View Full Version : better for 3D?
28-05-2004, 08:03 AM
hi to all,
im interested in upgrading my system and for quite some time now ive been trying to get an answer to this question.
which system layout is more beneficial to 3D applications and is generally faster for rendering etc.
a) single 64 bit processor - eg. Athlon 64
b) dual 32 bit processors - eg 2x athlon XP 2600
i realise that ive phrased this in such a way that it looks like im hoping 2x 32 bit procs together will result in a 64 bit system - i know this is not what 64 bit and 32 bit mean. however if there are any hardware gurus out there who can help answer this i will be very very grateful.
thnx in advance
right now I would have to say that the very best for 3d rendering would be dual P IV 32 bit xeon procs.. (quad is even better) but that is $$$$$ ( and there are the 64 bit Intel chips too but all of us together could not afford one :( )
second best (fastest) is going to be dual P IVs 32 bit
3rd dual athlon XPs
4th will be the 64bit (now the reasion is, the 3d apps dont take full advantage of the 64 bit arc yet, at least I am pretty sure they dont.. and I know that the OS does not.. there is winXP 64 now but that is not going to help you with the Athlon 64bitters..
now if you wait I would say about a year there will be True 64 bit customer level Intel chips and they will kick some rendering butt... and by then there should be some OS and apps that take advantage of the 64 bit instruction set...
another thing that is very important in rendering speeds is your fb speed.. you want the data to go O/I to the ram as quick as posable, and you want the fastest and most ram you can have.. 1 gb will get you by pertty well.. 2gb if your a pro and making some crazy stuff
that is my 2 cents... if any one thinks that I missed something please let us know
28-05-2004, 09:47 AM
aha! Good - someone to chew the fat with about hardware :D
ok well i agree, no 64 bit 3d apps are avail yet, though maya 64 and xsi 64 will be out later this year. the one and only advantage though with the amd 64 bit procs is that they actually run 32 bit apss faster than 32 bit procs - this however does not work on the pentium 64 bit itanium chipset. reason being - this esp for 3d - the removal of the 4gb wall.
- to those who are interested heres a quote from ComputerGraphicsWorld mag:
"A 32-bit processor can handle no more than 4gb at a one time, at which point it has to begin swapping out data to the hard drive, which slows processing speed. Users, some of whose datasets now far exceed 4gb (such as in 3d), refer to this as the 4gb "wall" or "barrier"—the point at which their content begins to be handled less efficiently. The 64-bit processor, on the other hand, can take on 16gb at a time, which allows for faster processing of those large datasets. "
hence my confusion. the removal of the 4 gb wall pluss being able to run 32 bit apps faster than 32 bit processors plus the inbuilt ram - MHZ controller (and 1600 mhz fsb) in the athlon 64 processors leads me to seriously question performance of dual athlon or xeon over single opteron or athlon 64.
by the way my studio runs intell workstations with dual xeons + hyperthreading, and honestly they suck. for the kind of performance i was was told to expect these systems simply are not that great, takes day and night sometimes to render just a few 100 frames.
my question lingers....
Hello fellow hardware junkie :D
hmmmm yes I have to agree with your information about the 64 bit.. but what that fails to show is how the OS takes advantage of dual procs... like when crunching massave amounts of # one procs will be crunching (pure rendering) full steam while the other will crunch/render and share out the OS managment.. and in a quad you have 3 full and one sharing...
your right about the 4gb wall I have heard of this.. I have never hit it I wish I could... but you have to remember that were talking dual so that is 8gb 4 per chip....
This does get in to a kind of "sticky" question because I am really just talking out of my a$$ because I have never rendered anything on a 64bit, I have played Quake on one and it was quick.. but I was not floored with amazement... I really think that to get the preformance one will need to be running a 64bit os so the the instruction set stays level and does not have to "thunk" down or up???
Has or Does any one out there have a 64 bit AMD chip?? is so tell us your thoughts...
28-05-2004, 12:38 PM
true, i didnt add the 4 gb wall together. 8gb is a big difference. as for the whole number crunching thing, i get ur point. its essentially faster since one proc just counts while the other maintains system - i thought both would share workload. i heard that brazil is able to work both procs simultaneously - i.e. run two buckets simultaneously for rendering. a friend once told me he did this with a dual athlon MP system - now thats a performance boost!
USED could u finally clear this up for me - can dual athlon XPs be mounted onto a dual athlon MP motherboard? does the 760 MPX chipset from AMD allow this?
as for who owns a 64 bit chip - THE One does. i pm'ed him earlier but no reply on the same question of performance.
yeah I dont know for sure.. but all my brain is telling me no way.. you cant plug two 64bit procs in to that MPX board... I would bet my paycheck on it ;)
because the arc of the chip is totaly different.. and so are the board for them...
28-05-2004, 01:18 PM
nope, i know two 64s wont sit on an MPx- the nforce3 is the 64bit's north-bridge chip. i was asking about dual athlon xp 32 bit rather than dual athlon MP 32 bit. same architecture and pins but no one will verify if its possible.
btw USED whats ur take on the current x800 vs 6800 graphics card war? i am an ATi fan but i think the 6800 is a winner this time. what u think?
another prob with the athlon 64 is the whole 939 vs 940 pin problem - really stupid - means i have to wait 6 months for the 939 or my 940 socket is useless.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.