PDA

View Full Version : Processors and Lightwave.



gschrick
07-20-2003, 10:01 AM
I am upgraded my primary animation computer and considering a BOXX. The model I am looking at is offered with either a Pentium 4 or an AMD athlon.

Does anyone know if either of these are better suited to lightwave?

TerryFord
07-20-2003, 11:47 AM
Current versions of LW run best on P4s/Xeons due to SSE2 optimizations. Comparative benchmark database here;

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

Regards,
Terry

Tom Wood
07-20-2003, 12:27 PM
Hi gschrick,

I recently bought a BOXX S5s with dual Xeons. I think if you look around here on the Newtek site, there is some reference to using Pentium/Xeons as being the best processor for either Lightwave or VT3, or both. I'm in Austin, as is BOXX, and Newtek is just down the highway in San Antonio. BOXX and Newtek are partnering companies on VT3 systems. However, AMD has a major facility here, and BOXX also makes AMD-based systems, presumably for other software applications, I don't really know.

Talk to Eric Braunsdorf at BOXX, and tell him Tom Wood is saying nice things about him on the boards.

TW

Beamtracer
07-20-2003, 07:35 PM
BOXXs are fast.

Also worth considering is the Apple G5, with it's 64-bit IBM processor. Despite a lack of real world benchmarks yet, there are indications this could be a very very fast machine.

IBM and AMD are working together these days and sharing processor technology (I guess Intel is their common enemy).

So you may want a BOXX anyway, but I think it would be worth keeping an eye out for what is happening with the G5.

gschrick
07-20-2003, 07:47 PM
Thanks for the replies. They really help in the decision process. MAC's, although I like them, are not on my list since I already own lightwave for PC.

And thanks for the contact name at BOXX, coincidentally Eric Braunsdorf has already contacted me on a quote for a BOXX system, I'll let him know you mentioned him.

Thanks again.

skyman
07-21-2003, 09:54 AM
You should keep in mind that you get both the PC and the Mac version of LW in the box these days and that the dongle is cross-platform. SO consideration of a Mac isn't really out of the question... especially if the G5 is anything close to what Apple is saying... and if NT recompiles a G5 specific version with the new compiler for Panther... yeow...

Calamari
08-01-2003, 08:03 AM
You might want to check this head to head comparison:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=11

wacom
08-01-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
BOXXs are fast.

Also worth considering is the Apple G5, with it's 64-bit IBM processor. Despite a lack of real world benchmarks yet, there are indications this could be a very very fast machine.

IBM and AMD are working together these days and sharing processor technology (I guess Intel is their common enemy).

So you may want a BOXX anyway, but I think it would be worth keeping an eye out for what is happening with the G5.

Well- I'd say from all the posts dealing with the bugs in LW for Mac I'd stick to the PC side- 'cause if your machine always crashes and doesn't run all the great plugins- it doesn't mater how many bits you've got going.

Has anyone read about the evil IBM did during WWII...

mattclary
08-01-2003, 10:03 AM
What do you mean by the WWII reference, Wacom?

coremi
08-01-2003, 11:37 AM
Does Lightwave suports Intel HT, hyper-threading ?

C-mon
08-01-2003, 01:17 PM
IBM sold Nazis some mehanical comuters for big $$$. before WW 2

C-mon
08-01-2003, 01:20 PM
All software that can use multiprocesors benefit from hyper-threading to some degree.

Celshader
08-03-2003, 01:56 AM
For what it's worth, I currently use Athlons/Durons -- they deliver the most bang for the buck. Earlier this year my main workstation used a 1.3Ghz Duron; I upgraded it recently to a 2400+ Athlon XP. I'm running it on a $60 ECS K7S5A motherboard. :D

LightWave only uses SSE2 for the renderer; I'm willing to sacrifice a little render speed for my personal machine to save a few hundred dollars. If I had unlimited funds, though, I'd get a dual Athlon or even a dual Opteron.

I confess that my husband wants a dual Xeon for his next LightWave machine, but I can't see the significant performance increase that justifies the significant price increase.

:confused:

Original1
08-03-2003, 02:23 AM
This might be more appropriate for the feature requests, but one of the things I would like to see is a Linux version of both VT and Lightwave running natively and optimised for Dual Opterons running under 64 bit Linux, and/or Dual G5 under OSX

how would that change the benchmarks

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=11

Original1
08-03-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Celshader

I confess that my husband wants a dual Xeon for his next LightWave machine, but I can't see the significant performance increase that justifies the significant price increase.

:confused:

If you are using a VT3 to comp and edit it might be worth it, but I am not always convinced that dual processors and hyperthreading are worth the bang for the buck since you dont get double the performance, and they have been known to introduce stray pixels into the render.(as does memory segmentation)

Calamari
08-03-2003, 05:29 AM
I've been using dual processor systems since my first Dual Pentim 90Mhz, and in pretty much most cases if you set up your rendering methodology correctly, you can get 100% speed increase with a second processor. And for the price of 1 more processor and some extra memory (About 20% increase) you can get 100% speed improvement...

On top of that a dual processor system run more smoothly in my experiance, with no one task hijacking the whole system very often...

Armando Ruggeri