Hi All, I just loaded up a Lightwave scene file of mine on both my old 2008 2.8 gig eight core, and my new 3.06 12 core Mac Pros. The 12 core is running the demo of Lightwave 11 under Lion, the 8 core is running 9.6 under OS 10.6.8. So far I'm very disapointed in the 12 core speed. The 8 core seems to be using all 8 cores much more than the 12 core uses its 12. In fact the 12 core uses 2-4 cores most of the time. Is 11 that much slower than 9.6, or did I buy an over priced piece of crap? The 12 core screams through the radiosity, but seems to slow way down after that using very few cores. I really hate to see Thor The Twelve Core Whore put down by a 3 year old machine. The 12 core render time....38m 30s, the three year old 8 core 37m 55s! WTF? The 8 core has 4 gigs of ram, the 12 has 24 gigs of ram. I feel completely ripped off.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Very Disappointed
- Thread starter tony3d
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds to me like software differences
I'm not familiar with your software, but I've seen (countless times) new versions of software operating far less efficient than the versions they replaced - as it sounds like is your case.
Might be worth cloning or swapping the drive from your 8 Core - throwing it in your 12 core, booting from it, and testing the same scenario off that drive (should boot right up no issues)
That would give you a good idea of what's really going on.
I've got a 10.5.8 OS drive and software setup from my PPCG5 in my MP
Also a SL and software setup
and a Lion and software setup
^^All in the same MP - cause I need to run those different OS's for different things.
These are in my 1,1 - point is, it runs the PPC drive with no issue
I'd test that and see how you come out
Seems as though your version 11 is less efficient than your 9.6
I'm not familiar with your software, but I've seen (countless times) new versions of software operating far less efficient than the versions they replaced - as it sounds like is your case.
Might be worth cloning or swapping the drive from your 8 Core - throwing it in your 12 core, booting from it, and testing the same scenario off that drive (should boot right up no issues)
That would give you a good idea of what's really going on.
I've got a 10.5.8 OS drive and software setup from my PPCG5 in my MP
Also a SL and software setup
and a Lion and software setup
^^All in the same MP - cause I need to run those different OS's for different things.
These are in my 1,1 - point is, it runs the PPC drive with no issue
I'd test that and see how you come out
Seems as though your version 11 is less efficient than your 9.6
While I don't know much about Lightwave, but what about i/o limitations? Are you rendering off of a traditional hard drive or a network drive? Could those be your bottlenecks? Meaning, maybe the processors are being starved for data because the data isn't coming in fast enough for them to process at maximum speed.
And as pointed out, doing a comparison of different versions of software is hardly a good test. Can't you put 9.6 onto your 12-core and do a true 1:1 test? What about limitations to the demo of the software. Many demos have artificial limitations where they can only use X memory and X CPU's but if you buy the "full package" you can use X and Y....
But thats the point. The old version is the faster version. Seems like Newtek has a problem with Lightwave 11, and Lion. The old machine is running under snow Leopard in 32 bit mode with an older version of the software, while the new machine is running in Lion in 64 bit mode on a much faster machine. I did run the same scene with the same newer versions of the software on both machines, and the new machine beat the older one by 48 seconds. Far from impressive performance if you ask me.
Ah, well yes that is different. You need to have only one variable to have a valid test. Can't have different machine, OS, and software and be able to draw any conclusions.
But it wouldn't surprise me at all that LW 11 is worse than 9.6. Newtek has been in a death spiral for the last 5 years or so.
I'm an old waver, so I have some experience in these things.
The only way to do a fair comparison is to install lion and Lightwave 11 on your old machine and render the same scene (or one of the demo scenes it comes with) on both machines. Pick a scene that isn't memory intensive or that takes too long.
Then convert both render times to seconds and divide the longer time by the short time to get a ratio. That ratio should correspond to your CPU speed improvements.
I know for a fact that Lightwaves renderer was severely tweaked for version 10, and since you can't install 9.6 on Lion, your only way is to test on the lat version of Lightwave.
Pains me to say it but Ligtwave is yesterday's news....I'd jump ship if I were you.
The only way to do a fair comparison is to install lion and Lightwave 11 on your old machine and render the same scene (or one of the demo scenes it comes with) on both machines. Pick a scene that isn't memory intensive or that takes too long.
Then convert both render times to seconds and divide the longer time by the short time to get a ratio. That ratio should correspond to your CPU speed improvements.
I know for a fact that Lightwaves renderer was severely tweaked for version 10, and since you can't install 9.6 on Lion, your only way is to test on the lat version of Lightwave.
Pains me to say it but Ligtwave is yesterday's news....I'd jump ship if I were you.
Install 10.6.8 on 12-core. It's most likely possible. The same version 9.6. Then test 1:1. Use an external or other HDD if you prefer. No biggie.
I think the big question is does the demo version of lightwave 11 utilize all cores? or does it limit it due to the fact that its just a demo? Maybe the full version utilizes all cores?
A lot of the 3D software that I use lets you adjust the number of cores during rendering so that you can do a little work while things are rendering in the background.
When it comes to 3D the more cores the better when rendering.
Its sounds like a lightwave problem not a mac problem.
A lot of the 3D software that I use lets you adjust the number of cores during rendering so that you can do a little work while things are rendering in the background.
When it comes to 3D the more cores the better when rendering.
Its sounds like a lightwave problem not a mac problem.
I think the demo version of Lightwave isn't hobbled in that respect, I think it's more to do with scene file saving and polygon counts. Or at least it used to be....Doesn't make sense to cripple the rendering speeds when demoing the software to potential customers.
Then again, this is Newtek we're talking about here.
Holy Crap. I was using classic camera! With classic very few threads were being used. With Perspective all 24 were used for almost the whole render. time dropped from 38 m to just under 3 with minimum samples of 13. What a difference. I will try it on the 8 core now.
Ok, the 8 core running in Lightwave 11 demo on Snow Leopard scored 11:33 to the 12 core's 6:05! Both were running in demo mode. I'm now trying it on the 8 core with 9.6. So why the big difference? I never used the Perspective Camera. What a dummy. In Lightwave 9.6 it was 11:35, 2 seconds longer than 11. Well I feel much better now. Anit Aliasing was set to 30.
Ok, the 8 core running in Lightwave 11 demo on Snow Leopard scored 11:33 to the 12 core's 6:05! Both were running in demo mode. I'm now trying it on the 8 core with 9.6. So why the big difference? I never used the Perspective Camera. What a dummy. In Lightwave 9.6 it was 11:35, 2 seconds longer than 11. Well I feel much better now. Anit Aliasing was set to 30.
Are you sure about that? My Lightwave 9.6.1 is running just fine on lion in 64bit mode. Perhaps the OP should get the last update from Newtek.
Gazza
Tony
Here are my render times for the default benchmark scenes provided by lightwave, all times in seconds.
Depth of Field: 2.0
Easter Egg: 2.3
Nebulae: 6.1
Radiosity Box: 8.8
Radiosity Reflective Things: 2.8
Radiosity Things: 0.4
Raytrace: 14.2
Sunset: 11.4
Teapot: 51.0
Textures: 1.0
Tracer No Radiosity: 11.6
Tracer Radiosity: 1.8
Variations: 11.2
Variations Smooth: 11.6
Variations Thickness: 4.1
Z-Buffer: 0.7
How does your machine compare? Mine is a 2008 2.8ghz 8 core with just 8GB ram. Lightwave is 9.6.1 running on 10.7.4 in 64bit mode.
Gazza