64 bit OS and C4D decisions for PC?

[bobtronic]

IMO switching to a 64 bit OS makes only sense if you need more than 2 GB RAM. Windows XP 64 runs without problems on my systems, except some missing codecs. OSX is not yet fully 64 bit and does not run on PCs.

cheers,
Bob

[Kuroyume0161]

I concur with bobtronic. If you can somehow find a copy of Windows XP Pro x64, it is much better than Vista 64-bit at the moment except for the noted codec issues (this includes QuickTime which is more Apple's fault domain than M$ or Windows). These issues probably exist in any of the Windows 64-bit OSs.

Also, as noted, if you don't have more than 3GB RAM it doesn't provide much of anything. The idea behind 64-bit is addressing space. If you have or are planning on using 4GB+ RAM, then you'll need a 64-bit OS to access all of it.

Robert

[danb]

Where will i notice the improvments when using a 64 bit OS? Is the improvement worth the codec issues?

<edit> You can find OSX running on some pc's now, but its not really supported. :)

[Kuroyume0161]

Where will i notice the improvments when using a 64 bit OS? Is the improvement worth the codec issues?

Mainly in the amount of memory you can add and use. This all depends on the motherboard and how much it supports - and how large a DIMM you can afford and the number of slots (etc. etc.). But if you'd like to actually work with and render a scene with, say, 10 million polygons, 64-bit can handle it without breaking a sweat given available memory.

As Srek noted and I alluded in another forum thread, you may also get a slight speed advantage (Srek generalized at between 0 and 20%). Part of this is optimized addressing and cpu registers.

The best options are motherboards that support between 8 and 16 GB of RAM, have multicore cpu support, fast FSBs, and SATA drive connectors. My AMD 4800+ (dual core 64-bit) with 4GB and XP x64 stomps all over my Intel dual Xeon 2.66GHz with 4GB (only 3GB accessible) and XP Pro 32-bit.

Now if Apple would get up to speed on full 64-bit support, those 8-core monsters would scream!

Robert

[danb]

.

The best options are motherboards that support between 8 and 16 GB of RAM, have multicore cpu support, fast FSBs, and SATA drive connectors. My AMD 4800+ (dual core 64-bit) with 4GB and XP x64 stomps all over my Intel dual Xeon 2.66GHz with 4GB (only 3GB accessible) and XP Pro 32-bit.

Robert

Ok thanks, good stuff to know. I have pretty much the same setup as you except that they are intel duals. I can put in up to 4GB.

Do you run any other 3d software besides C4D, and if so do you notice improvements of those programs?

What kind of graphics card are you using? I have an ATI. I read about the OGL issues. Do you know if those still exist on XP 64?

[Srek]

Do you run any other 3d software besides C4D, and if so do you notice improvements of those programs?
There is no real advantage beside more memory available. 64 bit is not a magic fix for anything else.

I have an ATI. I read about the OGL issues. Do you know if those still exist on XP 64?
MAXON informed AMD/ATI about this a long time ago, to the best of my knowledge a fix is not yet available. The problem is not connected to the OS and exists with all current ATI windows drivers.

Cheers
BJörn

[danb]

There is no real advantage beside more memory available. 64 bit is not a magic fix for anything else.


MAXON informed AMD/ATI about this a long time ago, to the best of my knowledge a fix is not yet available. The problem is not connected to the OS and exists with all current ATI windows drivers.

Cheers
BJörn

Ok thank you.

[unseenthings]

Do you run any other 3d software besides C4D, and if so do you notice improvements of those programs?
Realflow has a 64 bit version which seems to work pretty well. Be sure to do research and check into any hardware you have that may need special drivers -- older wacom tablets, for example, aren't always supported. Some wireless cards have issues with xp64, you'll need to get special software sometimes (I couldn't burn a good dvd, ever, til I used the "64 bit" version of Roxio), and if you use any other specialized equipment, be sure to check it out as well to make sure drivers are available. For example, I have a lovely, shiny Pod XT Live (made by Line 6) and there are no 64 bit drivers for it. Which means I can't use it at all with that computer. They've said they're "currently evaluating" the possibility of making 64 bit drivers, but that's been their official stance for a couple of years... so I'm not hopeful. If you do have obscure hardware like that which isn't supported, you may want to look into a dual boot situation (I would, but can't bring myself to spring the extra $$$ for another seat of XP just to use that pedal with the desktop...)

Other than that, I like xp64 pretty well. Quicktime is a little funky, but works in windows -- at the same time, however, C4D relies on quicktime for it's support of png and a number of other formats, and since there isn't presently a "64 bit" version of quicktime for windows, you lose access to those formats in 64 bit c4d. And some plugins aren't 64 bit yet, but that's becoming less and less the case, especially with newer ones. And you *can* still fire up the 32 bit c4d inside of xp64 and use all the quicktime stuff.

So, those are the pros and cons from my standpoint, having used it for about a year and a half.... the 4gb of memory in my system is nice, and allows me to run a whole boatload of stuff at once... but I don't know if I'd pick xp64 if I had it all to do over again, particularly because of the lack of Line6 support.

[marcorabellini]

Quicktime doesn't work in the 64-bit version of C4D; probably because QT isn't 64 bit, I'm guessing.

[danb]

Quicktime doesn't work in the 64-bit version of C4D; probably because QT isn't 64 bit, I'm guessing.

Good guess. :) Read above.

BTW, thanks for the advice everyone.

[Kuroyume0161]

Quicktime doesn't work in the 64-bit version of C4D; probably because QT isn't 64 bit, I'm guessing.

Yes, this is exact the reason. Apple has not released a 64-bit version of QuickTime for Windows - and it will probably be years before they do so. I've since moved from QT expectations to libraries to support Apple image formats (PICT and PNG) as there is no reason to keep saying "These are not supported in 64-bit because QuickTime support is unavailable". When the wait is excessive, find alternatives.

Robert

[danb]

Yes, this is exact the reason. Apple has not released a 64-bit version of QuickTime for Windows - and it will probably be years before they do so. I've since moved from QT expectations to libraries to support Apple image formats (PICT and PNG) as there is no reason to keep saying "These are not supported in 64-bit because QuickTime support is unavailable". When the wait is excessive, find alternatives.

Robert

Yeah i'll just have to get in the habit of rendering to an image format, like .psd or something else.

I really like the idea of RealFlow, C4d, AE and 64bits.

[Billabong]

Quicktime doesn't work in the 64-bit version of C4D; probably because QT isn't 64 bit, I'm guessing.

No wonder I can't see my QT controls when vids play on the net

[dawsonbob]

Apple is going to release their new opperating system OS 10.5 In October (they say) as a fully 64 bit system. As I understand it, from the little I've read, QuickTime will also go 64 bit then. Knowing Apple, they'll probably release the Window version at the same time.

Bob Dawson

[unseenthings]

Yeah i'll just have to get in the habit of rendering to an image format, like .psd or something else.
Yeah... it's not that bad. There are a number of options. I'd still really like to get PNG support back in there, with or without quicktime (and yes, I've gone and suggested it at the maxon suggestion form). But it's all good. If I don't need the extra memory or speed boost (which varies usually from about 10-20%, in my tests), I just use the 32 bit version and render out to alpha png.

I really like the idea of RealFlow, C4d, AE and 64bits.
Not sure about AE 64 bit, but the others run very nicely. The other benefit with having all that ram is that you can have a whole ton of stuff in memory, and it's handled very nice. If you have a dual core machine, you can also set those multithreaded apps so that one only uses processor 1 and the other only uses processor 2, so that they both operate at 50%, but they both run "full speed" of that 50%, if that makes sense. Like you can have something rendering in the background using the second processor, and do just about anything else you want (including playing FPS games or whatever) on processor one. Yes, it doesn't take full advantage of both threads, but I can be rendering away and still doing something else productive (or otherwise :))

[marcorabellini]

About a year ago, there was a very long explanation from someone important at Adobe about why they won't be porting their applications into 64-bit any time soon. The gist of it was that 64-bit is more for OSs and motherboards and the minimal speed and efficiency benefits for applications did not make sense for them financially; too many programming man-hours for a market that is still not that large. Maybe someone has a link to that article somewhere.

m

[marcorabellini]

Here's the article:
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html

Some good stuff in here. Lot's of replies by the author. Skip to the very last one, written in May of this year.

m

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.