PDA

View Full Version : Best system to learn 3d on


Dreamabyss
11-30-2003, 01:09 AM
Hello everyone!

I have been lurking in these forums for a a month or so trying get myself up to speed on what is happening in the complex 3d world. I have read lots of great posts from exerienced users but haven't found the advice I'm looking for. I was hoping I might get a nudge in the right direction!

My situation is that I am taking Lightwave classes at my local college. I have completed one semester that concentrated on modeling and I plan to continue next semester with more advanced concepts (texturing and animation). I have been doing my projects on the schools machines (Dual 500+ghz G4 Macs) and I recently purchased the educational version of 7.5 so I wouldn't have to always go to campus to do my projects. The trouble is, my computer (Mac G4 Titanium 500mhz) is not powerful enough to handle anything other than simple objects and lighting set-ups. Whenever I do a simple 3 light setup and hit F9 to render the view it's taking a couple of minutes even with anti aliasing set to low or off. I realize I might be able to do something to optimize my setup for more speed but I think the best thing for me to do is get a more powerful system. Since money is tight I thought I'd build my own system to save a few bucks.
This leads to my question. What kind of system do you recommend for someone to learn on? I have researched and read and find myself going in circles. At one point I thought of building a really cheap one processor AMD system then I found out that Lightwave is optimized for P4. At another point I thought of putting a Xeon system together but then decided that it was overkill at this point in my learning curve. I figure by the time my skills are to the point of needing a more powerful setup the 64bit processors and applications will be the norm and hopefully a lot cheaper. Anything I put together today can always be upgraded later or utilized as a backup or rendor machine. Additionally, I'm not sure if I'll be staying with Lightwave and am only using it because that's what they teach at school. I imagine I'll wind up using XSI or Maya along with After Effects and Premiere Pro. Currently I'm working as a freelance web developer but hope to shift my business to 3d/Video content creation over the next two years.

I have a hardware budget of around $1,500 (or less) for the box and OS. I already own Lightwave, After Effects, Premiere and Photoshop and those will be the only things I'll be using on the new computer. I'll need to buy everything else except external stuff like USB scanners/CD-RW, Mouse and Monitor.

The only thing I'm decided on is the video card: Quadro FX500. It seems to be the best option for DCC in the $300 range? I have no interest in gaming so that's helping me narrow down my choice.

I need help deciding everything else but in particular, which processor/motherboard? AMD is the best bang for the buck but Lightwave runs better on P4. I'll also be doing video editing so I'll need firewire and a large storage drive (120gb) although raid is probably overkill at this point, yet it would be nice.
What about the OS? If you recommend a dual system then that narrows the choice to XP..otherwise what do you suggest? I want to avoid a big learning curve with the OS even though I'm coming over from Mac OSX. However, I think I'll pick it up pretty fast.

Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated!! I'm hoping to buy and assemble everything over the holiday break. My intermediate Lightwave class starts in January and I'm looking forward to working on a machine that won't tax my patience AND will last for at least a year before needing upgrading for paying jobs.

Thanks in advance!
Al

pauldillion
11-30-2003, 09:04 PM
Hej Al,

I had a similiar problem with mac's sluggish response with 3d. I was working with maya. After I was getting to know the app the machine started to wade from my command.

If it is any help I bought a secondhand package from a leasing company that supplied the architect and engineering areas with
functional solutions.

It was extremely and relatively cheap when one compares to the costs associated with beginning from new.

Of course one should be on ones guard and choose a system that one can see working and at least a few months guarantee if anything goes wrong.

I am now immersed with mastering max. So far so good.

PM

pauldillion
11-30-2003, 09:08 PM
Secondhand?

MadMax
12-01-2003, 02:33 AM
If you want cheap in cost, but still be quick enough to be usable then you want the following:

Shuttle AN35N Ultra 400 nForce2 motherboard. 48.00 at newegg.com, brand new.

You can get a Barton core AthlonXP 2600+ for around 88.00

KingstonX memory is cheap also.

For the price you can't beat the deal.

3Dfx_Sage
12-01-2003, 04:22 AM
my suggestion in this case is to go Intel. you'll definitely feel the difference in apps that are highly optimized for Intel, and with your budget it will fit just fine. Definitely want to get an i865-based board and a P4C (ie P4 with HyperThreading and 800MHz FSB) and probably 2GB of memory. Don't skimp on the memory, get good stuff. A 2.6GHz CPU shuld do just fine for now and youll be able to upgrade it later. If you had said you were going to game some then the FX 500 would be the worst thing you could get, but if you're not gaming then it's probably the absolute best deal you can get right now. As for the OS- go for either 2K or XP Pro, stay AWAY from Home.

on a side note- you might want to wait just a month or two (if you can) to get a) much better deals, b) a motherboard that will support "Prescott" P4's, and c) maybe actually get a Prescot instead of a P4C.

MadMax
12-01-2003, 05:06 AM
I wouldn't.

If you want to get the best and use that budget, then get Athlon64 FX.

It kicks every P4 system out there.

For learning, you really don't need a killer machine. However if you want to actually spend your budget on a systems that is really menat for more than jsut learning, then you should look at the Athlon64 FX.

It has a lot of advantages over all of the Intel line. First off it is faster.

Higher IPC, less latency due to memory controller on the CPU, ram runs at full CPU speed.

No FSB holding the system back.

3Dfx_Sage
12-01-2003, 05:38 AM
I would reccommend against an AthlonFX. they are far too pricey for what you get, probably better off just going with a dual Opteron if you're going to jump on the AMD64 bandwagon. Also, consider how much a whole FX system is going to cost- going to want at least 2GB of *good* memory, which means ~$400 + 750-800 for the CPU alone, 300 for the graphics card, and you've suddenly hit $1500 and still need a lot more components.

MadMax
12-01-2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
I would reccommend against an AthlonFX. they are far too pricey for what you get

LOL! they are faster than the P4EE, and costs over 200.00 less.

They are 64 bit, P4 is not. They have a future path to 64 bit OS, P4 does not.

cost- going to want at least 2GB of *good* memory, which means ~$400 + 750-800 for the CPU alone, 300 for the graphics card, and you've suddenly hit $1500 and still need a lot more components.

2gb? the guy said LEARNING on, not try to beat out the systems at major graphics houses. 1gb is plenty to learn on.

And you are quoting high on the CPU.

Emmortal1
12-01-2003, 06:08 AM
The P4EE is a total waste of money, it's way overpriced and hell you can't even buy it yet.

The AMD's are not true 64 bit cpus, they have 64bit extensions for the extended math processes but still run 32 bit applications.

And yes, 2gb of RAM is a bit overboard for a learning machine. I know plenty of people who run 1gb and Maya 5.0 with little to no problems.

Emmortal

3Dfx_Sage
12-01-2003, 06:11 AM
yeah, the P4EE is definitely not worth the money. Also, the P4 does have a future ath to 64bit OS's- Prescot, which is why I suggested waiting until the mobos are Prescot-ready.

As for the 2GB of memory, I'm running 1GB on my dual PIII-S and really need to buy some more because I'm hitting memory limits all the time. For a gaming system, 1GB is fine, but once you start doing heavy work it will get eaten up really fast.

and the prices I got from pricewatch.com, where are you seeing them cheaper?

edit: also will probably want to throw in another harddrive to run a mirrored array. I know it's just a learning system, but at the price harddrives go for these days and the shoddy 1 year standard warranty, not backing up is almost unthinkable for some people and once you do loose everything that first time you will really appreciate it.

MadMax
12-01-2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
yeah, the P4EE is definitely not worth the money. Also, the P4 does have a future ath to 64bit OS's- Prescot, which is why I suggested waiting until the mobos are Prescot-ready.


That is nothing more than speculation.

No 64 bit announcement has been made regarding Prescott, so far it's nothing more than wishful fantasizing.

And prescott is plagued with problems and delays.

3Dfx_Sage
12-01-2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
That is nothing more than speculation.

No 64 bit announcement has been made regarding Prescott, so far it's nothing more than wishful fantasizing.

And prescott is plagued with problems and delays. i wouldn't say "nothing" more than speculation. i would say "little more than good speculation." some very knowegable people have taken a very close analyses of prescott and concluded that prescott does include the infamous Yamhill instructions. Now, whether they are exposed in the early (read: S478) versions remains to be seen, just like HyperThreading is in all Northwod cores, only it's physically disabled on pre- P4C's.

It would be very foolish of Intel not to be ready to respnd to AMD64 until Tejas is ready. Of course, they'll only expose the 64-bit functionality if they have to, but that may very well happen.

Also, don't buy into the AMD/Apple hype that 64-bits is going to make everything faster and just better in general. 64-bit addressing is nessesary in some situations, but it won't really be of any large benefit for about two more years at least. Remember, everything has to be recompiled to gain any benefit at all from the 64-bit extentions, and to gain much of an improvement large sections of code have to be rennovated.


It's funny, one day I'm defending AMD agains the Intel hordes, and the next I'm having to defend Intel against the AMD hordes.

gmask
12-01-2003, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage

It's funny, one day I'm defending AMD agains the Intel hordes, and the next I'm having to defend Intel against the AMD hordes.

I dunno why you guys are argueing over 64 bit procs when it's clear that it's probably not really in his budget.

mtague
12-01-2003, 09:31 AM
I'm learning Maya on a:

Abit KD7a (60 bucks)
Athlon XP 2700+ (140 for retail version)
1gb ram (generic... seems fine)
Geforce4 (darn the surge that killed my 5900)
120g HD (probably a bit excessive, but hey, mail in rebate!)
On board lan/sound.

But I don't know what lightwave's requirements are. I would look that up on their site to see what is minimum on the vid card, cpu, etc. You can base the other parts (mobo, etc.) around those. The other guy who posted about getting parts from newegg is probably a good bet. For a learning machine, I really just got a higher end gaming machine, with an upgrade to ram and the vid card. ;P Seems to work dandy for Maya.

Dreamabyss
12-01-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by gmask
I dunno why you guys are argueing over 64 bit procs when it's clear that it's probably not really in his budget.


Yea..that's sort of funny. If I could justify the expense then I suppose 64 bit would be an option. The main thing with me is that I don't want to invest a bunch of money in a machine that my skill level won't take advantage of. As you know, the 3d learning curve is long and I'm just getting started on learning animation and texturing. It's not that I don't have the money for a decent system, I just have to make sure I make a smart investment. At one point I was thinking of going the 2.4 Xeon route thinking that would hold me over for the next year. But then I did a reality check and realized that I'm probably a long ways from needing that type of processing power and I would be paying extra for a computer that would be waiting for around for me. Still if it's only a few hundred extra and will delay having to upgrade until next year then maybe that's a good investment. I just don't want to repeat a mistake I made years ago when I first got into graphic design. I had bought a top of the line Mac (when the PowerPC first came out) and set out to learn Photoshop/Illustrator. By the time I got a handle on those programs where I could make money with them, my computer was obsolete. Back then I think I paid around 10 grand and that's a lot of money for a machine to learn on. Of course we have a lot more options these days so that's probably not a good example. However, I still cringe when I think back about the prices we paid for things. 64mb of ram for a couple thousand. A 16mb video card (Imagine by #9) for $1,200. And don't even get me started on hard drive prices!

I really appreciate everyones advice. I'm leaning towards waiting until the holidays are over to see what happens with Intel prices. I doubt Prescott will be an option due to the high prices that comes with new technology. I just hope new releases push Xeon or P4 prices lower. If Lightwave wasn't optimized for Pentium I would probably go with Athlon and cheap components..then save my money for when my skill level starts to push my machine. I think I can tolerate the slowness of my laptop for another month if that is a wise idea.

I guess the question I should be asking is: How long did it take for your skill level to exceed the speed of your machine? Could you have gotten by on a fairly slow (cheap) processor for 6 months or a year?

Thanks

Al

Dreamabyss
12-01-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
If you want cheap in cost, but still be quick enough to be usable then you want the following:

Shuttle AN35N Ultra 400 nForce2 motherboard. 48.00 at newegg.com, brand new.

You can get a Barton core AthlonXP 2600+ for around 88.00

KingstonX memory is cheap also.

For the price you can't beat the deal.

A friend of mine put a shuttle together with a Barton 3000+ processor. He loves it! But then he's not running any 3d apps so I don't know if that would be an issue. I decided not to go with a shuttle setup because I like the option of upgrading to a higher end system later by switching out the processor/motherboard etc. Shuttles are cool but are they not somewhat limited when it comes to expansion?

Al

Dreamabyss
12-01-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by mtague
I'm learning Maya on a:

Abit KD7a (60 bucks)
Athlon XP 2700+ (140 for retail version)
1gb ram (generic... seems fine)
Geforce4 (darn the surge that killed my 5900)
120g HD (probably a bit excessive, but hey, mail in rebate!)
On board lan/sound.

But I don't know what lightwave's requirements are. I would look that up on their site to see what is minimum on the vid card, cpu, etc. You can base the other parts (mobo, etc.) around those. The other guy who posted about getting parts from newegg is probably a good bet. For a learning machine, I really just got a higher end gaming machine, with an upgrade to ram and the vid card. ;P Seems to work dandy for Maya.

Lightwave is optimized for Pentium. Not sure if that's going to change when version 8 comes out in the next couple of months. I hope to switch over to Maya next summer if I can afford it. How's it running on your AMD machine? Are you finding yourself waiting around for simple renders? That's what drives me crazy...having to wait 3 or 4 minutes to preview a simple model with a 3 light setup, minimum antialiasing and only a couple procedural textures. I can't even see accurate lighting in my viewport because my computer only has an 8mb video card! If you have to wait around all the time to "see" what a certain affect does to something then the learning process can get frustrating. I gets so I don't want to experiment because of having to wait for the render.

Al

pauldillion
12-01-2003, 02:18 PM
With a question like that you have already passed the gooblygook level.

Personally I am finding myself drawing on paper more. Planning the process so I can be more efficient when using the machine.

Ok I am not past the perfect self portrait but I am working on four different methods at a time to find which gives the best results.
Those results of course are relative to where the media will be viewed and what I want it to look like.

I find understanding what vision one wants can be done outside the app. By knowing that vision one can have a direction which will lead one through the maze of the app. I suppose I am just stating the obvious but I cannot help reminding myself that there should be a purpose behind the learning process other than gathering knowledge on how to use a 3d application.

PM

Jb5k1
12-01-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
If you want cheap in cost, but still be quick enough to be usable then you want the following:

Shuttle AN35N Ultra 400 nForce2 motherboard. 48.00 at newegg.com, brand new.

You can get a Barton core AthlonXP 2600+ for around 88.00

KingstonX memory is cheap also.

For the price you can't beat the deal.

i was just at newegg.com, and that shuttle mobo was like $62

kinda odd if you ask me, usually things go down in price

MadMax
12-01-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Dreamabyss
Lightwave is optimized for Pentium. Not sure if that's going to change when version 8 comes out in the next couple of months.


Actually that is a bit of a misconception. Lightwave is optimized for SSE2 in the Radiosity engine.

Lightwave runs just fine on AMD processors and many real studios use it.

3Dfx_Sage
12-01-2003, 04:31 PM
by the way, as for prescott not being an option- my thinking about getting a Prescot-ready motherboard and a lower-end P4C is that the P4C will last you a reasonable ammount of time, and by then S478 Prescotts will be plenty cheap enough that you can upgrade.

Also, something to think about with AthlonXP's is that I recently saw an AMD roadmap (i think theinquirer has it n their site now if you want to look for it) that shows a few new AXP cores all the way to 2005. You will be able to upgrade if you go the AXP route.

Just last week I built my friend a gaming computer with an AXP 2500+ (barton), Albatron K<somethingsomething> II nForceII motherboard, 512MB of Kingston ValueRAM, a cheap Western Digital *JB harddrive, and an ASUS Radeon 9600XT. When I restarted WindowsXP the first time I was talking to him and turned my ehad away from the comp, looked back not 6 seconds later and the thing was on the desktop already. The whole thing cost like $600, minus the case.

pauldillion
12-01-2003, 05:39 PM
Well Al,

Well now you have the numbers!?

I will still advice you to go to people who actually work in the 3d industry. Remember consider everyone that works in the Industry.

Not just animators, gamers or special effects people use 3d applications.

PM

gmask
12-01-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Dreamabyss
I guess the question I should be asking is: How long did it take for your skill level to exceed the speed of your machine? Could you have gotten by on a fairly slow (cheap) processor for 6 months or a year?


LOL.. the first color computer I did 3d graphics on was a Mac FXII I'd say it was not very long before my skills exceeded the speed of the machine. The next major system I got on was a SGI Indigo Elan and again once I had a hang of the app I was using which was probably only a few intense weeks that I was finding myself doing alot of hurry up and waiting.. especially for rendering.

The next stage where I reeally felt like the system had caught up with me was when I started using Maya on the PC. I went from a R10000 to a Dual Xeon 550 and that was a vast difference. That systems was my main system for almost 3 years. Now I have a Dual 2.6 Xeon and it's nice but the biggest problem is the OS (XP) cannot keep up with me. I'm still seriously considering giving Linux a real test drive sometime soon.

Basically buy as much as you can afford.. it won't be long before you feel like you are wading in molasses.

One plan you could have is to buy a system that is dual proc capable an dadd the second proc later and more ram.

The FX500 should be a decent card and will probably last you for a few years. As far as rendering goes ..there's never enough.. you will learn to optimize you lighting and rendering before a processor comes out that cannot be brought to it's knees with Radiosity or a ton of lights.

pauldillion
12-01-2003, 07:30 PM
I respect your concerns.

But there is a big difference between what a company can do than an individual. What are the aims, to create Shrek 3?
on ones own?

life is too short for running after the next speed boost to produce the next blockbuster. It is the art done in both digital and traditional that matters.

One should be aware that ideas make the mediums the slave.

My respects

PM

mtague
12-01-2003, 08:13 PM
An IPR render with simple Nurbs models and a 3-light scheme takes under a minute, depending on settings. My settings usually have anti-aliasing on, and quality at intermediate. It's the full render of animation that is killer. I think a 10 second anim I did during my summer class took about an hour to render, but I had ray tracing on. I'm only learning, so maybe the more advanced users have a better idea of Maya's renderings times. Maya has a few options for rendering stills to see lighting, to speed it up be turning things off that you don't need.

As for learning curve... This is my 2nd Maya class and I'm already looking to upgrade either my video card to one that actually is qualified for Maya, and maybe even dual cpus, if they speed up rendering workflow. For me, Maya became really easy to learn after learning the menus and such.

pauldillion
12-01-2003, 10:09 PM
All I am saying is if you want to be shit hot, produce with a group of like minded individuals that have a goal . Share the expense and produce the 30min anim or game that kicks ass.

Stop doing it alone! be good but do not take all responsibility on your shoulders to buy the hardware, software and be the sole creative genius behind the project. Find ways to project your ideas without the final product being produced badly. Create opportunity to collaborate with others. If you are successful by the time you are middle aged you will have the guns to do it alone or even better find the perfect people to work with.

Through meeting and discussion you will find imaginations foundation. If you need a day to render a minute so be it!
Think of the days wasted wishing for the fastest graphic card or the perfect system.

Be more bold. Think of what are the real restrictions. Is it really the hardware that is stopping you? If so why should you invest in so much to get where you want to be. I know when we want to be so good we sometimes lose the plot.

Know your splines, nurds and polys like they are in your mind transforming. learn the techniques to manipulate them in your minds view. You will be surprised the speed injection a method learnt can quicken performance.

A well chosen Book is a good investment.

All respects to the people that can make it go quicker and better. We also should not discourage the next generation of artists by extreme cost.

PM

stephen2002
12-02-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by mtague
It's the full render of animation that is killer. I think a 10 second anim I did during my summer class took about an hour to render, but I had ray tracing on.

That really isn't all that bad. An hour...that is blazing fast. I just finished a 20 second compositing animation with Lightwave that took 2 days to render.

Granted I do remember when I started out that render times were quick even on my 200MHz Pentium.

mtague
12-02-2003, 06:31 PM
Yeah, but all I had were two simple nurbs models and about 3 lights. Another time I did a render with one nurbs model, really simple, and it took 4 hours. Though that was on school comps, and I'm not sure of the specs, but they only run dual xeons... this was 2 years ago too. ;) All I'm really saying is that I don't know the best way to optimize rendering, so it can take a long time if you're new and have some unnecessary settings.

MattClary
12-02-2003, 09:19 PM
The P4 will be a little faster when rendering. Go to http://www.blanos.com to compare benchmarks for rendering. I would go with Intel and I would skip the fancy video card. LightWave does not take full advantage of OpenGL and you won't see a big difference with a high end card. I would just get a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra, I think Newegg carries them for around $180.

3Dfx_Sage
12-03-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by MattClary
The P4 will be a little faster when rendering. Go to http://www.blanos.com to compare benchmarks for rendering. I would go with Intel and I would skip the fancy video card. LightWave does not take full advantage of OpenGL and you won't see a big difference with a high end card. I would just get a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra, I think Newegg carries them for around $180. go with the 5900 non-U for ~230 on pricewatch, well worth the difference.... IF thats the route you want to take

Dreamabyss
12-03-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
go with the 5900 non-U for ~230 on pricewatch, well worth the difference.... IF thats the route you want to take

The Quadro FX 500 is only $285 on Pricewatch. Isn't the FX 500 the better card for not that much more money?

GregHess
12-03-2003, 12:27 PM
If your just learning 3d...it might be in your best interest to go with a SLOWER system, or even a used one.

Slower computers force you to spend more time learning all the little "tweaks" and "tricks" that each application has in regards to hiding/freezing/instancing/dummies and how they reduce the load on the system while your working.

Slower processors force you to learn how to use preview systems, and only set up the final render when your ready to hit the sack. (Not to mention forcing you to learn how to fake GI, instead of hitting the "make pretty" button.)

Weaker video cards force you to spend time optimizing meshes and cleaning up your work.

Lower amounts of ram force you to break up scenes into chunks, and setup standin's for a scene.

All extremely useful skills, which are lacking in many begining cg artists.

Faster hardware helps cover up mistakes. It doesn't make you a better artist, just a lazier one.

Once again, another car analogy.

Modifying your car with better suspension/performance might make your car faster...

But it doesn't necessarily mean your a better driver.

And besides, while you wait for the render, you can read the manual :).

pauldillion
12-03-2003, 12:45 PM
Now theres something I can agree with.

Also nicely phrased.


PM:thumbsup:

MadMax
12-03-2003, 04:32 PM
Wow.

It only took 3 pages to come back to what I said on page one...........

An inexpensive system to learn on.

Amazing.

GregHess
12-03-2003, 05:48 PM
Max,

I saw your post, I was just giving "reasons" for why you don't need (or shouldn't even use) a fast machine during the learning process.

I guess your original statements just got lost in the whole EE vs FX war's...

:hmm:

Dreamabyss
12-03-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by GregHess

Faster hardware helps cover up mistakes. It doesn't make you a better artist, just a lazier one.


On the other hand, a faster machine can help you learn through experimenting and trying out new things. With my current computer setup I'm afraid to try anything different due to the render preview time. All those 5-10 minute preview renders just to look at a certain effect add up fast! Read the manual?? It's my new girlfriend... I go to bed with it every night!

Still, I see your point about not getting a fast machine to learn on and that was why I made the original post to get opinions on that thought. As a compromise, I'm leaning towards getting a single processor Pentium 2.4 or 2.6. then upgrading in a year or so when I can justify the expense with paying jobs. If I find that my budget can afford the FX500 then I'll go with that simply because I think it will have the longest shelf life and looks to be the best deal for entry level DCC. Anything less I assume would probably have to be replaced when I start doing real work.

I would hope to put a decent system together for under $1,200 but not sure exactly where to compromise to allow for cost effective expandability later. Might take Gregg's advice and go really cheap then build a whole new system later! But how cheap??

Thanks

Al

pauldillion
12-03-2003, 09:41 PM
600 bucks at the most.

They were creating nice work around 2000.

I agree you don't want to be in the slag when your in the mesh. Waiting for the change can seriously damage creativity.

Quadro pro 2 with a p111 works quite nicely.
I sure there are lots of possible combos. When one animates it is always good to wireframe it. Minimize the render screen when checking out the effect. If looking for the action wireframe the material... etcetra.

What makes up the 3d scene? from there one can twinker with the components.

PM
:wavey:

samartin
12-04-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by MattClary
The P4 will be a little faster when rendering. Go to http://www.blanos.com to compare benchmarks for rendering. I would go with Intel and I would skip the fancy video card. LightWave does not take full advantage of OpenGL and you won't see a big difference with a high end card. I would just get a Geforce FX 5700 Ultra, I think Newegg carries them for around $180.

yeah but...

We don't know what's happening with LW[8], they say openGL performance is enhanced so a decent GFX card might be the order of the day :shrug:...

MattClary
12-04-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Dreamabyss
If I find that my budget can afford the FX500 then I'll go with that simply because I think it will have the longest shelf life and looks to be the best deal for entry level DCC.

Dreamabyss, I doubt you will be unhappy with that card, but you have the advantage of other people's experience here, if you choose to use it.

I have used LightWave on

1. 3D Labs Oxygen VX1
2. Geforce 3 TI 500
4. Geforce 4 TI 4200
5. 3D Labs Wildcat VP 970

That's a wide gamut of cards. When I start twirling wireframes, I have been able to tell little difference between any of these 5 cards. Just get yourself a good Geforce FX card (the 5900 mentioned by 3Dfx_Sage is a good choice, I saw it at Newegg the other day for ~$185) you will be just as happy, trust me. If you were using another app, the story might be different, but that's just the way it is with LightWave.

3Dfx_Sage
12-04-2003, 04:17 PM
well, but I think he mentioned moving on to other apps later, specifically Maya. In that case, would be better off with a QuadroFX 500.

3Dfx_Sage
12-04-2003, 04:27 PM
ooooh actually you might want to take a look at the QuadroFX 1100. Since they are saying it's produced by IBM I am going to assume it must be the NV36GL (NV36=GFFX 5700).

MadMax
12-04-2003, 04:58 PM
I like my Quadro FX3000G.

Nothing out there that compares.

Emmortal1
12-04-2003, 05:09 PM
I'll have to concur, My 3000 is the best card i've owned. But by all means, there is absolutely no reason you need a card like that if you are starting out.

Emmortal

MadMax
12-04-2003, 05:14 PM
:)

Heh heh. Yeah the 3000g is at least double his budget.

I won't even go into monitors to go with the 3000G

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 08:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.