I read over at the Povray website that having a dual core machine is not enough for running a dual-core version of a software.  The Operating System must also be dual-core.

So, even if Poser Next Version becomes dual-core capable, and the user's machine has a dual-core processor, but if the OS is still 32-bit, then Too Bad, So Sad.

This is true. With any luck the next verion of Windows and OS (Whatever version is for Macs) will be out before they release a version of Poser that can access Dual-Core processor features though.

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here.
There is a difference between dual-core and 64 bit. Any process using multiple threads is capable of using a dual core processor (or any number of processors within the same machine). The operating system does need to support this (but generally all do at the moment).
To get software to use dual core capabilities the program needs to be split in separate independent threads, an exercise in carefully splitting the individual actions and coordinating access to shared recources but doable and without impact to users having only a single core processor (it just requires a rewrite of the core of the software, something long overdue for Poser anyway).
To properly use a 64 bit environment requires a complete 64 bit system with a correct OS, drivers and software (all of it should at least be 64 bit aware). This will require a few more years to stabilize. I personally expect Poser to not go this route for a few more years, although a future version may be 64 bit aware (and actually runs natively in a 64 bit environment). Keep in mind that a 64 bit version is distinctly different from a 32 bit version. This would mean for some  time 2 versions (or 4 versions including MAC) will exist at the same time (with all added complications in maintenance).

All Windows XP (Home, Pro, and Pro x64) versions support multiprocessing.  Windows 2000 Pro, NT 4, NT Server, Server 2003 also support multiprocessing.  MacOS 9 and 10 as well.  And most Linux/Unix/Sun/Risc systems have supported it for many years.

SMP Wiki

The problem is when should software take advantage of multiprocessing threads.  For instance, Cinema 4D only uses this for rendering - everything else is single processing (threading here is based on multitasking - NOT multiprocessing - these are two different things).  Usually, multiprocessing is best for automated tasks (such as rendering) where user interaction is not involved (an exaggerated example: it would be an amazing feat for a single user to work on posing three figures independently and simultaneously - though not impossible). ;)

So here's the basic lesson:

32-bit and 64-bit are memory addressing ranges - how much memory can be used on a computer by the processor(s).  This depends on the CPU and OS.

Multitasking is the ability for an OS to run more than one process or thread seemingly simultaneously (actually, they are being interleaved in some form of priority/round-robin/queue/other type of processing scheme).

Multiprocessing is having more than one physical CPU in a computer - this could be separate CPU chips or one chip with many CPUs (dual and quad core).

Every modern OS has multitasking capabiltiies (even the AmigaOS had it in 1986).

Every modern OS has multiprocessing capabilities (at least within the past five or so years).

Only certain OSs have 64-bit capabilties (Windows XP Pro x64, Windows Server 2003, MacOS 10.4, Linux/Unix type OSs).

Robert

By the time poser is dual core compatible we'll be onto quantum computers ;)

Oh, OK, I got a clearer understanding.  Thanks for the clarifications.

The OS must be 64-bit to run the 64-bit software.  Doesn't matter if it is dual or single core processor.  Better if dual-core....  I am seing a lot of stars and singing birdies flying around my head right now.

But I think I get it better now.

What I would like to know... will P6 work faster and better on a 64bitter???

I run Poser 6 on an Athlon64 and an Athlon64x2. Both are 64 bit CPUs.

I've tested WinXP 64bit on the Athlon64 with Poser 6. Since Poser is a typical 32 bits application, it ran in the 32-bit 'emulator' of WinXP 64 bit.

• It was neither faster nor slower than on WinXP 32 bit.
• It was neither more stable nor less stable than on WinXP 32 bit.
• The maximum scene size it could handle was the same on WinXP 64 bit and WinXP 32 bit

So for now it does not make any difference. I'm curious as to what Poser 7 will have to offer....

oh well can't have everthing... I guess they will be coming out with a 64bit Poser soon I hope.

poser 7 apparently will be released when leopard and vista (for 64-bit machines) are released next year. however, we don't yet know if P7 will be able to use dual or quad processors, nor do we know if it will be a 64-bit app (able to access more than 2 GB of RAM). but since e-frontier coders have access to the vista beta and the leopard beta, I'm guessing that P7 will be a 64-bit app that can use dual/quad processors (intel core duo 2).

I have a dual-core laptop. but I did not buy it for Poser, but for my work. I did not notice any improved speed. My 3.4 Pentium desktop runs Poser 6 just fine. I will not be upgrading my 3D machine anytime soon.

So do I! But I won't mind if e-frontier takes its time. I'd rather have a well-thought out and stable full 64bit Poser 7 than a rushed out recompile of Poser 6.

Most likely, you will see a slightly slower performance of Poser on dual/quad cores as their processing speeds (mips) are less than single-core cpus.  Increased bus speeds on these newer systems may equalize this.  Poser can't use any more memory than can be alotted a 32-bit process, so a 64-bit system with 128GB memory gains you nothing - for Poser anyway.  Of course, with multiprocessors, you can do more things simultaneously (like render in Poser and check your email)  without the process-swapping hits.

Just to throw my 2 cents in...

Poser works great in my new system - dual core OC to 4.1 ghz with 4gb of ram - using Windows 64.

The trouble is, my Adobe Production Suite (many times the price of Poser)  is a mess on Win64! Premiere and AF crashes rendering dvd's and Encore requires reg hacks to work with DVD drives!

If ADOBE can't get it right...

Wait for Vista - and go with XP pro ( as I will do) until the extra 2gb of ram because useful.

JP

So it seams to be running better on your system (jpiazzo)? Nothing else I can do Premiere on my laptop, what about PhotoShop on the 64?

 Sticking my bit in......I see nobody has mentioned AM2 and DDR2 Memory yet?

Al.

Quote -  Sticking my bit in......I see nobody has mentioned AM2 and DDR2 Memory yet?

Al.

AM2 is just a type of socket for the CPU and DDR2 a type of memory, neither of which play as much of a role as what is discussed above. Technically if/when POSER is released as a 64 bit version will we be able to throw more power at it. Memory plays a big part in POSER (and proper coding in the app) and you are severly limited in that aspect by a 32 bit environment..

The 64-bit CPUs can handle more memory and larger files. "The advantage of 64 bits is it gives you a larger address space, which means it lets you address more memory," Krewell says. Today's 32-bit Intel and AMD chips can address up to 4GB of memory (an Apple G4 unit can address 2GB).

A 64-bit processor, on the other hand, can address up to 16 Terabytes of memory .  Imagine the textures you can load with that!

I run 2 rigs with Poser, one a high end, dual core 4800+ /2 gig rig and there is a big difference in performance with dual core. It does well, but i still get memory errors wirth renders which is why I rarely use it as a renderer, it is just coded badly. I can render scenes 3 times as complex in Carrera pro in way less time.

Attached Link: 80 cores

I just came across this list of what seems to work, or partially work, with the Windows Vista release candidate 1, but I don't see Poser on it yet - someone needs to test it, I guess.

AM2 and DDR2, as you say, shouldn' t play much of a part in the actual programs.....unless of course you play around with the memory bandwidth.

However as it is the way things are going, when it comes to upgrading PCs, many of the old ones will be stuck with DDR and Socket 939......in essence, a bit like all the 32bit laptops that will get chucked away, because it won't be worth upgrading (or possible) them to 64bit.

Also consider how long it has taken our friend Bill Gates to get XP just about working properly......it still isn't fully OK....How long will it take for MS to get a 64bit OS operating satisfactorily?

Al.

Huh?  Windows XP Pro x64 seems to be a satisfactory OS - works just like XP Pro 32-bit, but in, uh, 64-bit.  Can't blame MS for lack of driver support - that job belongs to the hardware manufacturers.  Can't blame MS for the lack of 64-bit apps - that job belongs to the software companies.  Blame them for being lazy, curmudgeony SOBs.

And what is so archaic about Socket 939.  I have one with an AMD64 3500 and it supports up to AMD64 4800 (dual core).  Unless you have an inheritance, the newest fangled system isn't worth the cost.  And we've seen how many times the 'favored flavor of the month' memory sockets/types, cpu sockets/types and so on have gone the way of the Beta or 8-track.  I say it's always better to be one step behind - so you can see the truck that hits the guy in front of you! ;P

Robert

Didn't say it was archaic....but it is interesting that Dell (spit) are already down the AM2/DDR2 route.

And so I can see the truck, I haven't switched to XP Prox64.....

But the DDR2 makes a helluva difference.

Al.

Don't be fooled by the DDR2 hype. Yes, those numbers (533,667,800,1066) look impressive next to the 400 of DDR400. But - longer setup times, longer latencies. A fast DDR2 module has 4 cycles of CAS latency, while a fast DDR module has only 2 cycles. So a DDR2-800 module is exactly as fast when it comes to CAS as a classic DDR400 module. Its data transfer rate will be higher, though.

The advantage of the Intels when it comes to DDR2 lies in the separate cache/memory controller. The AMDs have the cache/memory controllers built right in to the CPU, and only a CPU running at a multiple of 400 MHz will be able to support the faster DDR2 types at their full speeds. So a 4400 (2x 2200MHz) might even be slower than a 4000 (2x2000 Mhz).

AMD is working on it, but this is the exact problem of the AM2 series right now.

Then why does Dell use the AM2 CPUs? I guess that the customers demand DDR2, without knowing the ins and outs.

DDR2 DOES make a difference - but not DDR2-533. You'll need at least DDR2-667, preferably DDR2-800 or 1066. And an Intel Core Duo CPU.

XP Pro 64bit: good support by nVidia. Lousy support by other device manufacturers. At least, that was the case a year back when I tried it.

Yep, a 4400 doesn't work as well with DDR2, whch is why a 4600 is a better choice...(but a 3800 is OK albeit slightly slower)....these work on the 400 multiple rule, whereas the others don't. DDR2 800 works fine.

The 5000 is the truck that hits the guy in front.

What surprises me is that Dell didn't spot this earlier (or did they?) Still....I found out the hard way there....Intel Pentium D 950 based system caught fire (standard case and fans, I guess).

I haven't seen a 950 on the website for some time....wonder why?

Al.

In my brief exchange with e-Frontier recently, they did say they were working on a "universal" version of Poser for the Mac, which I presume will be incorporated into Poser 7. As all Mac users know who have tried it, any software written as a universal version will run 2-4 times faster on a new Intel Mac than its non-universal counterpart does on a G4 or G5 Mac. If, as I'm guessing, Poser 7 for Mac will also be 64-bit and adapted to multiple processors, then it will smoke like a roadrunner in a brush fire. I'm thinking 5 times faster, at least; a truly earth-shaking performance improvement that would turn anybody with a new Mac into a 3D animator, toying easily with 150MB figures and 1-2GB scenes. Windows users? Well, e-Frontier surely knows that most of its users are Windows (although Mac's share is growing), but the bulk of those users are likely to be much slower to move to Vista than Mac users are to move to Leopard (although Tiger already has Vista's capabilities), especially given the hardware demands that Vista is expected to have and Microsoft's history of laying bug-ridden eggs when introducing a new OS. Vista is expected to be a massive, ugly, tortured beast on the inside with a Mac-like interface on the outside. SS

Quote - ........Microsoft's history of laying bug-ridden eggs when introducing a new OS. Vista is expected to be a massive, ugly, tortured beast on the inside with a Mac-like interface on the outside. SS

Exactly.........

Al.

OH BOY, a MAC vs PC tread!!! I love these; they can go on and on and on.

Although, Widows is not perfect, I have found that each new version is better than the last. And about 95% of the stuff I had in the box still worked after the upgrade.

My worst computer upgrade experiences involved:

The transition to Mac OS X  - what a nightmare! Threw away more hardware on that one! and that bug that would re-format your external fire wire drives - brilliant!

Oh yea, and that Final Cut pro upgrade (can't recall the version) where you could not open project files created in the previous version. To quote a driver in the great classic cult film “Death Race 2000” (when asked where his rear view mirror was) “What’s behind me, makes no difference!” (Funnier when you add the Italian accent to it.)

But then, Apple has always been a forward thinking company. Imagine, magnetically attached power cords!!! My cat is already planning devious things to do with that while I work on a tight deadline.

Oh, did I mention that I-pod battery thing – battery dies, buy a NEW I-pod.

Thanks Steve. Donate any billions to a worthy cause lately?

JP

i recently upgraded one of my computers to amd 64x2 4800, 4 gigs of ram and installed the windows xp64 pro operating system.  i have never had poser render so fast and it certainly handles complex scenes well.  i have kept as little as possible on this system...when i check in with task manager it shows lots of great memory use and is fast!  i also used the 'hack' that is shown elsewhere in the forums.  upgrading to the 64 os was really a challenge, and i'm still discovering drivers and other tools, but the whole process seems smoother than on my other machines.  the prices on 939 processors are very good right now, and although my system is'dated' from the onset, i feel comfortable with it.  the vista os looks like it has a lot of bells and whistles that are bound to grabbing valuable resources, so the gains in ddr2 might end up being a wash.