gig DUAL G5 MAC'S????? I'm pulling out the swim trunks and standing on the edge of the plank. Steve forgive me I know not what I say. :confused:

Dude, before you jump, make sure you securely fasten an anvil around your feet.

As has already been mentioned, a friggin Mac Mini would seem like a rocket compared to what you're currently running. People who aren't on the bleeding edge shouldn't be allowed to complain about the bleeding edge for the same reasons people who don't vote shouldn't be allow to complain about election results.

If you've got the scrilla, get yourself a new G5 as it's going to be lightyears beyond the performance you're currently used to.

If you're a penny pincher, get a Mac Mini with at least 512MB RAM and buy yourself a copy of FPrime.

Holding out for the "next big thing" isn't good business practice to begin with. Buy what you need when you need it.

harlan
02-24-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't think apple will go for the power5 to many issues...

I think there going to get there hands a the "The Cell" its runs at 4.6Ghz, duel-core with 8 sub-cores. That would fit in nice after the 3.5Ghz G5s...

The Cell uses Power5 tech just as the current G5 uses Power4 tech.

Wether Apple goes with a Cell processor or a 980 for their next gen PowerMac it will still be based on Power5 technology.

Lamont
02-24-2005, 05:06 PM
What's the hub-bub about ghz anyways? You know the fastest retail AMD is about 2.4ghz...

There's more to performace than just faster clock speeds, AMD and Apple seem to know that.

But saying how fast your computer I guess helps the ePenis.

harlan
02-24-2005, 06:20 PM
LOL... ePenis compensation.

That's why I'm still using a 250Mhz box - nothing to compensate for over here. ;)

I wish...

okay, so I use a dual 2.5Ghz G5. :)

Lamont
02-24-2005, 06:50 PM
That's why I'm still using a 250Mhz box - nothing to compensate for over here. ;)
Hahahaha!! Good one!!

Tony3d
02-25-2005, 05:08 AM
Clock speed may not be the most important thing, but explain to me why almost every benchmark I see, the PC machine's beat the fastest Mac's sometimes by a comfortable margin.

eblu
02-25-2005, 05:40 AM
for lightwave rendering speed, MHZ matters on the mac. I wish it weren't so. but it is. It doesn't Have to be, but that is out of our hands. I've been over it any way I can think of, but the most important factor in fast rendering is the speed of the processor.
Apple may know the fallacy of the MHZ myth, but that don't mean Lightwave does.

ackees
02-25-2005, 07:13 AM
This months issue of new scientist says that Intel is dead, they can't push the Mhz any faster because of heat, it seems Apple and IBM got it right (pic of G5 in article). Intel are relying on the fact that they have lots of users to buy them time. In the next two years apple will leave Intel machines in the dust. Lets hope NT with their obsession with PC's don't get left there too.

Nakia
02-25-2005, 07:36 AM
Greetings,
I hope Newtek takes the Road that Alias Wave Front did with Maya and code it in Xcode to take advantage of OS X with G5 and/or G4 and MAKE it Apple Scriptable like Maya.

harlan
02-25-2005, 10:48 AM
Clock speed may not be the most important thing, but explain to me why almost every benchmark I see, the PC machine's beat the fastest Mac's sometimes by a comfortable margin.

Oh good god man, for starters, benchmarks are completely unreliable - especially cross platform ones.

What do you care what a benchmark says anyways? They don't reflect how well the computer will work for you.

You know what, screw it; I'm done replying to this sort of nonsense. Use whatever works for you man.

marinello2003
02-28-2005, 01:32 PM
Oh good god man, for starters, benchmarks are completely unreliable - especially cross platform ones.

What do you care what a benchmark says anyways? They don't reflect how well the computer will work for you.

You know what, screw it; I'm done replying to this sort of nonsense. Use whatever works for you man.

Here is an example of how amazingly fast the new G5s are. I was rendering an animation in Terragen and it was pumping out frames at 1 a minute at 640X480. At the exact same time I was rendering an Animation in Lightwave at IMAX resolution of 4096X3112. It was rendering a frame every 2 hours. At the same time I was ripping and encoding a DVD, listening to iTunes and browsing the web.

That is how fast the G5 is.

-Brent

Tony3d
02-28-2005, 03:14 PM
Thanks marinello that was very useful info.

Captain Obvious
02-28-2005, 05:30 PM
Apple may know the fallacy of the MHZ myth, but that don't mean Lightwave does.
That is an issue with the compiler, and I've heard they're switching to Xcode and GCC or IBM's compiler to solve the issue, just like Nakia suggested they should.



This months issue of new scientist says that Intel is dead, they can't push the Mhz any faster because of heat
The Pentium M is still kicking behind, and while using less power than the G5. It's not Intel having problems as much as it is NetBurst/Pentium 4 having problems.



Clock speed may not be the most important thing, but explain to me why almost every benchmark I see, the PC machine's beat the fastest Mac's sometimes by a comfortable margin.
Show me a benchmark that does everything justice and is 100% reliable and I shall eat my hat!

Ge4-ce
03-01-2005, 01:13 PM
Now that I've been using radiocity lighting that makes the machine useless.


And the diference is gonna be? What 4 to 5 times faster? You mean like.. Now your machine will render a frame in 24 hours and then it will in 5 to 6 hours? That's still very very very very long..

I find Radiosity very unusefull. And when it comes to animation.. it's even worse! I do like the effect though. But there are several ways of making scenes LOOK like they were rendered with Radiosity. But actually render in minutes, instead of hours.

What I'm trying to say here is: Don't expect the jump to be SOOO huge. You will end up disappointed. Especially since LW doesn't use the second processor to calculeter the radiosity, as far as I know.

Captain Obvious
03-01-2005, 01:47 PM
What I'm trying to say here is: Don't expect the jump to be SOOO huge. You will end up disappointed. Especially since LW doesn't use the second processor to calculeter the radiosity, as far as I know.
According to Blanos' benchmarks, a dual 1.8GHz G5 takes 430 seconds to render "Tracer Radiosity" and 32 seconds to render "Rad. Ref. Things." A single 1.8GHz G5 does it in 715 seconds and 64 seconds, respectively. Since both scenes use radiosity and the dual is about twice as fast in both cases, I'd say it does use both processors.

Maybe it only uses one processor for the preliminary calculation thingie it does when using interpolated?

Can someone with more knowledge comment on this? ;)

Ge4-ce
03-01-2005, 04:26 PM
Well yes, I could be wrong about the dual-single processor thingy,

But my main point is, that radiosity still takes too long to render animations.. In it's current form.. OR you have to have a huge renderfarm or something like that.

The dual 1.8 still took 7.5 minutes to finisch what I would call a very simple scene with 2 lights, a pointlight and an arealight. 3 objects, 1360 Polygons, and rendered at 25% of the orgininal 640x480 wich is not even video-quality at antialiasing low-enhanced!!! Basically, most current scenes have 100 thousands or milions of polys and more anti-aliasing etc.. wich would at least multiply that number by 10, and there you go.. more than One hour a frame. Good for print, but not for animation... (unless again, you have the money to setup a new Virginia-Tech) But upgrading your G3 to a G5 won't give you the miracle you have always wanted..

I use Fake-radiosity! Almost as good, when you applie it well, and renders like a train! It does however takes a while to set up.

pat-lek
03-02-2005, 03:22 PM
There 's a dual core G5 on the road...

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html

For June (?)

MacDoggie
03-03-2005, 09:17 AM
Tony,

I just purchased a Dual 2.5 PowerMac with 8GB of ram, and it is like StarTrek fast compared to my older Single Proc 1.4GHZ G4 with 768MB ram! I can render in LW and do like 10 other things and it will still render 6-8 times faster than my G4 would just by having it do nothing else but render! I also got the ATI X800 card with the 30" Cinema display. It is like IMAX for your computer! It is like I just stepped on board the starship Enterprise and we jumped to warp speed. I purchased a refurbished mac, which has the same coverage as the regular and saved $500.

-Brent

Sweet!,

I have a dual G5 2.5 with the Ultra 6800 as well as a dual 1 gig G4. Yes, Dual G5 2.5 has turned out to be a great machine it is pretty much as you have stated. Unbelievably stable and fast.

I will say however, that we will be building a small renderfarm of dual anthalons for the purpose of rendering. I have worked on these fast pcs but I don't like the issues and the feel of the windows environment and I spend plenty of time in the windows environment to realize how "clunky" and virus prone this environment is. But I do appreiciate the rendering capabilities. When I get back on my Mac it is then that I really do appreiciate what a great machine the Mac is and what a great operating system OSX is as well. So we will be working on the Mac (Modeling, Layout, lighting, texturing and animating) and rendering on the pc renderfarm.

This render farm will be off of the LAN with no internet capabilities at all. In otherwords prety much dumbed down render boxes so we won't have the virus issues that goes with windows. We have decide to use a 160 gig firewire device as a means of file transfer. Yes, I know it's like taking a step backwards in technology but it helps keep the system clean.......sneeker net , man : )

The other bonus, we will be able to use some of the plugs that are available for windows only and transfer the files back to the Mac. So now I suppose I need to get a windows version of Lightwave.............Good thing we are busy

Cheers

MacDoggie
03-03-2005, 09:23 AM
Well yes, I could be wrong about the dual-single processor thingy,

But my main point is, that radiosity still takes too long to render animations.. In it's current form.. OR you have to have a huge renderfarm or something like that.

The dual 1.8 still took 7.5 minutes to finisch what I would call a very simple scene with 2 lights, a pointlight and an arealight. 3 objects, 1360 Polygons, and rendered at 25% of the orgininal 640x480 wich is not even video-quality at antialiasing low-enhanced!!! Basically, most current scenes have 100 thousands or milions of polys and more anti-aliasing etc.. wich would at least multiply that number by 10, and there you go.. more than One hour a frame. Good for print, but not for animation... (unless again, you have the money to setup a new Virginia-Tech) But upgrading your G3 to a G5 won't give you the miracle you have always wanted..

I use Fake-radiosity! Almost as good, when you applie it well, and renders like a train! It does however takes a while to set up.

Radiosity is still a burden no matter what platform you are on. There are many approaches to trimming the process down. Using "fake radiosity is a very good approach and a vaild approach to the rendering issues associated with radiosity.

You just have to get creative....

BeeVee
03-03-2005, 09:39 AM
to MacDoggie,

It's worth noting that different processors give different results when you render because of random numbers used by volumetrics, procedurals, hypervoxels, caustics, radiosity and plenty of other things. This is not down to LightWave, it's down to AMD, Intel and IBM/Motorola. You might have no difference in renders, just be aware that some could exist.

Secondly, you don't need to buy a PC-specific licence of LightWave. Since version 7 you get both PC and Mac versions included when you buy a single licence. With LightWave 7 and 7.5 they were on separate discs, with LightWave 8, they are on the single Program disc.

B

Lightwolf
03-03-2005, 10:26 AM
It's worth noting that different processors give different results when you render because of random numbers used by volumetrics, procedurals, hypervoxels, caustics, radiosity and plenty of other things.
Random numbers in this case isn't quite correct. No renderer would use any "real" random numbers, since you want to get identical results in identical situations. This is why you use perlin noise (texturing) or pseudo random number generators (PFX).
You may however get different results due to the fp unit in processors behaving differently in "extreme" precision situations. That should be thing of the past though, since fpu units are imho standardized.

I distribute jobs here across different AMD and intel processors, including heavy volumetrics, and have never encountered any processor related problems.

Cheers,
Mike

MacDoggie
03-03-2005, 10:40 AM
to MacDoggie,

It's worth noting that different processors give different results when you render because of random numbers used by volumetrics, procedurals, hypervoxels, caustics, radiosity and plenty of other things. This is not down to LightWave, it's down to AMD, Intel and IBM/Motorola. You might have no difference in renders, just be aware that some could exist.

Secondly, you don't need to buy a PC-specific licence of LightWave. Since version 7 you get both PC and Mac versions included when you buy a single licence. With LightWave 7 and 7.5 they were on separate discs, with LightWave 8, they are on the single Program disc.

B

I have heard this as well, I have also heard that there is no issue with mixing the two processors in a render environment. But we will most likely be using anthalons primarialiy because they are cheaper. The differences I have learned is in some of the FP processes.

Secondly, yes I am aware of this but I still have to get a windows License key right? So don't I have to pay for an additional seat of a windows version to run the windows version that I get with my Mac coppy of Lightwave???

If this is not the case then Ben, you just made my day!!!!

Cheers

Lightwolf
03-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Secondly, yes I am aware of this but I still have to get a windows License key right?
You don't need a license key if all you want to do is run the render nodes. And you should have the binaries to run on you program CD...

You will need it to run Layout on the PC to install new plugins for the nodes to use though (the Discovery Edition doesn't save any configs :( ).

Cheers,
Mike

MacDoggie
03-03-2005, 01:22 PM
You don't need a license key if all you want to do is run the render nodes. And you should have the binaries to run on you program CD...

You will need it to run Layout on the PC to install new plugins for the nodes to use though (the Discovery Edition doesn't save any configs :( ).

Cheers,
Mike

Ah thanks Mike, By the way, how's things in Stutgart??? We never made it to Germany as the project got postponed : (

I was so looking forward to going too!

Cheers mate

Lightwolf
03-04-2005, 04:11 AM
Ah thanks Mike, By the way, how's things in Stutgart??? We never made it to Germany as the project got postponed : (
Busy enough, with a bit of a quiet stretch at the moment (and a storm of work brewing on the horizon ;) ).

Well, if you make it, make sure to drop by !

Cheers,
Mike

MacDoggie
03-04-2005, 08:52 AM
Busy enough, with a bit of a quiet stretch at the moment (and a storm of work brewing on the horizon ;) ).

Well, if you make it, make sure to drop by !

Cheers,
Mike

Glad to hear this my friends in Frankfurt also seem to be getting the work in as well as opposed to last year she was going to go work in Canada if nothing happened but it looks like she didn't have to because she is still in Germany (Deutchland).

Work is steady here as well.

We will definitely stop by as I really enjoy Germany, the people, the food and.........the beer!!!!!!

Thanks for the tips. Be well, Do good work, keep in touch

Lightwolf
03-04-2005, 08:56 AM
... keep in touch
Won't be hard, since I'll be at my 2000th post soon ;)

Take care,
Mike