Again, there are so many neophytes on the forums these days asking questions about potential laptops, since they're probably all students, they're all really looking for the same thing. So in the same vein as my Guide To Grad School choices, here's a guide to Laptop purchases.
Picking a laptop depends on a variety of factors you can only answer, so I've divided the general architect student pool into a few groups:
1. The Lumberjack/Draftsperson
This is a student who has gone to an old-school program based mostly off of the model and the drawing. If you fall into this category, your choices are actually very easy because the only programs you will ever need to run is AutoCAD and Adobe Creative Suite (photoshop, illustrator).
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Centrino Core Duo processor, 1.6 GHZ and up
1 gig RAM
70 GB HDD
128 bit integrated graphics card
Sub $1000 range
The Lumberjack/Draftsperson is the only type of architecture student that will get max value from a mac purchase without having to install windows.
2. The SketchUp Artist/AutoCAD Drafter
This is a student who needs a bit of everything. They go to a school that gives a broad choice of approaches. They need to do a little bit of 3D, in anything from Rhino to SketchUp, Viz to 3DMax Etc. They also need to run basic 3D rendering programs like the ones that come standard with 3DSMax, not to mention Adobe. What distinguishes the SketchUp artist form the Render is they are not power users and not interested in rendering large, complex models. Most architecture students typically fall into this category.
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Centrino Core Duo processor, 2.0 GHZ and up
2 gig RAM
70 GB HDD + External HDD
128 bit integrated graphics card
$1000-$2000 range
3. The Renderer/Scripter
This is a student who is heavily biased towards 3D renderings and CAD drawings. They need a rig that can give them photo-realistic renderings on short order and a computer that can handle large 3D models in robust 3D programs like Rhino, Maya, Cinema 4D, and 3DS Max not to mention make maximum use of rendering engines like Vray and Maxwell.
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Core Duo 2.5 GHZ and up
4 gig RAM
100+ GB HDD + External HDD
256 MB OpenGL based graphics card
$2000 and up range
If you don't know what any of the above means, you are by default not a Renderer, you are a SketchUp Artist.
General notes:
The common newb mistake is that rendering engines render through the 3D card, this is not the case. They always render through the processor. The faster the processor (in actual clock speed not just GHZ) the faster it will render, period. However, an OpenGL based 3D card, like an ATI FireGL, will help your computer display complex 3d models more rapidly than an integrated/non-GL card will. The biggest of newb mistakes is to spend the money on a gaming card thinking it will help you model, this is not the case and I know from experience having made that mistake myself.
Notice that the more robust your system is, the heavier it will be, the hotter it will run, the less protable it will be, and the more maintainence it will require on the user's end. Like I said, if you don't know the difference between actual clock speed and GHZ, or why an openGL card is better for running 3D programs then a regular card, you are not a Renderer and you will not get max. value for money. It's like cars, if you don't know how to drive stick, your better off not buying a Ferrari because all it will cause you is trouble.
Some 3D programs do not display in openGL at all, so by default your most important option is processor speed, followed by RAM, the 3d card is a distant 4th after HDD space.
On Macs:
Mac purchase for an architecture student is generally ill-adviseable unless you have all the money in the world and don't care about paying premium for style's sake. Most bootlegged programs are PC exclusive and while Macs are catching up software wise, until autodesk decides to support Macs, you're better off with a PC. However, if by the remotest of chances you're schooled in either ArchiCAD or Vectorworks and use these as your primary design programs mac purchase makes sense, also both programs are free for students.
Also, under no circumstances should you buy a Sony Vaio, yes they are pretty but they are also quite fragile, poorly made, and very expensive compared to their competition.
Hmm, that is a good question. I imagine fewer processors running at faster clock speeds is more effecient than running multiple processors at slower clock speeds. You'll probably render faster on your $1500 triple Xeons, but the best thing to do is to find out their actual clock speeds and see if whatever rendering engine you work with will actually take advantage of them. From my experience, single core 32-bit pentiums are the easiest to work with for a programmer but have slower clock speeds than the nasty triple core xneon's they put in supercomputers and server banks.
...and from your previous posts you sound like a voice of reason in the laptop sphere so I await your post with anticipation, because for all I know I'm right.
If you use revit you definitely fall into the 2nd group, if you use revit to build really big models you may be in the 3rd group even.
Alot of times these issues can be about scale. For example, I have often used ArchiCAD to build smaller projects, like houses but when I did a 150 unit housing complex in it, its 3d engine could simply not re-draw the image of the building in 3D, let alone render anything, even in wireframe. Now ArchiCAD has a notoriously bad 3D engine (it however is one of the few programs I know that should work better on an OpenGL card) but the same issue applies to most any program. The more complex a project becomes, the more polygons need to be drawn in a single pass, the more operations the computer has to do, etc. You see the same issue working with large files in Pshop.
SOM for example according to my sources split the Freedom tower Revit model into two seperate files because their computers kept crashing trying to load the entire building model.
Then again, manamana may blow this whole discussion to hell tomorrow morning so it may be worth waiting for his input.
The Lumberjack/Draftsperson is the only type of architecture student that will get max value from a mac purchase without having to install windows.
from my own experience, i'm not sure this is true. i had a powerbook G4 during grad school (2004-2005) and felt that i got pretty good value out of it but i would hardly describe myself as a "lumberjack/draftsperson"
the programs that i remember using most were vectorworks (for some light drafting & 3d), photoshop, illustrator (for presentation posters), indesign (for books), a combination of dreamweaver, flash, imovie, and powerpoint (depending on the exact nature of the presentation) and eventually fell in love with sketchup for use in working with real estate projects with business school students. having said all of that, i really felt like i did a minimal amount of computer drafting in school and probably did 3/4 quarters of my drawings and modeling the old-fashion way with pencils, chipboard, xacto blades, grass seed, cheap perfumes, etc. a scanner and digital camera (still & video) were important tools in addition to the laptop.
i think that it's very possible to go through school with out using Autodesk at all.
apu (that name always reminds me of Samuari Jack); thanks for this thread, I think I was going crazy with all the laptop for grads/architects/moms & pops threads that kept appearing on archinect. It is great to know that I am part of the middle group aka those that will likely get things built cause they are focussed on more than pretty pictures (can you see I'm trying to start a fire??)
Nonetheless i wholeheartedly agree with your mac statements as well...not a description belittling the product (or any such limitation) but that fact that machines are built for a niche/populist market
I would also add that despite all the crap they get about being as common as salt dell make pretty robust machines. And if you think you may have a problem get a 2 yr warranty. They will replace it if any crap happens to it.
Hps get ridiculously hot, but the systems are amazing. If you intend for your laptop to be more of a desktop replacement then I wouldn't have a problem recommending it.
Oh and my advice is based off of having to buy 2 no. laptops in 3.5 yrs - exercising warranties, replacements, rebates from anti-virus programs that nearly crashed my system, etc.
lb- what is the clockspeed of your charcoal? vine or compressed?
apu- you forgot the following architype:
auteur
wants to make movies about architecture and become famous. isn't very talented in the 3d rendering, but needs a computer to stitch all the footage from their cellphone together for the studio presentation. Cares about style and what the laptop looks like.
I have no clue what setup would serve these folks... any suggestions?
it seems you're asking two different questions. building a render station is as simple as piecing together a good dual or quad processor desktop. 2x/4x dual or quad core processors and 8-32gig of ram will suffice for a high-end personal render workstation.
if you are asking how to build a render farm, then more processors spread out over a larger group of systems (called a cluster) is the appropriate choice.
render farm software is (mostly) parallel computing software. i.e. requiring a cluster of systems. more processors = more jobs queued and processed.
the beauty of clusters in today's market is they can built on the cheap. what is important is number of processors, amount of ram and the os and software used.
if you want to build a render farm, shop newegg for cheap motherboards and amd processors. build 10-20 barebone systems and run a render app on linux.
On the renderfarm/pile of motherboards tangent - there's this. Before the 8 core systems came out, the Mac Mini was actually a viable contender in the GHZ/$ calculation.
Regarding laptops - For type 3 students, I would add in the importance of screen quality and size. While each person might have their own preference regarding the size/weight trade offs between a 17" or a 15", a high quality and very high resolution screen (1600x1200 or 1920x1600) makes a world of difference and helps justify the work that the graphics card is doing. Usually these screens can only be found on laptops that meet the other goals of a type 3 student as well.
And in defense of macs, their Windows performance and reliability is fine. If the premium cost for the physical design & quality is worth it (for the low end macbook_pro it's not too much) then it's a viable option.
What are some brands of computers that are worth looking at? This could be broken down into laptops and desktops but I'm just curious which companies people tend to favor. I see a lot of Dell's and Apple's in studio and I am an Apple user my self but if I were to look at getting a higher end PC machine where should I look?
in my opinion, building usually yields a better, faster system for the cost. really, the only reason i would go with a big-box vendor is a) enterprise support and b) you can get a good deal when buying in bulk; but that requires a large installation.
hmm..
I seem to remember using something like an old pentium II thinkpad with 32mbs of ram. 3 gig harddrive.
rendering with 3dmax V3, photoshop 5, and autocad 2000. Seemed I could make just as 'convincing' drawings then, as now.
although that's probably a subject of different thread, and I certainly don't want to go back to that set-up.
I'd be interested to see if theres any sort of group verdict on a good PC laptop manufacturer, as this always seems to be a topic of debate on archinect.
plus I'm debating making a reverse switch from mac to PC
if you're looking for a powerful workstation for modeling and design, i say go with a desktop. laptops are great for casual work and play, but power consumption is a killer on a laptop. i don't see much use in laptops if it isn't treated like a portable device.
the point of a laptop is to be mobile. if you're killing your battery after 45-60 minutes of hardcore work, then it's the least efficient means of design; imo of course.
if you're intent on a laptop, then you want to spend the money and spec it out as high as it will go, including: bigger, longer lasting battery (e.g. if there is a choice between a 6 or a 9...take the 9), as much ram as you can get (which means not buying apple since 4gig = $800+ vs. dell or lenovo where 4gig = ~$500), the fastest processor available for the model, and always get a 7200 rpm drive when you can. faster drive = faster i/o access.
gpu cards make little difference, really, since most of the real work is handled on the processor and bus level. although, a mobile ati/nividia is always preferable.
i never use a laptop over 14" in size. i can't stand the idea of carrying a "portal" desktop computer. i think 17"+ laptops are the stupidest thing.
if you want that much weight and display, sit at a desk.
As far as mac not being as good for intense 3d work, this is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Rhino is now developing their software for mac, and anyone (even me!) can become a beta tester by filling out an application. Pros: free, full-version copy of Rhino OSX. Cons: software is still buggy, not fully implemented and somewhat different from the windows version.
Wow, looks like there's an actual decent discussion going on in here instead of a flame war, I like.
I'm still waiting on manamana to school me though.
Good points everybody, and yes I meant Core 2 Duo.
On render farms: This a whole different ballgame from a studio laptop and I would really only suggest it for the most hardcore of users. I know maxwell comes built in with a means of distributing renders over a network (farming) but I've never played with it that much. As far as render farms go, you'll need to run Linux, over windows and I don't have a clue about mac render farms.
BTW, I have a 3 year old dell lappy which is sub lumberjack/drafter level and I do alright with it. If I was going to buy another lappy, i'm in the median range and would probably buy a thinkpad.
This is going to be kind of stream of conscious. Mainly because I don't feel like editing into a coherent post...Also I don't think there's really any way I can do this without sounding like a pocket protector wearing prick, so apologies in advance.
You seem to be confused about graphics cards. "128 bit"? are you referring to memory capacity or bus width? Memory capacity is in megabytes, memory bus width is measured in bits.
From the beginning: there are basically three classes of laptop graphics subsystems. Integrated, discrete consumer, and discrete workstation. Integrated chips are called integrated because they're integrated into the processor northbridge chipset system. They're cheaper because manufacturers don't have to pay extra for third party (AMD/ATI or nVidia) chips. They're usually the slowest at 3d work but occasionally will best the older/slower end of the discrete consumer chips. Discrete consumer = the ATI radeon and nVidia geforce chips. These range from moderate general purpose graphics units to high end gaming lines. Performance in 3d applications varies widely, most are adequate for most 3D work. I would not in any way equate integrated chips with discrete consumer chips.
discrete workstation chips are identical to discrete consumer chips (every quadro has a geforce equivalent) except that the workstation class chips have additional OpenGL instructions and sometimes driver features unlocked. Some programs can make good use the additional features (maya is one) others not really (3dmax's OpenGL driver kinda sucks). Just because Max doesn't make good use of OpenGL doesn't mean the graphics card is unimportant, just that the difference between a quadro and its equivalent geforce is pretty much nil.
Note that quadros are not always faster. See the quadros with 64 bit memory interfaces and low clock speeds? they're old. Except in rare specific situations where those additional openGL features are required, the newer, higher clocked 128bit/256bit (note that's bus width not memory capacity) geforces will fare quite a bit better than an older quadro.
...in 3D work. Once again, ANY modern laptop will have acceptable 2D performance for just about anyone. I don't care how hard you push 3GB files in photoshop or the size of your autocad drawing, you'll hit the limit of other components well before the graphics chip even becomes an issue.
"the difference between actual clock speed and GHZ." GHz is the actual clock speed. processor cycles per second = clock speed. That's like saying your speed in miles per hour is not your actual speed. What you meant to get at was that some processors do more work per processor cycle than others due to differences in processor architectures. This was relevant back in the days of the pentium 4, but these days it's a moot point today because intel's core2 duo line and core2 quad chips do the most per clock cycle and reach the highest cycles per second. But that could change in 6 months.
Size of HD is virtually unimportant. Speed (5400rpm vs 7200 vs SSD) is very important. Depending on how you work maybe the most important.
the point about core duo / core 2 duo / etc has been made. See here:
Just because you or your friend had a bad experience with XX brand of laptop, doesn't mean that brand sucks. There's really very few companies that manufacture their own laptops, for the most part, Macbooks come off the same assembly lines as vaios and dells and HPs. Different shells and more or less the same parts. There's high and low end for just about all of them, and you don't want to be scraping the bottom of the barrel on the low end from anybody.
You can work just fine on a Mac or a vaio if that's what you like. There are fewer options for macs as far as hardware goes, but I'd put a macbook pro (educational discount) on my list of contenders if I was shopping.
I'll clear up some of the misinfo on distributed rendering later.
I have been waiting all day, to see where this was going to go.
While far more techie than anything i would know. I do tend to agree with him about the Mac Pro especially with an educational discount through your dept.
Thanks mana, I meant to say 128 MB cards, and you elaborated on quite a few things that I thought was quite helpful.
I always thought however that clock speed was measured in flops, or calculations per second, and to my knowledge certain processors with high clock speeds (GHZ) are actually slower in terms of flops that some chips with lower clock speeds (the AMD vs. Pentium debate always circled around this issue I do believe)
My point was that alot of students will buy very high-end rigs thinking that it will give them an advantage, when in reality they wind up paying for the increased size, heat output and complexity of high-end systems designed for mobile gaming when i reality they could have spent half the money to buy a computer that would ultimately give them the same results.
Bottom line, and I do believe manamana will agree with me on this, the list of priorities when buying a laptop (as an architect with limited interest in 3d applications):
I also think it's important to point out another thing regarding bootlegged software. Nearly all PC's now are coming out with Windows Vista, and older software versions are non-compatible. For Vista, you need Rhino 4, AutoCAD 2008, at least 3dMax 8 and perhaps 9, Adobe CS3, etc. They encourage that you do not downgrade back to Windows XP--I'm not sure if this is an actual question of a difference performance, or just Microsoft's attempt to promote Vista. However, it would be good to keep this in mind regarding software availability.
At parties they call me LL pocket P. Ladies Love the Pocket Protector. For $60 an hour I'll be your wingman at a party and make you look immeasurably cooler by comparison.
Apu - FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second. Floating point operations are only one sort of operation that general processors do (there's also integer operations, etc). Not so useful a performance benchmark for average household or even advanced rendering computers. Clock speed is always going to be in GHz though, cycles per second is more or less the definition of clock speed. But clock speed is not always a measure of performance.
As for your list, I'd say that with todays dual core processors, RAM and HD speed are probably the most important unless you're rendering alot...and if you're rendering ALOT, it's probably more useful to pick up a cheap desktop quad from dell for the same price as adding 5-600Mhz to a laptop processor.
Speaking of ram, it's worth noting that manufacturers gouge on ram upgrades. adding ram is pretty dirt simple, so usually it's best to get the bare minimum when buying the laptop and get higher capacity replacement modules from crucial or newegg or mushkin.
Sorry Apurimac, my intention was not to flame this post. Moving on...
In regards to operating systems, Microsoft wants to eventually phase our XP. Sometime this year, they plan on providing a last Service Pack, SP3, and then stop support. Regardless, it's wrong to assume that nearly all windows-based machines are Vista based. Initially, the consumer "home" line, by default, came equipped with Vista, but the manufacturers learned quickly that this wasn't going to fly thus permitting the option to choose XP.
For an everyday end-user, switching from XP to Vista has no obvious costs except for the learning curve and 3rd party application compatibility. For a corporate environment, it means much more. It means making sure that all the internal hardware, external appliances, and proprietary and common software are compatible. This can be a painful and costly process.
I would like to use my current organization as an example. Even though it’s not your typical, homogenous environment, the number of users (out of 2700) we support who have Vista is marginal. In the IT department, we try to represent the user-base and we have two Vista machines set up as test boxes.
One point manamana made that I would like to stress is that just because you or your friend had a bad experience with a particular manufacturer does not mean its manufacturer is of poor quality. I’ve dealt with many, many kinds of notebooks and each have their pros and cons. Another point I would like to stress is that, unless you build your own machine, whoever you decide to go with, get a comprehensive warranty (ie Dell’s gold support).
In today's market, 1/2/3 are pretty cheap to get. But a good video card will cost around $400 more. So this list make sense but kind of mislead. Nowadays, can you buy a laptop with top 1/2/3 but 128MB graphic card? I think this is wrong, but I can't defend myself yet.
Here is my another question: Does the required hardware to run CAD/MAX program really different with the hardwares to run games?
Chase, generally, the higher the resolution the more real estate on the desktop. Also, a screen resolution of 1280x800 on a 15" widescreen monitor will look different on a 21" widescreen monitor. The desktop will visually be larger on a 21". Either way, technically, you still have the same amount of real estate.
Personally, I've worked with AutoCAD in 1280x800 on a 15" laptop and i got by just fine. Right now I'm on a 1440x900 and it's much nicer. I haven't worked with any rendering programs with either resolution so I can't comment on that.
Be careful about one thing. Every LCD monitor has a "optimal" resolution setting, which is its highest setting. Any other (lower) setting loses its sharpness and clarity.
Windows Vista needs a lot of overhead. If you're system didn't come equipped with it by default then I would not recommend it.
----
CMRHM, to answer your first question, yes you can. To answer your second, no.
CMRHM, the required graphics cards to run games v.s. OpenGL programs like Rhino and Max are for all intents and purposes are completely different.
Any techie here can correct me on this, but gaming cards render frames through DirectX based coding, workstation cards render frames through openGL based coding. While all cards offer openGL and DirectX support a dedicated openGL card comes with a myriad of different hardware and software architectures that reduce the amount of time required to render a frame in your workspace in Rhino/Max/Whatever.
But I will say this a million times, when you actually do renderings, say through Vray, these always run through the processor not the graphics card.
Unless you're going to be crafting very complex 3d models with high polycounts the standard 128/256 MB graphics card the laptop comes standard with will serve just fine.
Mar 5, 08 12:41 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Apu's Guide to an Architect's Laptop
Again, there are so many neophytes on the forums these days asking questions about potential laptops, since they're probably all students, they're all really looking for the same thing. So in the same vein as my Guide To Grad School choices, here's a guide to Laptop purchases.
Picking a laptop depends on a variety of factors you can only answer, so I've divided the general architect student pool into a few groups:
1. The Lumberjack/Draftsperson
This is a student who has gone to an old-school program based mostly off of the model and the drawing. If you fall into this category, your choices are actually very easy because the only programs you will ever need to run is AutoCAD and Adobe Creative Suite (photoshop, illustrator).
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Centrino Core Duo processor, 1.6 GHZ and up
1 gig RAM
70 GB HDD
128 bit integrated graphics card
Sub $1000 range
The Lumberjack/Draftsperson is the only type of architecture student that will get max value from a mac purchase without having to install windows.
2. The SketchUp Artist/AutoCAD Drafter
This is a student who needs a bit of everything. They go to a school that gives a broad choice of approaches. They need to do a little bit of 3D, in anything from Rhino to SketchUp, Viz to 3DMax Etc. They also need to run basic 3D rendering programs like the ones that come standard with 3DSMax, not to mention Adobe. What distinguishes the SketchUp artist form the Render is they are not power users and not interested in rendering large, complex models. Most architecture students typically fall into this category.
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Centrino Core Duo processor, 2.0 GHZ and up
2 gig RAM
70 GB HDD + External HDD
128 bit integrated graphics card
$1000-$2000 range
3. The Renderer/Scripter
This is a student who is heavily biased towards 3D renderings and CAD drawings. They need a rig that can give them photo-realistic renderings on short order and a computer that can handle large 3D models in robust 3D programs like Rhino, Maya, Cinema 4D, and 3DS Max not to mention make maximum use of rendering engines like Vray and Maxwell.
Minimum System Requirements:
Intel Core Duo 2.5 GHZ and up
4 gig RAM
100+ GB HDD + External HDD
256 MB OpenGL based graphics card
$2000 and up range
If you don't know what any of the above means, you are by default not a Renderer, you are a SketchUp Artist.
General notes:
The common newb mistake is that rendering engines render through the 3D card, this is not the case. They always render through the processor. The faster the processor (in actual clock speed not just GHZ) the faster it will render, period. However, an OpenGL based 3D card, like an ATI FireGL, will help your computer display complex 3d models more rapidly than an integrated/non-GL card will. The biggest of newb mistakes is to spend the money on a gaming card thinking it will help you model, this is not the case and I know from experience having made that mistake myself.
Notice that the more robust your system is, the heavier it will be, the hotter it will run, the less protable it will be, and the more maintainence it will require on the user's end. Like I said, if you don't know the difference between actual clock speed and GHZ, or why an openGL card is better for running 3D programs then a regular card, you are not a Renderer and you will not get max. value for money. It's like cars, if you don't know how to drive stick, your better off not buying a Ferrari because all it will cause you is trouble.
Some 3D programs do not display in openGL at all, so by default your most important option is processor speed, followed by RAM, the 3d card is a distant 4th after HDD space.
On Macs:
Mac purchase for an architecture student is generally ill-adviseable unless you have all the money in the world and don't care about paying premium for style's sake. Most bootlegged programs are PC exclusive and while Macs are catching up software wise, until autodesk decides to support Macs, you're better off with a PC. However, if by the remotest of chances you're schooled in either ArchiCAD or Vectorworks and use these as your primary design programs mac purchase makes sense, also both programs are free for students.
Also, under no circumstances should you buy a Sony Vaio, yes they are pretty but they are also quite fragile, poorly made, and very expensive compared to their competition.
Hope that helps, and feel free to add.
Apu
Nice post Apu. I predict that all anyone will comment on is the mac vs. pc angle, though.
According to Apu's qualifications, I should just stick to paper and charcoal.
(Thanks for doing this, Apu!)
good question meta. I've been wondering the same thing.
Hmm, that is a good question. I imagine fewer processors running at faster clock speeds is more effecient than running multiple processors at slower clock speeds. You'll probably render faster on your $1500 triple Xeons, but the best thing to do is to find out their actual clock speeds and see if whatever rendering engine you work with will actually take advantage of them. From my experience, single core 32-bit pentiums are the easiest to work with for a programmer but have slower clock speeds than the nasty triple core xneon's they put in supercomputers and server banks.
Apu, I know you're trying to help and all, but there are so many rather serious errors in your posts I don't even know where to start.
Please, no one make any purchase decisions based on info presented here. I will try to clear this up tomorrow night. I'm going to bed.
LOL, mana, I appreciate the assistance.
Though if you come on here telling me a vaio is a good purchase i may give up on archinect all together, i fucking hate those things.
...and from your previous posts you sound like a voice of reason in the laptop sphere so I await your post with anticipation, because for all I know I'm right.
Awesome. I appreciate your input!
But how about if I need to use Revit for drafting? Files trend to be pretty big. Can it fit into second group?
Thanks ;)
If you use revit you definitely fall into the 2nd group, if you use revit to build really big models you may be in the 3rd group even.
Alot of times these issues can be about scale. For example, I have often used ArchiCAD to build smaller projects, like houses but when I did a 150 unit housing complex in it, its 3d engine could simply not re-draw the image of the building in 3D, let alone render anything, even in wireframe. Now ArchiCAD has a notoriously bad 3D engine (it however is one of the few programs I know that should work better on an OpenGL card) but the same issue applies to most any program. The more complex a project becomes, the more polygons need to be drawn in a single pass, the more operations the computer has to do, etc. You see the same issue working with large files in Pshop.
SOM for example according to my sources split the Freedom tower Revit model into two seperate files because their computers kept crashing trying to load the entire building model.
Then again, manamana may blow this whole discussion to hell tomorrow morning so it may be worth waiting for his input.
oh my... I'll let manamana take this...
seriously, if i'm wrong point it out. Try not to be a total jerk about it though.
I'd really rather folks add to this convo than just come out and flame me then run off. I mean, if i'm that wrong than explain yourself.
from my own experience, i'm not sure this is true. i had a powerbook G4 during grad school (2004-2005) and felt that i got pretty good value out of it but i would hardly describe myself as a "lumberjack/draftsperson"
the programs that i remember using most were vectorworks (for some light drafting & 3d), photoshop, illustrator (for presentation posters), indesign (for books), a combination of dreamweaver, flash, imovie, and powerpoint (depending on the exact nature of the presentation) and eventually fell in love with sketchup for use in working with real estate projects with business school students. having said all of that, i really felt like i did a minimal amount of computer drafting in school and probably did 3/4 quarters of my drawings and modeling the old-fashion way with pencils, chipboard, xacto blades, grass seed, cheap perfumes, etc. a scanner and digital camera (still & video) were important tools in addition to the laptop.
i think that it's very possible to go through school with out using Autodesk at all.
apu (that name always reminds me of Samuari Jack); thanks for this thread, I think I was going crazy with all the laptop for grads/architects/moms & pops threads that kept appearing on archinect. It is great to know that I am part of the middle group aka those that will likely get things built cause they are focussed on more than pretty pictures (can you see I'm trying to start a fire??)
Nonetheless i wholeheartedly agree with your mac statements as well...not a description belittling the product (or any such limitation) but that fact that machines are built for a niche/populist market
I would also add that despite all the crap they get about being as common as salt dell make pretty robust machines. And if you think you may have a problem get a 2 yr warranty. They will replace it if any crap happens to it.
Hps get ridiculously hot, but the systems are amazing. If you intend for your laptop to be more of a desktop replacement then I wouldn't have a problem recommending it.
Oh and my advice is based off of having to buy 2 no. laptops in 3.5 yrs - exercising warranties, replacements, rebates from anti-virus programs that nearly crashed my system, etc.
oh and I fit into category two...and happily so.
wait sorry mishap on the mac statement...I believe they are in the sk'up, vw, archicad grouping
lb- what is the clockspeed of your charcoal? vine or compressed?
apu- you forgot the following architype:
auteur
wants to make movies about architecture and become famous. isn't very talented in the 3d rendering, but needs a computer to stitch all the footage from their cellphone together for the studio presentation. Cares about style and what the laptop looks like.
I have no clue what setup would serve these folks... any suggestions?
@metamechanic and rfuller:
it seems you're asking two different questions. building a render station is as simple as piecing together a good dual or quad processor desktop. 2x/4x dual or quad core processors and 8-32gig of ram will suffice for a high-end personal render workstation.
if you are asking how to build a render farm, then more processors spread out over a larger group of systems (called a cluster) is the appropriate choice.
render farm software is (mostly) parallel computing software. i.e. requiring a cluster of systems. more processors = more jobs queued and processed.
the beauty of clusters in today's market is they can built on the cheap. what is important is number of processors, amount of ram and the os and software used.
if you want to build a render farm, shop newegg for cheap motherboards and amd processors. build 10-20 barebone systems and run a render app on linux.
On the renderfarm/pile of motherboards tangent - there's this. Before the 8 core systems came out, the Mac Mini was actually a viable contender in the GHZ/$ calculation.
Regarding laptops - For type 3 students, I would add in the importance of screen quality and size. While each person might have their own preference regarding the size/weight trade offs between a 17" or a 15", a high quality and very high resolution screen (1600x1200 or 1920x1600) makes a world of difference and helps justify the work that the graphics card is doing. Usually these screens can only be found on laptops that meet the other goals of a type 3 student as well.
And in defense of macs, their Windows performance and reliability is fine. If the premium cost for the physical design & quality is worth it (for the low end macbook_pro it's not too much) then it's a viable option.
What are some brands of computers that are worth looking at? This could be broken down into laptops and desktops but I'm just curious which companies people tend to favor. I see a lot of Dell's and Apple's in studio and I am an Apple user my self but if I were to look at getting a higher end PC machine where should I look?
@cpnorris:
in my opinion, building usually yields a better, faster system for the cost. really, the only reason i would go with a big-box vendor is a) enterprise support and b) you can get a good deal when buying in bulk; but that requires a large installation.
ya never go with a big-box builder ever unless you like wasting money and not honing your intelligence
hmm..
I seem to remember using something like an old pentium II thinkpad with 32mbs of ram. 3 gig harddrive.
rendering with 3dmax V3, photoshop 5, and autocad 2000. Seemed I could make just as 'convincing' drawings then, as now.
although that's probably a subject of different thread, and I certainly don't want to go back to that set-up.
@metamechanic:
you can use windows server 2003 (or later) for the cluster. i'm unfamiliar with windows based clustering software, though.
i recommend linux because of stability, available cluster software and, yes, cost.
most large render farms (think ilm, pixar, etc) are linux. in fact, this month's linux journal has 'the spiderwick chronicles' on the cover.
I'd be interested to see if theres any sort of group verdict on a good PC laptop manufacturer, as this always seems to be a topic of debate on archinect.
plus I'm debating making a reverse switch from mac to PC
Core Duo is a previous generation processor. In 2008, you shouldn't buy anything less than a Core 2 Duo.
wow. apu got himself a red dot and everything.
mighty, is that like getting the clap? does apu need to apply ointment or something to treat his red dot? sorry. must be the hunger talking...
i'm also interested in an answer to Pixelwhore's question. is it worth building a laptop from scratch?
if you're looking for a powerful workstation for modeling and design, i say go with a desktop. laptops are great for casual work and play, but power consumption is a killer on a laptop. i don't see much use in laptops if it isn't treated like a portable device.
the point of a laptop is to be mobile. if you're killing your battery after 45-60 minutes of hardcore work, then it's the least efficient means of design; imo of course.
if you're intent on a laptop, then you want to spend the money and spec it out as high as it will go, including: bigger, longer lasting battery (e.g. if there is a choice between a 6 or a 9...take the 9), as much ram as you can get (which means not buying apple since 4gig = $800+ vs. dell or lenovo where 4gig = ~$500), the fastest processor available for the model, and always get a 7200 rpm drive when you can. faster drive = faster i/o access.
gpu cards make little difference, really, since most of the real work is handled on the processor and bus level. although, a mobile ati/nividia is always preferable.
i never use a laptop over 14" in size. i can't stand the idea of carrying a "portal" desktop computer. i think 17"+ laptops are the stupidest thing.
if you want that much weight and display, sit at a desk.
As far as mac not being as good for intense 3d work, this is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Rhino is now developing their software for mac, and anyone (even me!) can become a beta tester by filling out an application. Pros: free, full-version copy of Rhino OSX. Cons: software is still buggy, not fully implemented and somewhat different from the windows version.
Check it out at:
www.irhino3d.com
Wow, looks like there's an actual decent discussion going on in here instead of a flame war, I like.
I'm still waiting on manamana to school me though.
Good points everybody, and yes I meant Core 2 Duo.
On render farms: This a whole different ballgame from a studio laptop and I would really only suggest it for the most hardcore of users. I know maxwell comes built in with a means of distributing renders over a network (farming) but I've never played with it that much. As far as render farms go, you'll need to run Linux, over windows and I don't have a clue about mac render farms.
BTW, I have a 3 year old dell lappy which is sub lumberjack/drafter level and I do alright with it. If I was going to buy another lappy, i'm in the median range and would probably buy a thinkpad.
The one criteria you stipulate for the lumberjack is AutoCAD, and yet you suggest a mac would be appropriate?
For a high-end workstation (windows or OSX), a Mac Pro is a very good choice, and the price premium is not what you might expect.
Hoookkaaay...
This is going to be kind of stream of conscious. Mainly because I don't feel like editing into a coherent post...Also I don't think there's really any way I can do this without sounding like a pocket protector wearing prick, so apologies in advance.
You seem to be confused about graphics cards. "128 bit"? are you referring to memory capacity or bus width? Memory capacity is in megabytes, memory bus width is measured in bits.
From the beginning: there are basically three classes of laptop graphics subsystems. Integrated, discrete consumer, and discrete workstation. Integrated chips are called integrated because they're integrated into the processor northbridge chipset system. They're cheaper because manufacturers don't have to pay extra for third party (AMD/ATI or nVidia) chips. They're usually the slowest at 3d work but occasionally will best the older/slower end of the discrete consumer chips. Discrete consumer = the ATI radeon and nVidia geforce chips. These range from moderate general purpose graphics units to high end gaming lines. Performance in 3d applications varies widely, most are adequate for most 3D work. I would not in any way equate integrated chips with discrete consumer chips.
discrete workstation chips are identical to discrete consumer chips (every quadro has a geforce equivalent) except that the workstation class chips have additional OpenGL instructions and sometimes driver features unlocked. Some programs can make good use the additional features (maya is one) others not really (3dmax's OpenGL driver kinda sucks). Just because Max doesn't make good use of OpenGL doesn't mean the graphics card is unimportant, just that the difference between a quadro and its equivalent geforce is pretty much nil.
see specification tables for nvidia:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8600M.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8800M.html
http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_go.html
Note that quadros are not always faster. See the quadros with 64 bit memory interfaces and low clock speeds? they're old. Except in rare specific situations where those additional openGL features are required, the newer, higher clocked 128bit/256bit (note that's bus width not memory capacity) geforces will fare quite a bit better than an older quadro.
...in 3D work. Once again, ANY modern laptop will have acceptable 2D performance for just about anyone. I don't care how hard you push 3GB files in photoshop or the size of your autocad drawing, you'll hit the limit of other components well before the graphics chip even becomes an issue.
"the difference between actual clock speed and GHZ." GHz is the actual clock speed. processor cycles per second = clock speed. That's like saying your speed in miles per hour is not your actual speed. What you meant to get at was that some processors do more work per processor cycle than others due to differences in processor architectures. This was relevant back in the days of the pentium 4, but these days it's a moot point today because intel's core2 duo line and core2 quad chips do the most per clock cycle and reach the highest cycles per second. But that could change in 6 months.
Size of HD is virtually unimportant. Speed (5400rpm vs 7200 vs SSD) is very important. Depending on how you work maybe the most important.
the point about core duo / core 2 duo / etc has been made. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
If I were shopping for a laptop right now, I'd make sure to look for a penryn variant processor (launched a few weeks ago) for model numbers see
http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+Penryn+Mobile+Processor+Schedule+Revealed/article9893.htm
Just because you or your friend had a bad experience with XX brand of laptop, doesn't mean that brand sucks. There's really very few companies that manufacture their own laptops, for the most part, Macbooks come off the same assembly lines as vaios and dells and HPs. Different shells and more or less the same parts. There's high and low end for just about all of them, and you don't want to be scraping the bottom of the barrel on the low end from anybody.
You can work just fine on a Mac or a vaio if that's what you like. There are fewer options for macs as far as hardware goes, but I'd put a macbook pro (educational discount) on my list of contenders if I was shopping.
I'll clear up some of the misinfo on distributed rendering later.
Finally manamana's response
I have been waiting all day, to see where this was going to go.
While far more techie than anything i would know. I do tend to agree with him about the Mac Pro especially with an educational discount through your dept.
wow manamana...i would like to bring you to parties
Thanks mana, I meant to say 128 MB cards, and you elaborated on quite a few things that I thought was quite helpful.
I always thought however that clock speed was measured in flops, or calculations per second, and to my knowledge certain processors with high clock speeds (GHZ) are actually slower in terms of flops that some chips with lower clock speeds (the AMD vs. Pentium debate always circled around this issue I do believe)
My point was that alot of students will buy very high-end rigs thinking that it will give them an advantage, when in reality they wind up paying for the increased size, heat output and complexity of high-end systems designed for mobile gaming when i reality they could have spent half the money to buy a computer that would ultimately give them the same results.
Bottom line, and I do believe manamana will agree with me on this, the list of priorities when buying a laptop (as an architect with limited interest in 3d applications):
1. Processor Speed
2. Ram
3. HDD speed
4. Graphics card
in that order.
I also think it's important to point out another thing regarding bootlegged software. Nearly all PC's now are coming out with Windows Vista, and older software versions are non-compatible. For Vista, you need Rhino 4, AutoCAD 2008, at least 3dMax 8 and perhaps 9, Adobe CS3, etc. They encourage that you do not downgrade back to Windows XP--I'm not sure if this is an actual question of a difference performance, or just Microsoft's attempt to promote Vista. However, it would be good to keep this in mind regarding software availability.
At parties they call me LL pocket P. Ladies Love the Pocket Protector. For $60 an hour I'll be your wingman at a party and make you look immeasurably cooler by comparison.
Apu - FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second. Floating point operations are only one sort of operation that general processors do (there's also integer operations, etc). Not so useful a performance benchmark for average household or even advanced rendering computers. Clock speed is always going to be in GHz though, cycles per second is more or less the definition of clock speed. But clock speed is not always a measure of performance.
As for your list, I'd say that with todays dual core processors, RAM and HD speed are probably the most important unless you're rendering alot...and if you're rendering ALOT, it's probably more useful to pick up a cheap desktop quad from dell for the same price as adding 5-600Mhz to a laptop processor.
Speaking of ram, it's worth noting that manufacturers gouge on ram upgrades. adding ram is pretty dirt simple, so usually it's best to get the bare minimum when buying the laptop and get higher capacity replacement modules from crucial or newegg or mushkin.
Sorry Apurimac, my intention was not to flame this post. Moving on...
In regards to operating systems, Microsoft wants to eventually phase our XP. Sometime this year, they plan on providing a last Service Pack, SP3, and then stop support. Regardless, it's wrong to assume that nearly all windows-based machines are Vista based. Initially, the consumer "home" line, by default, came equipped with Vista, but the manufacturers learned quickly that this wasn't going to fly thus permitting the option to choose XP.
For an everyday end-user, switching from XP to Vista has no obvious costs except for the learning curve and 3rd party application compatibility. For a corporate environment, it means much more. It means making sure that all the internal hardware, external appliances, and proprietary and common software are compatible. This can be a painful and costly process.
I would like to use my current organization as an example. Even though it’s not your typical, homogenous environment, the number of users (out of 2700) we support who have Vista is marginal. In the IT department, we try to represent the user-base and we have two Vista machines set up as test boxes.
One point manamana made that I would like to stress is that just because you or your friend had a bad experience with a particular manufacturer does not mean its manufacturer is of poor quality. I’ve dealt with many, many kinds of notebooks and each have their pros and cons. Another point I would like to stress is that, unless you build your own machine, whoever you decide to go with, get a comprehensive warranty (ie Dell’s gold support).
so i can get away with 128mb graphics card, that's good. especially if i get a fast processor and 4mb of ram.
what about screen resolution? will i have trouble on a screen that's only 1280x800 pixels?
what about windows vista? will that slow my system down?
"
1. Processor Speed
2. Ram
3. HDD speed
4. Graphics card"
In today's market, 1/2/3 are pretty cheap to get. But a good video card will cost around $400 more. So this list make sense but kind of mislead. Nowadays, can you buy a laptop with top 1/2/3 but 128MB graphic card? I think this is wrong, but I can't defend myself yet.
Here is my another question: Does the required hardware to run CAD/MAX program really different with the hardwares to run games?
Chase, generally, the higher the resolution the more real estate on the desktop. Also, a screen resolution of 1280x800 on a 15" widescreen monitor will look different on a 21" widescreen monitor. The desktop will visually be larger on a 21". Either way, technically, you still have the same amount of real estate.
Personally, I've worked with AutoCAD in 1280x800 on a 15" laptop and i got by just fine. Right now I'm on a 1440x900 and it's much nicer. I haven't worked with any rendering programs with either resolution so I can't comment on that.
Be careful about one thing. Every LCD monitor has a "optimal" resolution setting, which is its highest setting. Any other (lower) setting loses its sharpness and clarity.
Windows Vista needs a lot of overhead. If you're system didn't come equipped with it by default then I would not recommend it.
----
CMRHM, to answer your first question, yes you can. To answer your second, no.
CMRHM, the required graphics cards to run games v.s. OpenGL programs like Rhino and Max are for all intents and purposes are completely different.
Any techie here can correct me on this, but gaming cards render frames through DirectX based coding, workstation cards render frames through openGL based coding. While all cards offer openGL and DirectX support a dedicated openGL card comes with a myriad of different hardware and software architectures that reduce the amount of time required to render a frame in your workspace in Rhino/Max/Whatever.
But I will say this a million times, when you actually do renderings, say through Vray, these always run through the processor not the graphics card.
Unless you're going to be crafting very complex 3d models with high polycounts the standard 128/256 MB graphics card the laptop comes standard with will serve just fine.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.