PDA

View Full Version : Upgarding to vista 64 after xp 32.. advise?



gareee
02-13-2008, 03:32 PM
I have a dual athlon 64 and have been using lw32 bit on it.

Once I update to vista 64, do I need to change any registration with newtek, and then reinstall 64 bit version, or is the 64 bit code built into lw?

Also since I'll be addressing 4 gig of ram as opposed to xp's 2 gig access, will I see any speed increases?

I recall reading that lightwave 64 bit was much faster then the 32 bit version across the board. (Not just rendering but general modeler and layout use.)

Lightwolf
02-13-2008, 04:25 PM
You'll need a new key for the 64bit version, but you can easily get that from the registration system (just re-register your existing serial # for a new platform).

You'll only see a major speed increase if LW previously hit a memory limit and the OS was swapping out.
Otherwise it'll be in the range of 5%-15% max.

Cheers,
Mike

gareee
02-13-2008, 04:51 PM
I recall people saying that the 64 bit processing within lightwave itself was significantly faster?

Well, I'll be finding out soon I guess...

Lightwolf
02-13-2008, 05:09 PM
I recall people saying that the 64 bit processing within lightwave itself was significantly faster?


I've seen one review on the web, and it wasn't really serious (phoney is a harsh word) because the comparison was between two entirely different machines (an old 32bit machine and a new 64bit machine).

Cheers,
Mike

Titus
02-13-2008, 08:52 PM
I can clearly remember the article about how Zoic was animating BSG with millions of polys like it was made with just a few of them, all thanks to the 64 bit system.

RedBull
02-13-2008, 11:44 PM
I recall people saying that the 64 bit processing within lightwave itself was significantly faster?

Don't go expecting miracles as you will be disappointed, if you are upgrading to 64bit for speed sakes, you are much better off spending the money on a faster machine, than a 64bit OS.

I just did a quick test: (Both are run under Vista x64)
(Meaning LW32 should be slightly slower because of WOW32)

LW32 9.31 - Dirty_build.lws = 92.4 seconds
LW64 9.31 - Dirty_build.lws = 97.6 seconds (Slower)

LW32 9.31 - Vintage_Mics = 19.2 seconds (Slower)
LW64 9.31 - Vintage_Mics = 18.9 seconds

LW32 9.31 - quickroom68.lws = 230.4 seconds
LW64 9.31 - quickroom68.lws = 250.0 seconds (Slower)

LW32 9.31 - can_animation_1.lws = 18.0 seconds
LW64 9.31 - can_animation_1.lws = 20.2 seconds (Slower)

LW32 9.31 - virus.lws = 16.2 seconds
LW64 9.31 - virus.lws = 16.2 seconds

So roughly from those test scenes from the LW9.0 content, LW64 is somewhere around 5-6% slower than LW32 on the same scenes, even though LW32 is handicapped by WOW32, which means a native 32bit version should be even faster. Weird results, not sure why the differences... But if anything one would assume that 64bit should be faster, it definately is not....!!!

gareee
02-13-2008, 11:49 PM
Well, first I can't address my full 4 gig of ram with 32bit xp, and I also can't take advantage of apps that do have 64 bit versions that are faster.

Both zbrush and photoshop cs3 are supposedly more robust with the additional ram and 64 speeds.

One of my big bottlenecks right now is ram, and I already have 4 gig installed, but xp32 just could never use it properly, so installing vista64 gives me that much needed ram, and the ability to run 64 bit applications.

And I already had it here anyway, so the decision was to just take the plunge finally.

RedBull
02-13-2008, 11:56 PM
Well, first I can't address my full 4 gig of ram with 32bit xp, and I also can't take advantage of apps that do have 64 bit versions that are faster.

As demonstrated above 64bit is not faster, it just allows more memory access.


Both zbrush and photoshop cs3 are supposedly more robust with the additional ram and 64 speeds.

Both ZBrush and Photoshop do not currently have 64bit version of their software and will not show any speed increase, and won't access more ram.
So they will likely be a little slower as a result of the 64bit upgrade.


One of my big bottlenecks right now is ram, and I already have 4 gig installed, but xp32 just could never use it properly, so installing vista64 gives me that much needed ram, and the ability to run 64 bit applications.


For most scenes i never come close to my 4Gb limit, but looking at those benchmarks, I'm going back to LW32 for everyday use.... As 20seconds slower on that one scene is quite scary that 64bit could be that much slower...

RedBull
02-14-2008, 12:12 AM
Otherwise it'll be in the range of 5%-15% max.
Cheers,
Mike

How do you explain the 6% slower rendering then? :)

RedBull
02-14-2008, 01:39 AM
While the applications aren't 64-bit compiled, you still get the benefit of being able to have them access up to 4Gb RAM.

Yep! using XP64 or Vista x64 will allow more memory access than XP or Vista32. 4Gb may be pushing it, Vista x64 is hungry and you would like only have around 3Gb available after Vista is using the other 1Gb. :) (On a 4Gb machine)

Surrealist.
02-14-2008, 01:56 AM
Vista x64 uses around 395Mb for itself on my system, including a couple of minor startup tasks like MSN messenger :) It does say 800Mb used on startup, but half of that is cached stuff that will be unloaded when needed. Vista tries to utilize as much of your memory as possible, after all idle memory is wasted memory. Vista will release whatever it has cached when other applications make requests for that memory.

Vista is often mistakenly accused of being a total resource hog, because people don't understand it's new improved memory management. I've seen people report actually being able to load larger assets under Vista than under XP, with the same amount of memory.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

RedBull
02-14-2008, 02:11 AM
Vista is often mistakenly accused of being a total resource hog, because people don't understand it's new improved memory management. I've seen people report actually being able to load larger assets under Vista than under XP, with the same amount of memory.

There is no doubt XP64 uses less memory.... You are right about caching, Vista tends to use what it can.....But overall it's leaving less than XP64 resource wise..... (As you would expect a new OS too) Stuff like DWM (Desktop Windows Management) is using 50Mb that XP64 is not. And it's also taking 1790Mb for Shared System Video memory, (even though i have a 512Mb G92 GTS)

Search Indexer is currently using 140Mb and Explorer 105Mb, but they do adjust under Vista's memory management. However this is still slower than say XP, where the memory is instantly available to the application, rather than being occupied, than released and then allocated.

For Windows tasks Vista may give the appearance of being faster, but for realworld applications (Like Lightwave), it cannot be faster (theoretically)..

I run XP64 on 16 services, and currently have not optimized Vista which is running 40....... But i will only be able to get Vista down to around 25 or so.
I can render more polygons under XP64 than i can in Vista x64..... I have done this test several times, using the Zbrush displacement scene.

Anyway going off-topic, as i was more interested in why LW64 is on average 6% slower on those scenes... (Is this a memory bandwidth problem?)
i.e a lot of 64bit pointers slowing down the process compared to 32bit?

Lightwolf
02-14-2008, 03:31 AM
Anyway going off-topic, as i was more interested in why LW64 is on average 6% slower on those scenes...
Which CPU? AMD shows more of a boost than intel CPUs - but this is from generic benchmarks. I'll need to check on my two 64bit machines to verify (one AMD, one intel).

Cheers,
Mike

RedBull
02-14-2008, 05:39 AM
Which CPU? AMD shows more of a boost than intel CPUs - but this is from generic benchmarks. I'll need to check on my two 64bit machines to verify (one AMD, one intel).

Cheers,
Mike


Those tests are done on Intel Q6600, Vista x64 and 9.31 32/64
I will try AMDx2 tomorrow to see if the results are consistent, that may help realize where the bottleneck is....

But I mentioned to you in another thread, I did find these results once before (some tests show 32 faster and others 64, but quite a large discrepancy between them)