BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 27d, 19h, 45m | CPU: 21% | MEM: 6002MB of 11092MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: 8-core Apple Mac Pro unveiled        Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:31 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Image
8-core Mac Pro available

It's finally happened.

Apple has now unveiled the new high-end configuration of its Intel-based "Mac Pro" workstations, featuring two quad-core Xeon "Clovertown" CPUs, making up for a total of eight 64-bit cores running at 3 GHz each.

Now how would that beast perform in Final Cut Pro or Photoshop CS3? I have just started dreaming of hosting dozens of virtual machines on it using Parallels or VMware... :D Put 8GB or 16GB of RAM into that beast and off you go...

http://www.apple.com/macpro


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:10 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1524

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
Sweet!

** Fireware buys it, then installs Windows 95 on it. ***

muahahaha!

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:21 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
That would be a sweet box to run some DOS games on, wouldn't it?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:50 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
empireum wrote:
That would be a sweet box to run some DOS games on, wouldn't it?

Won't make a difference, DOS apps only take advantage of the first core.

I'd love to use it as a compile farm (-j17 sounds good...).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:31 am 
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12473

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Quote:
"...and components, the über-configurable Mac Pro lets you build..."


I like their wording, "Uber" :D

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:01 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
ppc_digger wrote:
empireum wrote:
That would be a sweet box to run some DOS games on, wouldn't it?

Won't make a difference, DOS apps only take advantage of the first core.

I'd love to use it as a compile farm (-j17 sounds good...).

I know; this was a joke (it's not April 1st anymore, but anyway...) :lol: I'd run OS X and Linux on it, of course, no way MS would be gonna touch this baby if it was in my possession.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:36 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Posts
149
Call me old fashioned, but I always find one core enough. I could burn CDs, work in Word, listen to music, download stuff off Bittorent without any slow down (and my PCs aren't new). How does more than once core improve this as all the ads claim? Yes, I might even play DOS games.

Please respond with realistic senarios, playing two games at once is not realistic.

Of course I wouldn't mind owning an 8 core computer no matter what OS is installed on it.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:01 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Okay, what about:

– surfing the internet
– listening to music
– writing in a text processor or doing image editing
– compiling something or running a 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) OS in VMware

This is a scenario I am having almost daily, and especially the last is substiantially sped up when running on two coress, or when it's running on one core alone and the other stuff is on the other. With two (or more) processors or cores, there's no slow-down (if you have enough RAM and a fast HD, that is), with one core, a scenario like the above would push the system to the limits and produce a noticable lag (in my own experience).

That's why I love my dual-core box, I can do all that stuff at once but the system does not lag.

Of course I admit that 8 cores would be a bit excessive, but I am sure that the majority of the people buying the box not just because they're geeks actually need the power. I mean, the thing is not cheap.

Or what about virtualising and thus consolidating a small array of servers on one machine? Saves space and electricity.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:20 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:27 pm

Posts
29
If you think about it, this could be quite possible when intel's core 2 quad processors come into mainstream.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:34 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
For now, it seems to be a bit too pricey to buy unless you really need that much processing power. But as with everything, prices will go down.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:34 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
I don't know if photoshop can handel more then 2 cores (that is do anything with them)...

Final Cut, If I am correct does not go over 4...

So the clocks may not be very impressive :(

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:43 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
ppc_digger wrote:
empireum wrote:
That would be a sweet box to run some DOS games on, wouldn't it?

Won't make a difference, DOS apps only take advantage of the first core.

I'd love to use it as a compile farm (-j17 sounds good...).

run 8 dos apps

when i read the title i expect 1 cpu with 8 cores, not 2 cpus


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:31 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
___ wrote:
run 8 dos apps

when i read the title i expect 1 cpu with 8 cores, not 2 cpus

8 DOS apps, great use for such a machine... :roll: And currently, 8-core CPUs are not available (at least not for this market).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:17 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
i know, but it said unveiled in the title so i thought it was now


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:51 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
OK, then it was my fault because I used the wrong word :oops:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:37 pm 
wow 8 cores!
talk about power hungry computers!


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:02 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:44 pm

Posts
83
8 cores.... Pfft! If you can't scale up, scale out. Or in this case, if you can't make a single faster processor - make loads of processors work together.

What gets me is that nothing new is happening here. For years we've had SMP architechtures. It's just more recently it's being brought to the desktop environment. Multi-processor servers and high-end workstations being refined into multi-core single processors. The question that I've got is - how far are they going to take it? I know for a fact that IBM offer a server solution that can have up to 64 processors (because I've used it!). Will the likes of Intel develop single processors with this many cores? I doubt it - but it'll be interesting to see where they draw the line....


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:13 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Well, I think the multi-core thing is a nice touch and it's essentially bringing some of SMP's advantages to the desktop or the notebook market. I mean, the time when the processors were boasting with exploding clock speeds of >3GHz seems to have come to an end, no exploding clock speeds (or at least not increasing as fast as they were before) but multiple cores and software that knows how to benefit from them. I admit, 8 cores are maybe a bit excessive, but I bet there are applications and usage scenarios where these can be efficiently used. I don't know when this is gonna stop, but if we have 64 cores per CPU someday, maybe we'll also have an app that can use them all.

I personally consider the dual-core CPU in my notebook a vast improvement over the single-core ones, especially considering the fact I regularly do stuff where a second CPU/core can achieve significant performance improvements. I know, a 2-core notebook is not an 8/16/32-core monster, but still. I consider it the right way to go, or at least a better way than cranking the CPU frequency up until the thing smokes.

I agree, SMP/multi-processor machines are nothing new, they've been around for years, but now, this "luxury" has been made available to everyone.

If you refer to the wording I used, maybe it sounded a bit too euphoric.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:19 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
psiren wrote:
The question that I've got is - how far are they going to take it?

To me even 8 cores seems pretty pointless except for a few specific uses, given that most software can't really take advantage of more than two, though I suppose if they become popular then more apps that are designed for large numbers of cores might appear. I'm sure you wouldn't notice a lot of difference most of the time between this 8 core Pro and, say, the 4 core Pro (though I doubt the 4 core Pro is ever slow at anything, so would it even be possible for the 8 core one to "feel" faster?!)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:29 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yep, for now, I'd say, even for cases that we might describe as "extreme", 4 cores would be enough. The 8-core one seems to be more a "proof of concept". A proof of concept you can buy if you're fortunate enough.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:35 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:44 pm

Posts
83
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Would it even be possible for the 8 core one to "feel" faster?


One of the limitations in the multi-processor server enviroment was cache snooping. As in, how does CPU 6 know if the memory range it wants to operate on isn't already in CPU 2's cache? (and thereby the 'copy' thats in main memory 'stale'). It was even counter productive (in some respects) to have cache enabled on the processors! IBM released cache coherency cards that made sure cached and main memory data was consistent and thereby helping to speed things up.

I'm guessing that on these newer 8-core processors that the cache for the processor is shared amongst the cores? (as in say 1MB used as collective cache as opposed to split 8 ways?)

Also, maybe more cores WOULD be useful for general Windows (particularly Vista's) operation. Core #1 can be used exclusively for explorer.exe. Core #2 can be the first 5 services. Core #3 can be the next 5 services... etc. Lol. One core per Windows process. Ha har!!! Lets see Vista give me my System performance Rating now! Betcha I still get a crap result :wink:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:42 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
psiren wrote:
Core #1 can be used exclusively for explorer.exe. Core #2 can be the first 5 services. Core #3 can be the next 5 services... etc. Lol. One core per Windows process. Ha har!!! Lets see Vista give me my System performance Rating now! Betcha I still get a crap result :wink:

I hope Windows never becomes that bloated! :P Of course, you could still get a score of the minimum 1.0 with that CPU, as the overall score is the lowest subscore so that is the score you would get with 2x Clovertowns and some really bad integrated graphics card...My CPU (P4HT 3.4 GHz) gets 4.3 - presumably these high-end multi-core ones (Core2 etc) get much closer to the maximum, which I think is currently 5.9.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:01 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
I think we need a system program that assigns the process load equally on differerent cores, or havn't so many cores isn't useful.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:52 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
I think this is very important but the only way how such a program would be benificial is if it could predict the load. Furthermore, we would have to wait as different tasks are being evaluated; many processes depend on the way their preceding proccess completes (AKA evaluates).

It is very hard for the processor to determine which way to jump before the initial taks is evaulated (If... Then... cmp ... jmp ) but the tasks come very small bites (pun). For example, there may only be 10 lines per every evaluation. Therefore, many programs can not benifit from SMP ever!

Yet, there are times when information will be recieved very predicatable. For example, if we are rendering a 'g old bmp we know that these elements will always be there:

Code:
Byte, Value
1-2   66 77   "BM"
3-6   Size
7-10   0000
11-14   Offset
15-18   40000
19-22   Width
23-26   Height
27-28   10
29-32   Actual data
33-36   Should be 0000
37-53   Something that I forget :-(

We could assign getting each of these functions to a seperate core. Or even to tell each core to extract a proportional peice of the data - assuming its in memory (yes, this example is flawed :(; but I hope you see my point )

What really needs to be done is to add certain calls so that the programer can tell the CPU that he is about to do an operation that can be effectivley divided. For example "INT 837780h" that the proceding code will follow a specific format where the operation can be subdivided into catagories that can be grouped together.

-=-=-=-
On a final note it is my personal opinion that what we need is less of those 64 CPU systems that can only use 8 CPUs (or even 1 for most of the work) but instead faster single CPUs. Companies realized that the market can be tricked into buying multiple core CPUs instead of faster ones. Many of my less computer oriented friends believed when purchasing a computer that having two cores ment adding the two speeds....

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:58 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am

Posts
590

Location
Israel
Frozenport wrote:
For example "INT 837780h" that the proceding code will follow a specific format where the operation can be subdivided into catagories that can be grouped together.

A 24-bit interrupt number? I doubt it :D
Move seriously, though, software interrupts aren't used to communicate with the CPU, but to communicate with the OS. If someone was to implement your idea, it would probably be a regular x86 instruction.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS