mac V pc prep times

[wuensch]

different search pathes in preferences?

PC harddisk crammed with 40 gig of small files?

I dont think there is much of a difference between Mac or Pc these days-- both OS are much too bloated and clunky for any real performance ;-)

[STRAT]

different search pathes in preferences?

nope. just the main TEX path in the root.




PC harddisk crammed with 40 gig of small files?


nope, all textures and models are on a shared network drive. textures and models are a fair few gig between them, but both pc and mac are resourcing from the same locations, except the mac's prep time is a million times faster and more ecconomical.

even if i copy and transfer all over to a local hard drive the mac is a zillion times faster.




I dont think there is much of a difference between Mac or Pc these days-- both OS are much too bloated and clunky for any real performance ;-)

true, but as mentioned, render performance was equally as fast, but prep time is a massive difference.

[wuensch]

different search pathes in preferences?

PC harddisk crammed with 40 gig of small files?

I dont think there is much of a difference between Mac or Pc these days-- both OS are much too bloated and clunky for any real performance ;-)

[STRAT]

didnt you just say all that?

[wuensch]

Funny double post-- though I did not double post--
Funny double post-- though I did not double post--
Funny double post-- though I did not double post--
Funny double post-- though I did not double post--
Funny double post-- though I did not double post--

Sorry about that

[dann_stubbs]

nope, all textures and models are on a shared network drive. textures and models are a fair few gig between them, but both pc and mac are resourcing from the same locations, except the mac's prep time is a million times faster and more ecconomical.


are both using gigabit ethernet?

also i too find OSX ethernet performace much better - the ethernet performance on PC is very variable due to the many different network adapters and drivers

XP is slow opening windows of lots of files too - stuff that OSX seems much more optimized for - maybe this is a related issue

dann

[STRAT]

Hi Dann

On the same network using the same pc, the mac accesses and preps files like a hot knife through butter. The pc version is a nightmare.

Take everything off the network and transfer all to the local hard drive, both expectantly prep very fast, but the mac is still faster and smoother even though actual render times are identical.

As you say, the mac is obviously memory optomised a lot better than XP is. I wonder if 64BIT Vista will be a solution?

[wbj]

I wonder if 64BIT Vista will be a solution?

Vista will surely be a "solution". You just have to find any apropriate problem :-)

There are differences in memory management between MacOS X and Windows (and some Apple folks claim, that there approach does show better results in real life applications rather than in some static benchmarks), but given the preferential treatment of MS's owns libs and the connected additonal memory consumption in Vista, it's unlikely that you'll see any improvements in Vista (I would expect quite the contrary...).

I would take a look at the type of texture files you're using. If these are files handled by QuickTime (instead of the Cinema core), it's possible, that the MacOS X QuickTime version does a better job than the Windows counterpart.


Best regards,

wbj

[dann_stubbs]

Hi Dann

On the same network using the same pc, the mac accesses and preps files like a hot knife through butter. The pc version is a nightmare.

Take everything off the network and transfer all to the local hard drive, both expectantly prep very fast, but the mac is still faster and smoother even though actual render times are identical.

As you say, the mac is obviously memory optomised a lot better than XP is. I wonder if 64BIT Vista will be a solution?

i think it is the ethernet drivers - i would do a little research on gigabit ethernet cards and install a PCI one in the PC and then you will load that cards drivers - from some testing i did a couple years ago there was a HUGE difference in performance of ethernet cards nearly all resulting from the quality of the drivers. i think a netgear was the best performance at that time while a belkin was low (it's been a long time so i'm sure the drivers have all changed since then - but the PCI cards are cheap and an easy test to see if you gain performance)

dann

[Srek]

Normal PCI is not fast enough for Gigabit Ethernet, You will need to use at PCIe for this.
Cheers
Björn

[dann_stubbs]

Normal PCI is not fast enough for Gigabit Ethernet, You will need to use at PCIe for this.
Cheers
Björn

(yes i know - but i was using PCI as general term)

dann

[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.