PDA

View Full Version : The best windows for cg!


tsunami4you
03-13-2004, 06:42 AM
Please tell me your opinions about the best windows for cg?
I personally use Xp Pro but i tend to think that 2000 is better, i don't know!

Marnault
03-13-2004, 08:17 AM
XP pro is good, but theres a lot of junk that needs to be disabled if you want optimum performance. I find it to be very stable, and have had no real problems with it.

profesr
03-13-2004, 06:39 PM
I noticed you mentioned disabling certain features for best performance... I'm running XP Home, any suggestions?

freeDNA
03-13-2004, 06:44 PM
Go to this site to check for what XP/2000 sevices can be disabled to get better performance.

http://www.blackviper.com/index.html

Garma
03-13-2004, 07:18 PM
One needs to add that the performance of XP is equal to the performance of W2K when all the innecessairy stuff is disabled since they have the same kernel.

tsunami4you
03-18-2004, 05:37 AM
thank you for your replies!
so i should go with the 2000 pro!

3Dfx_Sage
03-18-2004, 06:07 AM
2000 = NT 5.0 ; XP = NT 5.1

XP is a prettier version of 2000, they are pretty much the same

Srek
03-18-2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by tsunami4you
thank you for your replies!
so i should go with the 2000 pro!
Only if you don't want to use current P4 or Xeon systems. The Hyperthreading capability of those systems is only usefull with XP since the scheduler of W2K and NT is not up to that. Using HT with W2K/NT will DECREASE performance.
I found XP to be even more stable and over all faster then W2K.
Cheers
Srek

tsunami4you
03-18-2004, 08:28 AM
so i should stick to the xp pro?:cry:

Srek
03-18-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by tsunami4you
so i should stick to the xp pro?:cry:
IMHO yes. If you have an Athlon or older non HT P4/Xeon system you might as well use W2K but there is no advantage in doing so.
Cheers
Srek

GregHess
03-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Srek,

Just a note...

Hyperthreading on a Single P4 works fine under windows 2000. Its the Xeon's that have to use Windows XP Prof. There are no such limitations on the Pentium IV HT processors.

(Win2k counts physical and logical processors towards its cpu limit...as long as no more then two processors exist, it works dandy...obviously the 2 logical 2 physical processors in a dual xeon causes problems because of this).

imashination
03-18-2004, 03:11 PM
Its not the cpu count which is the problem. 2k has always 'worked' with HT, but only XP supports them properly.

2k can see 2 cpus, however it doesn't use them terribly efficiently, many apps actually slow down slightly as 2k schedules the tasks in a rather unoptimized way.

GregHess
03-18-2004, 07:23 PM
Er...then how come Vray users see the exact same render speeds in Win2k vs WinXP with HT on with a P4?

By your argument win2k should be slower then Windows XP in such a situation...but its not...in fact 2k is usually a % or 2 faster.

MadMax
03-18-2004, 07:39 PM
As long as you are not running Maya.

There are still lots of problem posts on the Maya lists working properly with XP.

iron
03-18-2004, 09:52 PM
if you want to use graphic appz like maya or max or after effect or another edit program then i would preffer for w2k with Sp4 because i see lot people arround me having problem running all the soft in xp

Srek
03-19-2004, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by GregHess
Er...then how come Vray users see the exact same render speeds in Win2k vs WinXP with HT on with a P4?

By your argument win2k should be slower then Windows XP in such a situation...but its not...in fact 2k is usually a % or 2 faster.
Hi Greg,
i don't know how they produced those results, i did a number of tests with varying applications. Every app that uses multithreading should benefit from HT. I don't know vray, does it use multithreading? If not the result would be ok. But if you use HT with W2K it's definitly slower then using it with XP.
Cheers
Srek

GregHess
03-19-2004, 11:45 AM
Vray assigns buckets to logical and physical processors. In the case of a Xeon, the simple act of turning HT on in the bios increases performance 25%. (Thats a hella lot).

I'll run some more tests when I have time on some single HT systems for comparison, but last time I did it Win2k was faster slightly.

Fingolfin
03-19-2004, 05:31 PM
Adobe's Premiere Pro and Encore runs ONLY on XP Pro.
So, if you plan on using either one with your other software, you need to get XP Pro.
The Adobe rep told me that it runs on XP because their software takes advantage of stuff on XP. ???? What does XP have that 2K doesn't?

MattClary
03-19-2004, 05:57 PM
The only reason I could imageine something running on XP but NOT on 2000 is if it was intentioanlly designed that way.

Say the software checks for the OS version and then is not allowed to run if not XP.

The architecture is just not that different.

Spankspeople
03-19-2004, 07:50 PM
Doesn't 3DSMax 5 have issues with corrupting files and whatnot in anything but Win2K SP2 or something?

tsunami4you
03-29-2004, 04:54 PM
so if i'm using maya i should go for the 2K pro?

MadMax
03-29-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by tsunami4you
so if i'm using maya i should go for the 2K pro?

If you wish to run it without problems.......

3Dfx_Sage
03-29-2004, 06:17 PM
no roblems here on XP Pro. Hmmmm.

mastermesh
03-29-2004, 06:27 PM
just turn off a lot of your un-needed services and adjust it to best performance, without all the pretty icon shadows, etc. and you're fine. I recently did some tweaking on my system after buying a ati all in wonder to get cpu usage as low as possible so that I could get as much power as I could to the capture software so that I don't loose too many frames on video capture directly to mpg2. Right now I've got my system set up so that on reboot it gets about 2% cpu usage until I start up other ram heavy programs like Lightwave, etc. so just use xp, but tweak it lots.

MadMax
03-29-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by 3Dfx_Sage
no roblems here on XP Pro. Hmmmm.


As I said, the Maya forums are full of consistant problems with users running XP.

CGTalk Moderation
01-17-2006, 05:00 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.