PDA

View Full Version : The Best CPU for LightWave 3D 9.6



ansfav
04-25-2009, 01:42 AM
Hello!

May i ask everybody's opinion...

What would be the Best CPU assembly for LightWave?

I mean The CPU Specs. What should it contain; What Processor? What Board? How Many Memory? What Video Card? and how Big the Hard Drive???

Guys the CPU only, no other peripherals devices Just the CPU...

And Please let it Play GTA IV, hehehehe...

Thanks. :lwicon:

*** and please be specific with the Specs of every Components ***

sampei
04-25-2009, 02:25 AM
read this thread, it surely is gonna help
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96063
oh and no playing on you workstation...well at least until DNF comes out :D

clagman
04-27-2009, 03:04 PM
The current fastest CPU for LW is the highest Ghz model of the nehalem EP (new Xeon). The best assembly would be 4 of them mounted on a single board (yes they do make motherboards for this). They still are only 4 core and 6-8 core models won't be coming out for a while. Still, dual Nehalem EP will completely destroy any current dual systems based on the penryn Xeons (using the FSB and DDR2) at the same clock speed. Typical gains from the new architecture are anywhere from 40-80% more processes per clock cycle (with the same acount of heat even) rediculous!

JonW
04-28-2009, 02:44 AM
The red text is impossible to read, so I will try to guess what you are asking.



Actually......

4 x 6 core Xeon 7460 CPUs are the go, although $ per ghz is not exactly good, but if you have the fastest box of tricks.

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3414&p=4
This set up is a touch light on ram & hard drives! More can be added at your own discretion.

Lightwave will only be able to use 16 of the 24 cores, so a second instance of Lightwave will be able utilise the remaining 8 cores. You will be able to work almost twice as hard to get your jobs out even quicker.

JonW
04-28-2009, 02:51 AM
The red text is impossible to read, so I will try to guess what you are asking.



Actually......

4 x 6 core Xeon 7460 CPUs are the go, although $ per ghz is not exactly good, but if you have the fastest box of tricks.

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3414&p=4
This set up is a touch light on ram & hard drives! More can be added at your own discretion.

Lightwave will only be able to use 16 of the 24 cores, so a second instance of Lightwave will be able utilise the remaining 8 cores. You will be able to work almost twice as hard to get your jobs out even quicker.

biliousfrog
04-28-2009, 04:02 AM
The best processor is the fastest one

Chrizto
04-28-2009, 05:44 AM
As long as the code is optimized for multi cores, and is threaded in a reasonable fashion, you could easily go for a regular 1 x Intel QuadCore 2.5 ghz ++, with a fast FSB and 4-8 GB of DDR3 RAM.

I mean, 4 x Xeon? What budget are we talking here??!!

The thing is:

You have a machine built for artists, modeling, animating etc, that would be totally idle if you were to use that setup.

You should have at least one networked computer with a decent amount of CPU cores and maybe 4 gigs of RAM for network rendering with a fast cable connection between them. That way you can spend your bucks on what really matters on an artist's machine: the GPU.
:yingyang:

biliousfrog
04-28-2009, 05:57 AM
That way you can spend your bucks on what really matters on an artist's machine: the GPU.
:yingyang:

What are you basing that on?

JonW
04-28-2009, 06:52 AM
If one wants the best CPU/s then the cost of a grahics cards is a non issue, even a hand full of 30” monitors are starting to look like spare change.

I’m an artist & my renders look a lot better when the quality can be at maximum.

Cray XT5m Specifications
CPU
64-bit AMD Opteron series 2000 processors; up to 192 per cabinet
Cache (Quad Core)
64K L1 instruction cache, 65K L1 data cache, 512 KB L2 cache per processor core, 6 MB shared L3 cache
FLOPS****
7 to 12*Teraflops per cabinet
Main Memory
16*GB to 32 GB registered ECC DDR2 SDRAM per compute node

Chrizto
04-28-2009, 08:18 AM
What are you basing that on?

Well, every serious graphic/3D application is relying on decent OpenGL support and we're seeing now, that developers are focusing on lifting much of the heavy work involved in such apps to be delegated to the GPU's rather than relying on much slower cycles on the CPU's.

Good GPU = good viewport/application tool performance etc.
good CPU = fast renders.

And for an artist working in an application, I would say that the "feeling" of having a responsive tool is more important than having renders put out as fast as possible, when this task is delegated to separate machines/render farms.

I am off course reffering to Nvidia Quadro / ATI FireGL based GPU's.