Hi. I'm interested in how 64 bit computing is coming on and maybe some people woud answer the poll question. Thanks.

for vista home pro at least, overall driver issues kill any speed benefits.

i went back to 32 bits with my amd x64.

-jon

Jon do you mean there are few drivers (for older hardware I imagine) or that they're not very good? Or both?

For rendering heavy applications, the ability to address more than 2gb of ram is a must have.

Ken,
I didn't see an option for me so didn't vote.
I'll move to 64bit computing as it reaches critical mass in mainstream population.

Being an early adapter is fun but a bit too time consuming where all the kinks aren't worked out.
Like Jon I learned/relearned that with Windows Vista. I didn't go the 64bit route though.

I would imagine 128bit color depth switching is the way of the future.
Don't bother looking for that though... I just made it up.
The future is still unwritten.

ken: bit of both: i set up a x64 machine two years ago, and xp 3rd party driver support was crap.

vista is better with x64 driver availability now, but six months ago x64 drivers were sometimes 'coming soon'. they're mostly here now, but still a little flaky.. especially video.

-jon

I'm am worried that some hardware keys for software I have may stop working and I'll have to maintain 2 OSs

Hardware keys are normally related to processor ID, HD serial, BIOS serial etc. Changing to 64 bit should not make a difference. If you're unsure you could always ask the publishers of the software.

Ken

I have 5 machines now with XP Pro 64 and it has been a huge iprovement on the rendering of TWO. At one time I had 15 machines running with XP Pro. Eight of them are Intel 3.0 P4 machines. They have 1.5 to 2 gig of RAM. I put in the network 5 machines with Xp Pro 64 with 2 gigs or more and they will out perform the 3.0 gig machines by about 20%. Hope that helps. I have loaded Vista 64 and I was not happy with the results. I have gone back to Xp pro 64

Steve

Steve, what was different between XP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit? The rendering? How long ago did you switch back? It's good to hear AM will take advantage of the extra ram for rendering.

Vista 64 rendering was slower all around. In fact some of the smaller machines rendered in the same time frame. I don't know if it was the overhead on Vista 64. I only kept Vista 64 on for about a week before I gave up.

XP Pro 64 rendered on 3.0 ghz 1 gig (memory) faster than my two gig p4 3.0ghz machine.

I am loading XP Pro 64 on a new AMD X2 5000+ Black Edition overclocked to 3.2 ghz with 4 gig of ram tonight. I will have some render times tomorrow night for you.

Steve

I will be very interested in how the render times go. I have an HP laptop with AMD Turion 64 x 2 Processor with 4 GBytes RAM. I have been kicking around putting XP Pro 64 on it, but wasn't too sure about program compatability and driver availability. The HP site doesn't have a lot in the way of XP 64 drivers for my DV9000ca laptop though.

Al

Ken, you're missing the 'don't know/don't care' option in the poll.

To me a computer is a computer. It either does the job or not. I don't live at the edge and enjoy the safety of playing behind the fence.

Cheers

I think this option should cover it :
I want nothing to do with 64 bit computing.

I don't think 64 bit is quite a cutting edge as you suggest. Yes at the moment it might take abit of extra work, but increasingly, software will take advantage of more than 3gb of ram. And many people have 64 bit capable processors already. Why not make use of them....

Well, that's a bit extreme... :-)

I am painfully unknowledgeable about such things, but I think Leopard is a 64-bit OS that still lets you use 32-bit applications and such. So, I might be using a 64-bit and just don't know it. :-)

Here are some results with rendering times with XP64.

In a 120 frame scene with 11 computers in net render:

xp 64 doubled the number of frames that xppro rendered. In particular the computer with xp 64 with 4 gigs of ram rendered 20 frames or 16% of the scene by itself. The fact that XPpro can not read more than 2 gigs of memory (unless you tweak the registry then it is 3 gigs) appears to the be the number one factor.

In the next scene net render had 45 frames and the machines with xp64 out rendered all xppro os by 1.5. Once again the machine that had four gigs rendered 20% of the scene by itself.


Steve

Vvvery interesting. Thanks for the results. Lots to ponder there.

What registry tweak is that for XPPro? I have 3gb RAM and I'd like XPpro to use all of it...

Cheers

How do you get 3mb ram anyway? I thought the ram had to be dual channel.....but I never heard of a 1.5gb stick.

maybe this is it:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx

I have not tried this as I is a Grade A chicken with stuff like this - so perhaps you could try it first? (hee hee)

Ken - I have 3GB also - 2 slots are 512 each, 2 slots 1 Gb each

OK, that only extends the virtual (HD space) memory to 3GB, XPpro still uses up to 4GB physical RAM so I'm not sure what actual benefit there would be in appying the switch!

What does your Windows Task Manager say about how much Physical Memory is available and how much is being used?

Ken

On Xp pro you install 4 gigs worth of memory and Xp pro will use only two gigs. There is a fix that requires you to open registry of your system and tell XP pro to use an additional 1 gig of memory. I will upload the link to accomplish this but any time you edit your registry take care.

I am rendering now and the system is only using 2 gigs of available memory on XP 64. It is a small scene with just the tin man. But the next scene will have the outdoors shot with alot of trees and I will check the usage.

Steve

They switched me over to XP64 at work...truth be told I saw no noticeable differences...I guess A:M chokes on large projects less now. The only DOWNSIDE I have to report is that my Adobe Illustrator10 does not boot up on that machine now for some reason. I guess it's a known issue.

Uhh.. the 3GB switch is just an edit in the boot.ini file. And I don't believe there will be much benefit for a 3GB system, but you can try it. It allows a 4GB system to give 3GB of the memory to applications and 1GB to the OS. Not sure what effect it will have with only 3GB of total system memory.

As for 64bit vs 32bit, the main issue we have is drivers as well. Mainly our Xerox plotter. It doesn't have 64bit drivers and doesn't look like it ever will. Instead of spending a ton of money on a new plotter, I've been saying worste case we setup a 32Bit machine next to the plotter and people use that to plot. Of course, not the most ideal solution, but probably the most cost effective.

Go with a 64bit Linux package and you get a whole ton of issues.. from 64bit apps without 64bit plugins (like flash for firefox) to running a 'yum update' and it changing things back to running 64bit again (if you tell it to run 32bit firefox so you have 32bit plugins).

But, I'm sure as it matures, everything will work out OK.

If you need to get a nudge on per-application RAM, you can use the /3GB switch in your boot.ini on Windows XP. This allows each process to grow up to 3GB instead of just 2. We've done this at work with Eyeon Fusion with very good results. See http://www.gehrytechnologies.com/catia/cat...arge_memory.htm for more details. If you set it up the way they recommend, you will be asked at boot time to select between regular and 3GB versions of the operating system. You want to have the choice, since some older drivers will not work with this switch and you may have to drop back to regular mode to get the system to boot.

32bit XP addresses all of the 4GB address space (2**32). However, 32bit XP normally limits user task space to 2GB. That task space includes the executable code and the dataspace. If the application attempts to exceed the 2GB limit, it crashes.

The 3GB switch shifts increases the allowable task space to 3GB less some space for a critical table just above 2GB. It is only useful ifthe application was built to be aware of the 3GB switch. Perhaps someone from Hash can clue us in on that.

The advantage to having more than 2GB (ideally 4GB for 32bit XP) is that is reduces page swaps to disk to accomodate virtual memory. Rest assured the system is using all the physical memory, just not necessarily for your task.

XP-64 increases the address space and increases the user task space substantially. As far as I can see, the real advantage to an A:M user going to 64-bit is the increased data space. I doubt that the program requires the increased precision provided by 64-bit.

To explain the difference in performance between XP-Pro and XP-64: 32bit applications running under XP-64 are processed through an emulator therefore the application runs slower. Clearly 64-bit is not a universal panacea for everyone. Use it if you need it, otherwise.... BTW, just about every benchmark I've seen has Vista 30%-50% slower than XP.

Hmmm most dont knie this but the Nintendo 64 has/had tru 64 bit architecture.

Fun Fact

Photoman

Hmmm most dont knie this but the Nintendo 64 has/had tru 64 bit architecture.

Fun Fact

Photoman

Wow! I wonder why they didn't call it Nintendo 6.....4......oh.

Here's an interesting article that addresses whether Vista is really slower than XP

http://www.pctipsbox.com/is-windows-vista-...han-windows-xp/

basically, not slower for number crunching, not slower for 3D graphics, but yes, slower for apps that use "GDI" (as opposed to DirectX) to draw to the screen.

Apparently many consumer apps still use GDI. Microsoft Office was an example cited.

I'm guessing that is not the case for A:M since we have that choice of DirectX or OpenGL in the prefs.

But I dont know if anyone has done a comparison of Vista vs. XP with A:M on identical hardware.


So I'm still wondering whether I should get Vista 64 for my new PC or try to find XP 64.

I don't think the difference is huge/noticeable in the apps that do use GDI. It's up to you, but I would go for Vista as all the apps will probably eventually change over to the new system anyway. On top of that, Vista has many little additions that I couldn't do without now. One being the built in search on every window. It's fast and efficient.

Performance wise, I've not noticed any difference in speeds. Note that I went from a lower performance system with XP to a higher one with Vista and I assume you'll be doing the same.

I've had the same machine on both 32-bit XP and 64-bit Vista. Not to worry there's no speed deterioration from going to Vista for A:M, that I've noticed. As for the 3GB switch that everyone's been talking about, I wouldn't recommend it for A:M. It steals RAM address space away from the System OS to give it to the App. Unless you have a real need for in and it's supported by your App (Database Developers mostly) it's a huge System Stability Risk. Instead of worrying about how much ram A:M can use we should be asking the Question how did studios like Eggington and Avalanche get photorealistic quality like the Future Alley Soldiers on AM v5 and the Orc, out of limited resources.

John

That Vista article was back in Dec 2007 though, I sort thought that there had been some speed increases in Vista since then but I could be wrong. I'm still using XP my self.

-Ethan

I am quite sure that Direct X / OpenGL is only used for the 3d-views in A:M. The menus and icons use other things, but I think it wont be very speed-consuming to render the icons on the screen.

*Fuchur*

I think the timeline window is a big drawing-time eater. When that has to scroll or redraw, things slow way down. Especially if it's displaying curve mode.

Is it possible to change a vote?
I recently did a switch from win xp 32 bit to win xp 64bit and I like it. I dont have any driver-problems, it accesses more RAM and like that is quite fast..

*Fuchur*

PS: @robcat: Oh, you are right... that could be a bit more consuming in curve-modes... don't know if it would make a big, noticeable difference so... computers are quite fast today... even without multicore abilities...

No, votes can't be changed unfortunately. But your post should be enough. I assume you originally voted "I have a 64 bit capable processor, but will stick with a 32 bit OS."

Well, being that this thread was started 8 months ago, and a lot can change in 8 months.. Maybe someone should wait till 2009 (only 3 months away) and start a new poll with the same questions. Being that 90% of our engineering department is running Windows XP Pro 64, I haven't seen an actual issue with it. Just a single printer driver that isn't available for 64bit. But that's hardly enough to not use it when we have machines with 8GB of RAM that would be useless without 64bit. On the same not, maybe I will revisit Linux with a 64bit kernel and update my responses in that thread.

My processor is an AMD Athalon 64 3800+. Am I safe in assuming that the 64 stands for 64 bit?

Yes, I think it was the first mainstream 64 bit chip.

It is not about what you can do, but how much trouble, talent and time it will cost you... That A:M is able to do amazing thing is not the question.
I will stick with XP 64bit for now... It can adress more RAM (even so I dont think A:M can use all of it (correct me if I am wrong)) and there are all drivers available I need.

*Fuchur*

I'm running Vista 64 for other reasons (enough memory to run multiple virtual machines). However, I am definitely not crazy about Vista... I would describe it as more of a detente between determined opponents.

AM is running, which I'm happy about. Can't give relative performance numbers.

Supposedly Windows 7 is supposed to address that slow GDI interface issue that's referred to in this thread about vista. Should be interesting to see how that plays out... If it does I might actually be tempted to upgrade.

-Ethan

It won't be too much longer when all new computers come with 64 bit OS and support will decline for 32 bit OS. But I'm sure there is still sufficient
time to enjoy a new 32-bit OS because the transition will be a slow one. I recently bought a new laptop that came with 64 bit windows vista and I
absolutely love it. Works great, I've had no crashes and speed is really fast. The only problem is I can't print to our current home printer because the
printer does not support 64 bit vista drivers.

It you do decide to upgrade to 64 bit OS, you need to keep in mind that your current printer may not work properly...if at all.

There are some other problems... for example:
My FTP-Programm had a very unpleasant problem with uploading larger files. It uploaded them, told me there was a problem and stopped uploading the remaining files in my uploadlist.
With 32bit I didnt have that problem... etc.

It is not that the 64 bit-os would be buggy, it is the software-producers that have some trouble with it still... -> drivers, functionallity, etc.
But in the end: You can work with more RAM which can be very helpful for some of the heavier stuff you are doing with your computer like rendering, editing/cutting, postproduction-work, etc.
That is the only but although the most important advancement of 64 bit for me.
2 GB /3 GB RAM vs. 8 GB can be a real difference if the other hardware used is fast enough. In many circumstances people dont own that kind of hardware nowadys but it is only a matter of time till they do.

*Fuchur*

Question. Why would someone want to shoot them selves in the foot at the start of a race ?

Answer. You wouldn't, because in the past years leading up to the race you have been busy in preparation to win it.

(( Multi-Core Computing = future ) + ( 64bit OS = Future. ) + ( OpenCL = Future ) ) = POWER FOR AM AND INDIVIDUAL ARTIST.

Development & Miniature render farm ina box' - I LIKE IT !

So have you guys been reading up on Open CL ? Will we see an OpnCL optimised AM next year ?? If that's the case then maybe you could forego the extensive 64bit conversion ( or at least take your time to develop it right ) and make the people happy all at once by letting them render using their processors and video cards processing - then you release the full 64 bit version with all the bells and whistles ( in due diligence ) and the already existing OpenCL support for a monster version of a rock solid AM. Pretty good plan huh ?

Wasn't this addressed before that AM is 32 bit and will only see a max of 2gb on any system including 64 bit systems because it is a 32 bit app and run as such?

Maybe the performance differences you guys see is the background tasks are handled better on a 64bit system freeing up the resources for AM.

Rather than opening up an extra instances of the program, could a programmer rewrite the software to assign each frame to an open CPU to render? Seem maybe an easier way than to make the multiple CPU render a single frame. I would be happy with that feature, than the work around of opening an extra instance then tell it to render every other frame, then go to a composition and put all the frame together to make a animated clip.

Mind you I am not a programmer, but even as a plug in this feature would be great to be automated to a quicker step.

What is the benifit of doing evry other frame .I have just done 0-100 and 101-200 or whatever and QT seems able to pick it up ok as an image sequance