PDA

View Full Version : OPEN GL Performance



bearfoot
11-17-2006, 05:41 AM
Hey everyone

basically i am doing more and more complex Hi poly scenes but my computer which i thought could handle it is basically failing me badly... my opel gl performance is appalling and basically unusable..

i have dual xeon HP workstation with 2 gig of ram .. and mayve the graphics card is the problem.. its geforce Nvidia 6600 - latest drivers..

the poly counts are around 1 million and in Layout even just in shaded solid mode i cant move an object around with jerking movement or the whole thing just freezing and modeller is
not happy either..

thanks for any helpful hints or tips

cheers

Cougar12dk
11-17-2006, 06:04 AM
Have you tried lowering the bounding box threshold in Layout?

Another thing might be to reduce the poly count to make a more workable model for animation, then when you're done animating, switch to the hi-poly model for rendering.

moc
11-17-2006, 06:52 AM
Pls don't concern how good was your cpu&ram....
It's totally related to the display card and how much ram on broad....
your card seems not enough to handle a complex scene....

TheDynamo
11-17-2006, 12:25 PM
I don't think the 6600 is even Open GL 2.0 compatible. You should see if you can upgrade to the 7x series (7600 or higher depending on if you have PCI Express or AGP for a card slot).

-Dyn

Ztreem
11-17-2006, 02:53 PM
I have a 6600GT and it's openGL 2.0 and works perfect in LW. I have animated a car model with over 1 milion polys in layout without problems.

TheDynamo
11-17-2006, 04:35 PM
The GT is a different card than a stock 6600 :D

Anyways it's better than the x1300 on my dell laptop, however it does fine for compositing in AE :thumbsup:


-Dyn

Exception
11-17-2006, 05:35 PM
Um, which version of LW are you using?
Are you talking about speed in modeler or in layout?

Ztreem
11-18-2006, 04:23 AM
The GT is a different card than a stock 6600 :D


True! But I still think it's openGl 2.0. It says opengl 1.5 when you buy the card, but with the newest drivers it will work with opengl 2.0.

Lottmedia
11-19-2006, 09:34 AM
it's 2.0, I've got the 6600 in my workstation and threw together a quick scene with 1mil polys and layout was very sluggish. I usually do my stuff in layers so I don't often see 1mil polys.

Casey :cat:

umstitch
11-19-2006, 05:23 PM
fyi...anything from a gf fx5200 and up can to varying degrees of actual capability, support gl2.0, and in fact with nvidia 96.89 driver and up you get gl2.1...

TheDynamo
11-20-2006, 01:19 PM
ahh, I stand corrected :D

I'm still one of the nuts who like to buy ATI though. The 1950pro I just bought has yet to have a hit in LW (and most games as well).

-Dyn

lots
11-20-2006, 03:02 PM
Pls don't concern how good was your cpu&ram....
It's totally related to the display card and how much ram on broad....
your card seems not enough to handle a complex scene....
Thats totally false.

In most 3D apps, it is a combination of Graphics card + CPU + system RAM that makes the biggest difference in UI performance. A strong CPU (a Core 2 Duo at high GHz, or an Atlhon64/X2/FX at high GHz) will benifit lightwave's UI speed fairly well. On top of that, having enough RAM is always manditory. The Graphics card while important does not have to be the top of the line. In fact, I've been working on my X300 on my computer here at work with minimal problems. Granted it does have a smaller limit to its maximum poly count than my Geforce 7800GT at home, but its still workable.

LW 9.2 has many things coming, so hopefully we will see a faster modeler. But only time will tell. But I wouldn't be surprised...

moc
11-21-2006, 01:29 AM
Thats totally false.

In most 3D apps, it is a combination of Graphics card + CPU + system RAM that makes the biggest difference in UI performance. A strong CPU (a Core 2 Duo at high GHz, or an Atlhon64/X2/FX at high GHz) will benifit lightwave's UI speed fairly well. On top of that, having enough RAM is always manditory. The Graphics card while important does not have to be the top of the line. In fact, I've been working on my X300 on my computer here at work with minimal problems. Granted it does have a smaller limit to its maximum poly count than my Geforce 7800GT at home, but its still workable.

LW 9.2 has many things coming, so hopefully we will see a faster modeler. But only time will tell. But I wouldn't be surprised...

Sir,
If your X300 was a onbroad native display chip....
then it's share rams with your system.....
that means if you got 1G ram,it may take away 256mb...
Of cause you should mention at how much ram your got...

CPU was not only make different at 3D applications...but mainly at overall systems.....So it didn't relat to view performance that much...(maybe you can say better CPU make faster display FPS).

Besides that, could you tell me what are Quadra serious selling for?

lots
11-21-2006, 06:57 AM
Like I said, this is a work computer, so its not the best in the world. I make a living building repairing and maintaining computer systems ranging from ordinary desktops for administrative staff to high end workstations and servers for research faculty for my University.

The X300 is a dedicated card in this computer.

But to expand on my post :P

The CPU will help a great deal in FPS of Layout and Modeler. For one it is the primary device when computing bone deformations and performing any modifying operations in Layout and Modeler. It is fairly evident that many of lightwave's functions are a sort of "brute force" approach. If you compare other apps for example, you see them doing more with less hardware. Because of this brute force approach, the more overall power your system has, the better it will be able to handle complex scenes in lightwave (of course, this stands for any software really).

Next up is system RAM. A high density object with textures is going to eat up a lot of system RAM. If your object is big enough, there is a possibility that you will run out of space and cause the OS to page to disk, which is mind numbingly slow. Thus, having a good amount of RAM is always mandatory. How much RAM this is greatly depends on your usage as an artist, but I find that around 2GB is a good starting point.

Finally the graphics card. IMO, it is more important to look for a graphics card with faster memory, and a better GPU. For example, if I were to compare a Geforce 7600GT with 256MB of RAM, to a Geforce 7600GT with 512, I would need to consider the speed of the RAM on each card, and the speed at which the GPU operates. In most cases the faster card will be the 256MB card. And this is what I'd pick. Why not one with more RAM? Because my usage habits don't really require me to have it. The extra RAM is handy for those of you with many many many complex and large textures in your scenes. The RAM on a video card primarily serves to store textures near the GPU. Obviously it does many other things, but majority of the space will be going to textures. If your GL options have the texture quality settings fairly low, and you don't have many in your scene, then really, you lose nothing with a 256MB card. Most people will fire up Fprime or just hit F9 to get a feel of how the scene is looking anyway ;) But for those that do use textures heavily in the UI, a video card with alot of RAM becomes important.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying a video card is unimportant, but the CPU and RAM of the system is just as important, so its a perfectly valid thing to be concerned with when trying to improve the performance of your system.

bobakabob
11-21-2006, 05:16 PM
Lots, thanks for this detailed and illuminating info.