PDA

View Full Version : Can an Intel iMac handle Lightwave 9.3 UB OK?



MysteryMonkey
10-14-2007, 07:34 AM
We're thinking of replacing some of our G5s, and for economical reasons we're thinking of trying the Intel iMacs. Do the iMacs seem to handle LW 9.3 UB OK? Are there any specific reasons this would be a bad move at this time? Pros? Cons?

Right off the top of my head the one major Con is that 9.3 UB has virtually none of those handy plugins like SasLite. That by itself may force us to install the 9.3 PPC version of LW which kind of negates any performance boost we might expect to see by upgrading our units.

Then again the G5s are getting old and are past due to be replaced so we may have to live with it. The bottom line is though, are that any real issues from running LW on the new iMacs?

4dartist
10-14-2007, 11:36 AM
There has been quite a few threads discussing this topic, but a common theme i think is that PPC version of LW runs pretty fast on intel macs. The only real hit is render speed which would be slower on PPC LW than UB LW. But still faster than on your non-intel mac + PPC LW. Rosetta does a great job from what i hear and have seen myself.

If you use the public release of UB (in my opinion) there are no show stoppers, UB runs great and we have been able to render much more complex stuff faster than ever now. The only issues that are of concern that i have ran into has been the hub. I have been lucky and have used the hub for about 6 years with only minor problems, but absolutely not an option on the public UB release because there is a horrid 15 second delay between switching programs (any program, ichat to internet) and back to LW. LW will sit idle for that time and then finally start responding to you mouse clicks. So with hub renamed and thus disabled things are back to normal except the whole connection thing.. (which I miss badly)

MysteryMonkey
10-14-2007, 11:48 AM
There has been quite a few threads discussing this topic, but a common theme i think is that PPC version of LW runs pretty fast on intel macs. The only real hit is render speed which would be slower on PPC LW than UB LW. But still faster than on your non-intel mac + PPC LW. Rosetta does a great job from what i hear and have seen myself. . .


Thanks for the reply. I probably could have worded this question better than I did. I have been using both the 9.2 PPC and the 9.3 UB on my MacBook Pro and haven't had any real problems. I guess I was just wondering if there was anything more specific to the Intel iMac that may have caused any issues? I know logically there shouldn't be much of a difference between how the MacBook Pro works and the iMac works, but I have to ask.

Markc
10-17-2007, 05:40 PM
Fprime isn't a universal binary either yet (like all the Worley plugins), if you use it? I use it on a G5 and would be lost without it!

cresshead
10-24-2007, 02:21 PM
so...err...is ANYONE using the new intel imac's [slimmer aluminium ones] with ati graphic cards...

any problems with open gl on those imacs to be aware of?

Mr Maze
10-26-2007, 12:43 AM
I have a 20" Intel Core Duo (white) iMac, using the 9.3 on it fine. It works MUCH better with the UB than the CFM. Rendering times freaking quadrupled in speed. Disabling the Hub is a must (rename it) if you want to work faster. If you have more patience than me, then use hub for functionality. I could barely use 9.0 it crashed so much... I do find that the open gl performance sucks compared to the WinXP box (which is a pretty badass AMD tower) I use at work though.

My wife just got one of the new iMacs (Core 2 Duo), haven't loaded up LW on it yet and tested it. Mine has 2 gigs ram and a 256 mb ATI Radeon X1600. Can't recall the exact specs on her vid card she's using it right now...

What I do have to say is that when I really want to step up the stuff I am doing... Gonna have to get a Mac Pro. However I have been seeing reports that getting Leopard will give me a huge boost in open gl performance...

So far I am happy with this machine and am happy with the UB. If you can ask me more specific questions I will try to answer them. Here are a couple of images I have created on this machine:

51552 51553 51554

Mr Maze
10-26-2007, 12:46 AM
I just wanted to add that the CFM version of LW is not fast, at all, on my Intel Core Duo iMac.

cresshead
10-26-2007, 01:59 AM
cool would be great to hear how the new imac is with lightwave regarding any open gl issues...my aging mac mini [g4] with it's ati chip has horrible open gl with lightwave 8.5 that makes modeler ''unusable'' due to errors in drawing points in the viewport...so if the ati drivers are better:working properly on a new imac that would be good to hear.

Glendalough
10-26-2007, 05:00 AM
cool would be great to hear how the new imac is with lightwave regarding any open gl issues...my aging mac mini [g4] with it's ati chip has horrible open gl with lightwave 8.5 that makes modeler ''unusable'' due to errors in drawing points in the viewport...so if the ati drivers are better:working properly on a new imac that would be good to hear.

I've got a newer intel Mac mini and it's not very good in the graphics card department, though great for rendering.

Think any Mac, even the small laptops would be far superior in this area. The Mac mini can have trouble playing Quicktime occasionally (1gb ram), will skip frames. This is the downside to this otherwise beautiful little jewel.



Mr Maze: Those images you've posted -really looking good!

Steamthrower
10-26-2007, 06:03 AM
I use a MacBook Pro C2D. It only has a 128 MB ATI graphics card but it's quite good enough to do what I need (editing HD video, rendering lots of radiosity, listening to iTunes at the same time).

Mr Maze
10-26-2007, 07:40 AM
Only problem I have had in modeler is tumbling with high poly counts - reaction times slow down. Most noticably with SubD's. I don't think that as much has to do with my vid card as it does with the current Apple Open GL Drivers though. Moving from the CFM to the UB really helped in that area...

Glendalough: Thanks!