**Official*** New powermacs

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 89
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mad Baggins:

    <strong>

    Doesn't the latency depend on the speed of the memory module itself and the length of the bus, not its frequency? If the bits have to travel 8ns from RAM to CPU (dunno how far that would be lengthwise), then the latency is going to be 8+ ns. Increasing the bus frequency from 133MHz to 266MHz just means the 8ns is counted as two cycles instead of one, but it's still 8ns.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think he was talking about the bus' characteristics exclusively. If you take memory latency into account too, of course you'd need memory cells that are actually twice as fast to use true 266MHz. In fact, that's another reason we have DDR nowadays - the memory cells themselves don't have to be faster than the ones used in SDR memory, it's just that twice the number of cells get read out in the same time compared to SDR RAM.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 82 of 89
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by radar1503:

    <strong>

    Amorph: You mentioned that Maxbus could speed up video card access...what's the point? I think most video cards these days with 128MB of RAM can store all textures in the onboard memory. Accessing main memory would be slow no matter what! What am I missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Quartz Extreme. With the graphics chip doing lot's of work in main memory, the XServe-like bus setup might actually even make sense for desktops too.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 83 of 89
    kukukuku Posts: 254member
    Maya definitely has problems but then Maya can do some stuff way easier then others if you're into that stuff. Which people on the mac might want to do more then other groups.



    As with the keynote so long ago, you can use Maya with conjunction with your graphic heavyweights and your digital video edits too.



    This is a great thing if you're doing one of those all purpose projects.



    This seems like the begining of the product curve here, so if you need something to play with, it's not a bad choice, may not be the best, but these days computers deprecation is only about 2-4yrs anyway, pending upgrades.



    On the interesting bit, I wonder why APPLE would lower the bus speed if they are using the unified design. It's not the cost, and they don't really need to differenate with a better mhz/superdrive/graphics car/HD, etc gap.



    ~Kuku
  • Reply 84 of 89
    "But I am going to do 'more' video in the next 6 months "



    Of course...your comic. I'd vouch the machine you've got already caters well enough.



    "But......I still don't see any need for me to jump yet. Better wait for next year"



    My point.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 85 of 89
    I like the case on the new 'power'Macs.







    Maya does have feature parity on 'X' now. But...that's only for the 'cheapest' version? I'm not sure if that includes the impressive looking 'fluid' features included in the 'premium' version of Maya. (Unless the fluid effects are available in both...or as a plug in to come later...)



    Lightwave already has its 'fluid' effects and hair functionality built right in. No stinky maintenence contract which bugs me too...



    And it does feature dual processor functionality now.



    (In fact...on the 'power'Mac page...there is a list of apps that now have that said functionality.)



    There is a disparity in 3d Mac/Pc render performance. But (and I cross my fingers when I say this...) just set up your render...and let it render overnight. You won't notice the difference, I guess.



    Uncrossing my fingers. If you've got a Mac that runs 'X'? Keep it. Wait until next year and buy the 'BIG' Mac.



    That's what I'm gonna do. When that IBM hits, I buy. I stick fingers in my ears and ear plugs in my eyes and sing 'Lal...lah, lah, lah, la...'



    I'd had it with my PC. It's lots faster...but its Windows...man. I'm rebuying everything for the Mac. Vue, Photoshop...Z-Brush...In Design...Illustrator...I just can't take this PC tower crap for much longer...



    Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
  • Reply 86 of 89
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    If you don't mind learning Linux. Get a PC running Linux and Maya (Maya is available on Linux) is your best choice. Lowest price and best performance.



    One thing I like Maya is Artisan. Very cool. Makes creating 3D models a joy. But other features (IMO) aren't that great compare to XSI.



    When comes to ease of use nothing beats Cinema 4D



    I have to start a fight with Lemon Bon Bon



    Lightwave, though it's powerful, seriously suffered by the interface and the philosphy of seperate environment for modelling and animation/assembly. Which I hate with passion.



    [ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 87 of 89
    Buying Maya is not necessarily a 'rip off'.



    I trained with guys that swore by it not at it.



    (Don't get me started on Xsi...)



    For the price...it's almost a bargain. You're getting alot of app for less than half the money it was a while ago!



    Also. If you have the scientific brain power (read ubergeek...) then you can extend its power with scripting. Something I never got the hang of. And yeah...if you're a Linux head, you may be able to handle a bit of scripting.



    Me? Blurrrrrrch. No likey Linux. Haven't time to waste on 'figuring it out'.



    You can use Maya in a straight forward way. It has a nice interface...well...in contrast to Xsi and Lightwave.



    "If you don't mind learning Linux. Get a PC running Linux and Maya (Maya is available on Linux) is your best choice. Lowest price and best performance."



    Again, if you're a Linux head then this advice is sound. If you're a Macnotechnophobic then no. Mac and Maya would do you fine. There's a reason why 25% of Maya's users are now Mac. Maya is a cool app'. Has an interesting interface...



    Why didn't I buy it? I've always wanted Lightwave. It only cost me £999 (quarter of price Maya was at time...). It includes lotta bang for buck. Great renderer. Lots of free plugs ins and tutorials on web and great books out there. ie Support. Has most of Maya's tools...and then some that come with the box...no paying several grand extra to get extra features.



    "One thing I like Maya is Artisan. Very cool. Makes creating 3D models a joy. But other features (IMO) aren't that great compare to XSI."



    Xsi. Shudder. But then, I was using 1 point beta... (Read...intense sarcasm here...long story...) Artisan? Don't know much about that. Sounds good.



    "When comes to ease of use nothing beats Cinema 4D"



    I couldn't disagree with this statement as I haven't played long enough with Cinema 4d. But...hey, if this 3d app' went from 18th of the top 3d vendors to 3rd. Ask yourself why.



    Worth investigating at the least. More to the point you can buy the basic version 8 module for £400 less than! Buy other modules eg Bodypaint as you need them. This is a canny move by Maxxon. Maybe they're after the no.1 vendor position.



    "I have to start a fight with Lemon Bon Bon"



    Welllllll.





    I look at it this way. Cinema 4D and Lightwave were the first 3D apps on X. I think Newtek just beat Cinema to it. They both support dual processing. You both get alot of bang for your buck. That's why Maya had to bring price down. People like Lightwave and Cinema offering most of content for quarter of price.



    Some may like Cinema's all in one environment. I think Lightwave's got the better renderer. Cinema does have a better interface. But 3D interfaces aren't all they could be in my opinion and Cinema's didn't look all that intuitive to me. Lightwave has loads of plug ins. Cinema's getting more plug ins now. Especially the ones that count like the amazingly priced Bodypaint. Pyro whatsit and prob' have Poser 5 hosting as will Lightwave. Take yer pick.



    "Lightwave, though it's powerful, seriously suffered by the interface and the philosphy of seperate environment for modelling and animation/assembly. Which I hate with passion."



    Lightwave IS powerful and has lots of 'all in one' functionality for a great price.



    The jury is out on its separate 'environments' for modelling and animation.



    The interface. I couldn't sit here and defend Lightwave's interface and keep a straight face.



    Cinema's interface looks more all in one. A little clearer. I'm not sure I'd call it 'intuitive' either. But, like I say...you've got into using it and I can see why it would be 'more intuitive'. Lightwave doesn't have icons...which I find very annoying. Just labelled tabs ala Xsi (ARGGGGGGHHHH!)



    I don't think any of the high end 3d apps have as intuitive 3d interfaces as Poser or Bryce.



    Of the big hitters...I think Maya seems to have the best interface due to its 'get out of your face' interface which, in principal, is more Mac like.



    Wanna buy a 3d app? You can't really go wrong with Maya, Cinema or Lightwave. Try the free 'Learning editions'. You can get the companies to send you 'demo' disks! Based upon my own 3D experience...its essential that you try before you buy before you lay out £1 k - £2 K on a 3D app.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 88 of 89
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>

    I don't think any of the high end 3d apps have as intuitive 3d interfaces as Poser or Bryce.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
  • Reply 89 of 89
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:

    <strong>I think he was talking about the bus' characteristics exclusively. If you take memory latency into account too, of course you'd need memory cells that are actually twice as fast to use true 266MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, I was taking both bus and memory speed into account. If you go back to my post, I was comparing a DDR bus/RAM combo to a true 266 bus/RAM combo. Since both the bus and the RAM in the latter scenario are clocked twice as fast (well, RAM isn't clocked, but you know what I mean), latency would be halved.



    But you'd be paying through the nose for the privilege of using true 266MHz RAM on a true 266MHz bus.



    [ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.