PDA

View Full Version : PC or Mac



kelbo
12-10-2005, 05:26 PM
I would like everyone's opinion on this one... I have had both Macs and Pc's and would like a consensus on what platform is prefered for Lightwave... or is this a matter of preference?

ted
12-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Ford or Chevy?
While there might be some aspects of the OS that give a slight edge in a bench test in specific processes, I really don't think there is enough difference to go against the OS you know best and prefer to use.

I'm sure there will be many to chime in here.

ingo
12-11-2005, 03:34 AM
... or is this a matter of preference?

Yes it is. Just choose the platform you are most comfortable with. Its like choosing the right 3D software...

Carm3D
12-11-2005, 05:50 AM
There are alot of good arguments for both sides. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but the answer is: PC

JReble
12-11-2005, 06:17 AM
:) Hehehehe....

Actually rather than an analogy to Ford vs Chevy, I'd characterize it much more like a Ford vs Avanti comparison. When one computer platform is 95% of the user base and the other is 5%, that's gotta count for something.

habaŮero
12-12-2005, 05:16 AM
PC have much more plugin support, and the price per "rendering unit", I'd reckon it'd be about half. Might change with the intel macs, but then AMD have the upper hand on intel these days. If you go with either mac or PC, it is good to get one with nvidia graphics. And it makes sense to buy a dual core. I love mac, But for rendering I won't recommend it though I am looking at gettting a powerbokk myself.

Captain Obvious
12-12-2005, 05:26 AM
When one computer platform is 95% of the user base and the other is 5%, that's gotta count for something.
That's total user base, and matters little in the world of 3D. Who cares what Aunt Aina uses to send mail to her relatives? As far as I know, Mac users make up much more than 5% of the 3D application buyers. I heard that 30% of the people who buy Lightwave use Macs, but I don't how true this is.

Anyway, the Windows version has more plugins. If you're a plugin kind of person, I'd recomend you use that. I use Lightwave on Macs, and I don't mind it. I'd like more plugins, but it's not really that bad. The commercial ones are usually available (like Fprime). Rendering performance is comparable, at least on high-end hardware. If you prefer Macs, buy a Mac. If you prefer Windows, buy a computer that can run Windows.

BazC
12-12-2005, 06:25 AM
That's total user base, and matters little in the world of 3D. Who cares what Aunt Aina uses to send mail to her relatives? As far as I know, Mac users make up much more than 5% of the 3D application buyers. I heard that 30% of the people who buy Lightwave use Macs, but I don't how true this is.

Anyway, the Windows version has more plugins. If you're a plugin kind of person, I'd recomend you use that. I use Lightwave on Macs, and I don't mind it. I'd like more plugins, but it's not really that bad. The commercial ones are usually available (like Fprime). Rendering performance is comparable, at least on high-end hardware. If you prefer Macs, buy a Mac. If you prefer Windows, buy a computer that can run Windows.


Yep, Macs are more common in 3d than is generally supposed, I don't know about Lightwave but nearly 50% of new seats of Cinema 4d are for Macintosh, around 20% of new seats of Maya are Mac too.

I'm a Mac user, I LOVE OSX but I'd still recommend a Windows machine. At the top end there isn't much to choose between Macs and Windows price/performance but lower down there's a big gap, you can get a pretty fast Windows box for peanuts, the cheapest macs are pretty slow in comparrison.

Open GL speed is much better on Windows at the moment, this doesn't affect Lightwave much at the moment but will in future versions and there are more plugs for Windows.

Captain Obvious
12-12-2005, 06:53 AM
At the top end there isn't much to choose between Macs and Windows price/performance but lower down there's a big gap, you can get a pretty fast Windows box for peanuts, the cheapest macs are pretty slow in comparrison.
This is true, unfortunately. The Mac mini is a nice enough computer, and it's extremely well-designed. But when it comes to performance per dollar, it's not spectacular. The iMacs give much better performance per dollar, but still worse than your average PC.


Open GL speed is much better on Windows at the moment, this doesn't affect Lightwave much at the moment but will in future versions and there are more plugs for Windows.
Well, that depends on how you look at it. Maya on a Mac has much better OpenGL performance than Lightwave on a PC, for example. Any problem with OpenGL in Lightwave, regardless of platform, is a problem with Lightwave and not the platform.

Neuroup
12-12-2005, 07:15 AM
Hello!
Pc or Mac. Now it's a good question. I'm using lightwave for PC and i was thinking that it's the best choise for me. But last time i was in online apple shop.
I saw a very good occasion for me.
Only for 2800 euro including vat in Poland you can buy double dualcore 2.3 ghz powerpc Imac with 512 mb[for windows is not too much but for mac who knows?],geforce 6800 with 256 GDDR SDRAM.
I think that for this money is very good occasion. For 2800 you will not buy this such a good pc.
With double dualcore cpu Lightwave is about 59% faster than the best powerpc cpu.
What do you think about it??

Nathonix
12-12-2005, 04:10 PM
i switch hit myself, and really i have to say i prefer imacs for modeling, because of the extra screen realestate, but pc for rendering because of the speed. if you dont mind slightly longer render times and would like more screen space, hit a mac, if you need speed, and can deal with less space, or have money for a widescreen, get a pc, more plugs, better OGL support, and the like, just dont go real cheap, or it isnt worth it anyway.

monovich
12-12-2005, 05:13 PM
I just had to make this same decision, and I went PC. AMD to be exact. I built the rest myself.

I'm a mac guy through and through, but they aren't responsive enough with high poly scenes, and they don't get all the plugins, which I need.

I still have a mac laptop, and I'm never giving up on mac, but for LW, PC is better in my opinion.

-s

CG Addict
12-12-2005, 05:17 PM
Actually rather than an analogy to Ford vs Chevy, I'd characterize it much more like a Ford vs Avanti comparison. When one computer platform is 95% of the user base and the other is 5%, that's gotta count for something.

Thatís like saying 95% percent use ford and 5% use Ferrari. Which is better?

I think the user should go with what he is most comfortable for him or her. Macs do some things better and PCís do some things better. And both definitely have weaknesses. For me it comes down to which computer / OS would I prefer to have to spend 8 - 10 hours a day with and for me, I prefer my Mac G5.

Look, Both the Mac and PC forums have their share of compliants and praise.

Pick one and get busy!

Mike

Captain Obvious
12-12-2005, 05:24 PM
Pick one and get busy!
That about sums it up.

Still, it doesn't sum it up entirely. In fact, the approach I recomend is to not switch, but add. With a home-built Athlon64 X2 system you can get terrific rendering performance for your money. However, it's always nice to have a dedicated workstation and a separate computer for, oh, checking the NewTek boards. For such a purpose, I really recomend a laptop, and there is no better deal* on a small and portable laptop than the 12" iBook. I think this is the optimal approach. It has good enough performance for light modeling and such, in case you want to try something out or do some 3D sketching in your livingroom sofa, and they're great for browsing the web and all of that jazz.

*if you can find me a brand new 12" portable (no more than 2.5 kilograms or so) with five hours of battery time, a dedicated video card, wireless, Bluetooth, etc etc etc, all for less than $1000, I will give you my iBook (note: you will not actually get my iBook)

Nathonix
12-12-2005, 07:16 PM
you could also take the screamernet approach, and model on the mac, and setup an athlon x2 system to render on. and heck, a pc doubles as a decent gaming rig, however i doubt you are looking for an every day pc that you just happen to be rendering on also. plus theres the fact that since all rendering is done on the processor and not the videocard, it might take advantage of the 3dnow instructionset on amd chips.

accom
12-16-2005, 06:07 AM
Hello everyone!

Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but anyway...
I'm new here. I've been using LW v3 some time ago (7-8 yrs. ago, i think) on SGI, since then I've been mostly involved in other stuff. Now I'm about to get involved in 3D again. Spent some time with Blender, but it seems too hard... :) , so I'm about to get myself a LW. I have a PowerMac DP 1.8 G5/nVidia GeForce 5200 /OSX 10.3.9 and a bit older P4/2.66 MHz/some nVidia Graphics/Win2K. So, has anyone got experince with both platforms? How would you compare them?

thanks a lot!

tonybliss
12-16-2005, 06:27 AM
I work on both ... pc workstations and my mac G4 powerbook

I loove working on the mac, but the pc has more plugin options.

Mac may render some stuff faster (final and opengl) from my experience but the pc MAY be more optimised for 3d and portability to other software that may not be MAC driven.

my shilling on this :D

mattclary
12-16-2005, 07:00 AM
http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

Piolla
12-23-2005, 05:21 PM
Though I'm a Macmaniac, if you'll do only Lightwave, go for pc. LW 64 isn't available for Macs yet and you'll have to wait for the new Mac/Intel next year to see maybe a 9.5 LW 64 on Mac OS.

If you're going to do tons of different things at the same time such as video editing, then the Mac is a good thing.

mattclary
12-23-2005, 05:51 PM
If you're going to do tons of different things at the same time such as video editing, then the Mac is a good thing.

Macs use cooperative multi-tasking, Windows uses preemptive multi-tasking. You should read up on both before taking this statement as gospel.

Many would say the opposite is true, that Windows is the better multi-tasking environment.

cgbloke2004
12-23-2005, 06:38 PM
Macs use cooperative multi-tasking, Windows uses preemptive multi-tasking. You should read up on both before taking this statement as gospel.
dont mean to intrude but i understood that the old MacOS was cooperative multitasking, under MacOSX it is preemptive multitasking, just like WindowsXP, un*x, etc is.

mush like others have said here, i've used lightwave on both macs and pc's but at the end of the day it is down to personal preferences and, essentially, what gets the job done.
personally, i'm doing animation, so rendering is a priority, as is plugins, as is the budget - in that respect, pc's win.
[the account of the high end pcs and macs being not that different and the low-ends leaving the macs behind is very true]

Captain Obvious
12-25-2005, 07:14 AM
Macs haven't used cooperative multitasking for a long while now. OS X is all preemtive.

StereoMike
12-25-2005, 11:12 AM
We get by with Macs. What differentiates the results is the artists, not the machines.

But many free and a bunch of commercial plugs aren't out for the mac. So you're right,it's the artist, who uses his creativity to get the job done, but alot of useful plugs make the job less tedious or even faster.

I think I'm not exaggerating, when I'm saying every plug comes out for pc but not all come out for mac. That has nothing to do with NT, it's just more work for the developer of the plugin, and in case of free tools, they're often developed to help a particular person (maybe developer himself) and if it works, he's done. Nobody will pay him for investing his time in a mac port. There are some guys who port it anyway, but they do it cause this is such a nice community and they are such nice guys, not cause they had to do it.

btw thanks for all the great free plugins!

Darrell
12-25-2005, 06:41 PM
I run Lightwave 8.3 on a dual G4...& it runs & renders well. I'm working on a short animated film with a lightwave user who lives by windows. We have to exchange files for this film & we never have problem.

Now here's one problem you might run into which someone mentioned eairler. There are more plugins on the windows platform than the Mac platform. Therefore, if you're an artist who love to play with plugins, well the windows platform will be your best ideal. If you feel comfortable with the mac platform & really don't care about plugins then get the mac version.

Yeah so there is no right or wrong platform to use...yeah the majority of 3D artist use PC's but I personally don't care...what really important is if the artist know his tools or not. And if you choose to go to the windows platform i hope its not because you found some cool plugin lol...besides plugins don't make the artist

warmiak
12-26-2005, 02:02 AM
Hello!

Only for 2800 euro including vat in Poland you can buy double dualcore 2.3 ghz powerpc Imac with 512 mb[for windows is not too much but for mac who knows?],geforce 6800 with 256 GDDR SDRAM.


Uh, I don't know if this is such a good deal .. 2800 euro is about 3 900 U.S.

In US for 3200$ you can get two dual-core 2.5GHz PowerPC G5.


http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/7200505/wo/hnlDueW9oB6G3bQNybA2Pb3luMG/0.SLID?mco=586014F6&nclm=PowerMac

Captain Obvious
12-26-2005, 05:19 AM
Uh, I don't know if this is such a good deal .. 2800 euro is about 3 900 U.S.

In US for 3200$ you can get two dual-core 2.5GHz PowerPC G5.


http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/7200505/wo/hnlDueW9oB6G3bQNybA2Pb3luMG/0.SLID?mco=586014F6&nclm=PowerMac
VAT in Poland is like 20%...

Stooch
12-26-2005, 11:40 AM
With PC you get more render power per dollar, more software/plugin choices. IF you are a serious 3D artist, chances are, you arent only using lightwave. So a pc wins hands down right away if you want to use software that isnt mac compatible. Pretty much on all technical fronts, the pc will win for less money. IT seems that designers like to use macs because they are well designed, not beacause they have the best tool for the job. Ive used dual g5s for everything, from high res illustration to some 3d. The mac crashed 5x more often, was alot slower then the pc workstation and half the stuff simply didnt work because the mac wasnt 100% compatible with the tasks i was doing, even visiting some websites on the mac made me hate it.

If you are a serious 3D artist, pcs are the way to go. sorry if i hurt anyones feelings. Macs are good for graphics and possibly video. and technologically challenged users also.

Darrell
12-26-2005, 11:50 AM
With PC you get more render power per dollar, more software/plugin choices. IF you are a serious 3D artist, chances are, you arent only using lightwave. So a pc wins hands down right away if you want to use software that isnt mac compatible. Pretty much on all technical fronts, the pc will win for less money. IT seems that designers like to use macs because they are well designed, not beacause they have the best tool for the job. Ive used dual g5s for everything, from high res illustration to some 3d. The mac crashed 5x more often, was alot slower then the pc workstation and half the stuff simply didnt work because the mac wasnt 100% compatible with the tasks i was doing, even visiting some websites on the mac made me hate it.

If you are a serious 3D artist, pcs are the way to go. sorry if i hurt anyones feelings. Macs are good for graphics and possibly video. and technologically challenged users also.

ummm...i challenge you to run lightwave on my G4 lol...my machine is not slow...I took my portable harddrive to school & ran LW on their G5 & its very fast...& my G4 doesn't crash often when i run Lightwave or Maya (yeah I use both)...& i am a serious 3D artist :D

Stooch
12-26-2005, 11:55 AM
ummm...i challenge you to run lightwave on my G4 lol...my machine is not slow...I took my portable harddrive to school & ran LW on their G5 & its very fast...& my G4 doesn't crash often when i run Lightwave or Maya (yeah I use both)...& i am a serious 3D artist :D

Like i said - ran it on a dual g5, in fact we have a dual g5 gathering dust in the office right now. ive compared it in every way possible and its slower and costs more. not just at lightwave, pretty much at any 3D program we throw at it, of course half the programs dont even work on it since they arent even made for mac.

in fact, speed arguements will hurt the MAC 90% of the time.

these comparisons are on a dual g5, vs a dual 3.6ghz xeon on a dell workstation with 4 gigs of ram.

Captain Obvious
12-26-2005, 01:37 PM
If you don't want that dual G5, I'll be happy to take it off your hands. I'll even pay you! :)

Stooch
12-27-2005, 03:56 PM
If you don't want that dual G5, I'll be happy to take it off your hands. I'll even pay you! :)

lol, well its not my property, the company is leasing it :D

Darrell
12-28-2005, 07:42 PM
LOL...ya'll silly...well I understand the Mac platform is not working for you. You have deadlines that need to be met or you won't eat...& performance is paramount...its too bad your company is leasing it hehe :D

somnambulance
12-28-2005, 10:55 PM
I have been using both for a few months now. I do 95% of my modeling and texturing on my Mac. If I had a dollar for every time I hit my Apple button (I use a KVM) and then cursed at the Windows start menu, I would be somewhere sunny and warm right now. I really like OSX, it seems like typical Windows users donít understand the streamlined workflow OSX has to offer.

People are going to fight over which one is faster for the dollar and yada yada change my diapers... but when it comes down to it they are really within a few dollars of each other when you compare the actual hardware and preformance. OSX is a better operating system and the amount of developers for Windows is greater. So really it comes down to which one do you want and can you get a hookup on one or the other?

The UnrealEd for the Unreal 3 Engine is supposed to run on Mac, I'm stoked on that.

Puguglybonehead
12-29-2005, 01:18 AM
I'll admit, having used both, that Lightwave is faster on a PC, and there's a lot more plugins available, but if you're using a PC for serious LW work then you'd best be keeping it off of the net (and off of any insecure networks). I had so many problems using a shared intranet with 2 roommates that my PC (a 1.8 Ghz Athlon XP) was constantly in so much trouble from viruses and spyware being passed around that I had no choice but to quarantine and isolate it to keep it useful. This got so annoying that I eventually went back to Mac. Haven't had any problems since.

I'm willing to put up with the Mac's weaknesses (and trust me, my 600Mhz iBook G3 is pretty weak, but it still runs Lightwave 8.3) in order to have its strengths of stability, reliability and freedom from viruses, spyware, etc. It's also pretty fast-and-easy to run utilities and maintain a Mac. Even on a fast PC, maintainence and installs (especially system installs) seem to take forever. But, PCs definitely do render faster than Macs and seem to have way better openGL and usually more state-of-the-art RAM and videocards as well.

There's trade-offs on both sides so I think it's a matter of preference and priorities.

somnambulance
12-29-2005, 09:00 AM
A 1.8ghz Athlon out ran a G3 chip and your saying that PC is faster...?

This argument of which one has the best speed to dollar ratio is absurd. Seeing how the EXACT same PC can cost anywhere between $1000-$2000 depending on where you buy it, how can you say that?

My Dual G5 1.8 512 mb ram renders 2x as fast as my Atholn 3500 (clocked at 2.4ghz) with 1 gb ram. If someone wants to compare apples to apples, go spend $2k on a Mac and spend $2k at Newegg and then tell me which one has more bang for the buck.

If you are going to buy a PC, build it yourself or buy a Dell. If you are going to buy an Apple, get a student to buy it for you. Like bonehead said, keeping your work system in quarantine will help your performance, it is probalby the best performance boost you can add.

Puguglybonehead
12-29-2005, 11:25 AM
lol. Sorry, that didn't come out right, did it?. I wasn't intending to compare the performance of a 600mhz iBook to a 1.8ghz Athlon. I was just saying that I would gladly use even an older, slower Mac over a PC just to have the hassle-free operating system of the Mac. ;D

tedbragg
12-31-2005, 09:18 AM
Use both!

For modeling, most people I work with and talk to use the Mac, but for rendering, they ship it over to a PC. Not only do they have more plug-ins on the WinPC side for rendering effects, and the speed is faster, but by splitting the workflow they claim the security and stability of OS X on Mac is the peace of mind they'd lose if they did everything on PC.

I use LW on a 12" iBook, and even with the stock 512megs of ram, it flies through dense models and editing. But once it goes to render-- UGH.

That's where the PC side is coded and implemented better. Modeling on WinPC can suffer from flakey drivers/hardware -- unlike the Apples, where everything under the hood is matched to work flawlessly.

I'd recc. get a Mac you like for modeling, and then get about 2 or 3 dirt cheap PCs and network them together to plow thru renders.

Stooch
01-01-2006, 11:56 PM
My Dual G5 1.8 512 mb ram renders 2x as fast as my Atholn 3500 (clocked at 2.4ghz) with 1 gb ram. If someone wants to compare apples to apples, go spend $2k on a Mac and spend $2k at Newegg and then tell me which one has more bang for the buck.

My custom rig would annihilate your mac for that price point. keep in mind pc builders dont always make them from scratch, for me it would take alot less to build one since i can reuse alot of components. even brand new, i would not only spank the mac platform but have a huge upgrade path in front of me. The price per dollar arguement holds alot of water, you simply cannot compete with the pc market and the competition forged innovation. Mac uses alot of PC technologies itself...

p.s. dont get all your stuff from newegg, there are much better avenues, such as pricewatch.com

lol also, i converted a few die hard MAC heads myself, and they couldnt be happier and slowly doing the same at my company (who are primarily mac - graphics) based. And no i have nothing against macs, i actually like them for photoshopping around, etc.

lots
01-02-2006, 02:24 PM
I know these are not big key features, but for LW, OSX does not offer OGL 2.0 or 64bit, so that counts to something. Granted that is probably it, minus plugin support, but these are limitations of OSX and not Windows.. I find it odd the OS based on one of the BSDs and Open Source is the one that does not have OpenGL 2.0 :P. Though Windows, the closed source OS, does.. Go figure? Same goes for 64bit. Apple sports the 64bit sticker on OSX, yet 64bit is limited to command line only, what use is that for GUI apps?

Don't get me wrong, I like Macs with OSX just fine, though I prefer Windows, so I run LW on XP 64bit :) Though Macs before OSX I dispise :P

Captain Obvious
01-02-2006, 03:15 PM
64-bit for Mac OS X is much less relevant than for Windows. Any Macintosh app can easily adress up to four gigabytes of RAM, and some can adress even more. The Mac version of Photoshop, for example, is completely 32-bit and can still use like ten gigs of RAM. And it seems the RAM usage is more efficient on the Mac as well. Worley, for example, states that Fprime can render a higher resolution image on a Mac with 1 gig of RAM than on a Windows machine with as much.

OGL2.0 is also not a big issue with Lightwave, since the only 2.0 feature Lightwave uses is GLSL, which Mac OS X does support.

Please note that I'm not saying you're not allowed to prefer Windows or anything such. ;)

loki74
01-03-2006, 12:57 AM
64-bit for Mac OS X is much less relevant than for Windows. Any Macintosh app can easily adress up to four gigabytes of RAM, and some can adress even more. The Mac version of Photoshop, for example, is completely 32-bit and can still use like ten gigs of RAM. And it seems the RAM usage is more efficient on the Mac as well. Worley, for example, states that Fprime can render a higher resolution image on a Mac with 1 gig of RAM than on a Windows machine with as much.

wow I didn't know that--thats awesome! Very good to know. :thumbsup:

warmiak
01-03-2006, 04:52 AM
64-bit for Mac OS X is much less relevant than for Windows. A


It is just as relevant as it is for windows. Either your software is compiled as 64 bit program or isn't.

If it is then it has access to more than 4 GB (and obviously only works on 64 bit CPUs ) , if it isn't then it can only address 4 GB , and generally even less than that.

"The Mac version of Photoshop, for example, is completely 32-bit and can still use like ten gigs of RAM."

No, Photoshop CS 2 on OS X can only use about 3.5 GB or ram maximum.

http://photoshopnews.com/?p=134#more-134

There are no miracles.

Captain Obvious
01-03-2006, 05:25 AM
It is just as relevant as it is for windows. Either your software is compiled as 64 bit program or isn't.
In 32-bit Windows, the RAM roof is 2 gigabytes per app, right? A 32-bit Mac app can use twice that amount, and both Panther and Tiger are semi-64-bit, so the entire OS can adress more than the total amount you can even fit in a modern Mac. Sure, one app cannot use everything*, but you can have a bunch of apps, all using four gigs. That isn't possible in 32-bit Windows


*you can get around that by making your own RAM disk and using for a "scratch disk," but this obviously means you'll have to do an awful lot more coding than you would otherwise

warmiak
01-03-2006, 07:05 AM
In 32-bit Windows, the RAM roof is 2 gigabytes per app, right? A 32-bit Mac app can use twice that amount, and both Panther and Tiger are semi-64-bit, so the entire OS can adress more than the total amount you can even fit in a modern Mac. Sure, one app cannot use everything*, but you can have a bunch of apps, all using four gigs. That isn't possible in 32-bit Windows


That's mostly correct in the sense that Win 32 generally has less memory available for the applications than OS X but that has nothing really to do with 64 bit stuff, just a different legacies of OS.

In any case, the difference here is minimal compared to difference between 32 bit application and 64 bit application.

In other words, you might save couple hundred megs of memory in 32 bit mode by going to OS X but compared to using true 64 bit apps vs 32 bit apsp this saving will be very insignificant.

So it does matter a lot if your application is 64 bit - it will be quantum leap as far as memory availability, regardless if it is Win or OS X.

Lightwolf
01-03-2006, 07:25 AM
In 32-bit Windows, the RAM roof is 2 gigabytes per app, right?
Nope, 3GB is the limit if the developers compiled the app properly (not accounting for methods to go beyond the 4GB limit on a 32bit machine such as PAE - which is only used by some databases).

Cheers,
Mike

warmiak
01-03-2006, 09:13 AM
Nope, 3GB is the limit if the developers compiled the app properly (not accounting for methods to go beyond the 4GB limit on a 32bit machine such as PAE - which is only used by some databases).

Cheers,
Mike

I don't think PAE applications can use this memory directly though - as far as I remember this is more of a caching mechanism without direct control.
Anyway, for truly large memory support I think 64 bit is the only answer.

Lightwolf
01-03-2006, 09:16 AM
I don't think PAE applications can use this memory directly though - as far as I remember this is more of a caching mechanism without direct control.
Yup... not that far away from the current Photoshop behaviour though ... use the extra memory as a disk cache ;)

Cheers,
Mike

lots
01-03-2006, 03:49 PM
I never said these were big features :) Just saying that Newtek couldn't impliment them due to lack of support on the Mac. Still, WinXP 64bit is one of the better MS OS's i've used. Though I still use Gentoo on a daily basis...

warmiak
01-03-2006, 06:51 PM
I never said these were big features :) Just saying that Newtek couldn't impliment them due to lack of support on the Mac. Still, WinXP 64bit is one of the better MS OS's i've used. Though I still use Gentoo on a daily basis...

Yeah, XP 64 is good but it will really make sense as a general OS only in couple of years when everyone out there starts providing 64 drivers .

Captain Obvious
01-04-2006, 06:35 AM
That's mostly correct in the sense that Win 32 generally has less memory available for the applications than OS X but that has nothing really to do with 64 bit stuff, just a different legacies of OS.
32-bit Lightwave in 32-bit Windows can use four gigs in total (2 gigs for Layout and 2 gigs for Modeler, or 3 gigs for Layout and 1 gig for Modeler, etc). 32-bit Lightwave in sorta 32-bit Mac OS X (10.3 or 10.4) can use a total of 8 gigabytes (4 gigs each). I know this has nothing to do with 64-bit, as such, but surely you agree that the benefit of moving to a 64-bit solution is lesser on the platform that can use more RAM as it is. Seriously, how many here have more than eight gigs of RAM anyway?

Lightwolf
01-04-2006, 06:40 AM
I know this has nothing to do with 64-bit, as such, but surely you agree that the benefit of moving to a 64-bit solution is lesser on the platform that can use more RAM as it is.
However, on the PC side of things there is another reason to go 64bit that doesn't apply to Macs at all (until they run on intel hardware) ... performance. x86-64 is a decent enough improvement to the architecture to allow for quite some speed improvements (CineBench is a good example of that).
This doesn't apply to G5s though, 32bit and 64bit are the same on that CPU.
Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
01-04-2006, 07:10 AM
There's that, too. :p

Nathonix
01-04-2006, 07:45 AM
i dont quite know what my school is running on their iMacs, but i know they are the older round base ones, and my computer at home runs on a celeron 2.3 ghz, 512 ram, and the mac runs on a gig, but i was running a render for class and after half an hour it crashed, and only finished half the frames, so i took it home as i didnt have enough time anymore, and rendered the whole scene in half an hour.

the mac took about 13 seconds on average a frame, where the pc took about 4. however i still prefer to do modeling in mac, and use the pc for renders.

warmiak
01-04-2006, 08:02 AM
However, on the PC side of things there is another reason to go 64bit that doesn't apply to Macs at all (until they run on intel hardware) ... performance. x86-64 is a decent enough improvement to the architecture to allow for quite some speed improvements (CineBench is a good example of that).
This doesn't apply to G5s though, 32bit and 64bit are the same on that CPU.
Cheers,
Mike

I was actually wondering if that would that be true in a generic case since going to 64 bit doesn't really change much in terms of performance beyond typical improvements related to being able to use faster large block transfers, which is ok but is not a typical pattern of CPU usage for apps like Lightwave.
Applications that natively rely on 64 bit of data as their basic "working set" would gain a lot but that mostly applies to scientific stuff ( perhaps Lightwave’s various physics simulation code would benefit?)

Furthermore, a 32 bit program by definition will be able to fit more of its data and instruction into CPU cache and thus be potentially faster than 64 bit equivalent.

This seems to be the case when testing things like 64 bit version of Half Life 2 which seems to be a bit slower than the 32 bit version.

Anyway, will see…

warmiak
01-04-2006, 08:04 AM
I know this has nothing to do with 64-bit, as such, but surely you agree that the benefit of moving to a 64-bit solution is lesser on the platform that can use more RAM as it is. Seriously, how many here have more than eight gigs of RAM anyway?

Yeah...

On the other hand, with RAM prices being what they are , I don't think 16 GB of RAM is a stuff of dreams anymore :-)

Lightwolf
01-04-2006, 08:07 AM
I was actually wondering if that would that be true in a generic case since going to 64 bit doesn't really change much in terms of performance beyond typical improvements related to being able to use faster large block transfers, which is ok but is not a typical pattern of CPU usage for apps like Lightwave.
that is why I explicitly mentioned x86-64. There are mainly two reasons for the performance improvements, none if which are related to 64bit computing in any way:
1) more registers
2) a guaranteed minimum instruction set that is beyond the basics for a x86 processor (i.e. _all_ x86-64 processors support SSE2).

The former makes it a lot easier for compilers and helps a lot in creating faster code. The later means that there are less optimization paths to take care of.

Cheers,
Mike

warmiak
01-04-2006, 08:08 AM
i dont quite know what my school is running on their iMacs, but i know they are the older round base ones, and my computer at home runs on a celeron 2.3 ghz, 512 ram, and the mac runs on a gig, but i was running a render for class and after half an hour it crashed, and only finished half the frames, so i took it home as i didnt have enough time anymore, and rendered the whole scene in half an hour.

the mac took about 13 seconds on average a frame, where the pc took about 4. however i still prefer to do modeling in mac, and use the pc for renders.

Well, it will be a moot point once Apple hardware runs on Intel CPUs:-)

The only difference at that point will be your preference regarding actual OS "habits" and perhaps slightly better integration of hardware on OS X machines.

Enough for some, not enough for me , especially given price difference :-)

jeremyhardin
01-04-2006, 12:50 PM
Well, it will be a moot point once Apple hardware runs on Intel CPUs:-)

The only difference at that point will be your preference regarding actual OS "habits" and perhaps slightly better integration of hardware on OS X machines.

Enough for some, not enough for me , especially given price difference :-)
Apple hardware will work with Intel CPUs starting this month and throughout this year. Lightwave most likely won't work on those initially though:
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=44301

Captain Obvious
01-04-2006, 02:41 PM
2) a guaranteed minimum instruction set that is beyond the basics for a x86 processor (i.e. _all_ x86-64 processors support SSE2).
As far as I know, WinXP-64 doesn't even support using the regular FPU. It uses SSE for all floating point calculations, doesn't it?




i dont quite know what my school is running on their iMacs, but i know they are the older round base ones, and my computer at home runs on a celeron 2.3 ghz, 512 ram, and the mac runs on a gig, but i was running a render for class and after half an hour it crashed, and only finished half the frames, so i took it home as i didnt have enough time anymore, and rendered the whole scene in half an hour.
My PC doesn't even boot up. Obviously Macs are superior. ;) Seriously, your school's iMac is faulty. That makes your comparison flawed.

Lightwolf
01-04-2006, 03:42 PM
As far as I know, WinXP-64 doesn't even support using the regular FPU. It uses SSE for all floating point calculations, doesn't it?
Yup, actually SSE2 it is. Apparently to speed up task/context switches, since this way it won't have to store/restore fpu registers when switching, which adds a bit of overhead.

Cheers,
Mike