Jump to content

32bit vs 64bit


Recommended Posts

gday all!

i just got a 64 bit machine and the new max9, the problem is that i currently only have the 32bit windows xp installed.. my question is how much faster (if any) is running 64bit operating system (and 64bit max9) is it worth my while to upgradet to the 64bit windows??? thanks, brad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gday all!

i just got a 64 bit machine and the new max9, the problem is that i currently only have the 32bit windows xp installed.. my question is how much faster (if any) is running 64bit operating system (and 64bit max9) is it worth my while to upgradet to the 64bit windows??? thanks, brad.

What's your average scene like? We run into memory limits, so 64-bit is a no-brainer for us because it will allow us to do things that are impossible now. Note that I'm not talking about speed, just possibility as 32-bit is often slightly faster if available memory is sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have run both version of Max/Win of 32 and 64.

The speed increase is minimal about 1 to 5%. 64 does not bring speed but the ability to work with bigger and more complex scene with the use of ram 4gb and above...but make sre you get good ram as the stability of the computer will be effected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm running it at home and it's definitely stable, though I guess there are probably some unstable drivers out there, considering the driver issues people have reported. (On my PC, everything has a stable driver except my old ATI TV card which is unsupported.) Also, I don't know why this is, but Cinema renders faster for me in 64-bit (I've tried some of my scenes and they're maybe 10% faster, and Cinebench scores about 940 compared to 850 in 32-bit) - even though I've only got 2 gigs of RAM that works fine in 32-bit. But my OpenGL performance takes a small hit in 64-bit, which I guess I'd attribute to drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how stable is xp 64 bit? i heard that it crashes allot amd allot of bugs in it

 

We have Server2003-64 on our render nodes, and it's been rock-solid for the year we've used it. XP-64 is based on Server 2003-64, so should be as solid, but you usually have a million more things on a computer than a render node, so stability is more likely to be compromised from time to time. If in doubt, you could wait for Vista, which will have better driver support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanx for the rep. thats good news, so i'll just need to do some research to see if the drivers i currently have will be stable on xp 64 before taking the plunge.

 

Andrew, you started to awnser the next question, does rendering on a 64 bit operating system improves the speed its rendering at, also, is the system freed up more so one can, for example with max, open up a second version of max to carry on with some other work, or even start a second rendering?

 

hell, this would be cool if true:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...which is unfortunate, since "real" 64-bit computing would give you a considerable speedup over 32-bit. But I think Maxon's managed a better implementation than Autodesk - with Max you won't notice much difference unless you have a lot of RAM and a high-poly scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article says nothing at all for Boxx. Read it carefully and critically.

 

-It is more than a year old.

-It compares several computers. Of these, the Boxx in question is a quad-core. The rest are dual-core or dual single-core.

-The Boxx has 3GB RAM, th Apples have 4GB and the Dells have 2GB.

-It was written a few months before Apple release the G5 Quad, and at a time when Dell did not have a quad-core machine.

-The speedup for 64-bit on the Boxx is 23%, on the Dell it's 17%. But the Dell they tested XP64 on is a Pentium D, and the Boxx is an Opteron quad. The Pentium D is crap and, thankfully, obsolete, and has an entirely different implementation of 64-bit than the Opteron does.

 

His stats do not indicate that Boxx makes a better product than other vendors - they indicate that in 2005, quad AMD was the fastest platform for computationally intensive multi-threaded apps - which nobody could have reasonably disagreed with.

 

Also, read the wording the guy uses. "If you care about looks, style and cachet, have a superiority complex, and don’t mind buying into a platform that’s slower and already obsolete, go with the Mac G5." He's calling his objectivity into question here. Combine that with the choice of hardware and software used, which isn't set up for a Dell-vs-Boxx stress test and is questionable for an Apple-vs-Boxx test, and I don't think you can get anything beyond what's explicitly in the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, can't argue with that but

max doesn't run on macs...

unless that has changed

 

basically too i haven't ever really liked the macs that much...

every time i use one i am disappointed...

 

but what you have is certainly worth thinking about...

 

r

 

Times have changed, you can now run windows on a mac, which means Max will run on a mac...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing Mac vs PC for speed is pretty pointless now, since they have the same CPUs - my Mac gets similar results in MacOS and Windows, and is similar in speed to other Core Duo 2.16 boxes. I like it better than PCs because it's been designed by real designers (and if that's not important I'm in the wrong field), and it runs both OSes - when I don't need to use a Windows app I prefer MacOS. There was the whole thing about the Mac Pro being a lot cheaper than other brands with similar specs, maybe that's evened out by now, but if you could choose between a Mac and a PC vendor, knowing that they've got the same capabilities, for me that's a pretty obvious call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I had to bring this thread back with a quick question. The IT department send me this email the other day.

"I'm trying to build a new 3D modeling workstation and I'm trying to determine whether Viz2007 will run well under Windows 64. If so, I through a bunch more Ram in there.

 

If you have any ideas, please let me know."

 

From what I read on this Thread, it seems that it works fine with Max, so It should work the same with Viz07? Also 64 doesn't have Ram restrictions?

 

I just need some clarification on the matter so I can email them back. Just answer the following questions with yes or no.

 

1. Viz 07 will run on Win 64?

2. I can load up on the Ram?

 

Any response will be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

i have rendered 2 scenes with 2.6mill polygons at once using max 9 32bit running on a 64bit vista, and it works well, when i dont run out of ram. 4gb ram, amd turionx2 64 2.0ghz. just that the system generates alotof heat. have to cool manually by ( dont laugh) placing it next to the air conditioners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have rendered 2 scenes with 2.6mill polygons at once using max 9 32bit running on a 64bit vista, and it works well, when i dont run out of ram. 4gb ram, amd turionx2 64 2.0ghz. just that the system generates alotof heat. have to cool manually by ( dont laugh) placing it next to the air conditioners!

 

that answer is two years late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Viz is no more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I have rendered 60 million polys on x64 with 4 GB Ram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...