or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores - Page 5

post #161 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Yeah we've gone way off topic. Obviously we are both stubborn. But I have to address one last thing.



In broadcast television the title producer means something a bit different than movies and filmed television.

In movies and filmed television a PA is pretty much the worst job you can have and the complete polar opposite of a producer. They don't get any official credit to the project and certainly don't get credit as a producer.

A friend of mine Paul Lindsay is currently a PA on the television show Las Vegas, see his name in there with the producers?


I'm finished.

You can have the last word.
post #162 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

That's what I'm saying.

The business market is very difficult.....etc etc etc .....

All they have to do to entice gamers is to add a few more video cards.


I'd say having all the top games on release day is what enticers gamers. Apple doesn't, and hasn't done anything to to bring in game developers to the Mac. The switch to Intel has made it somewhat easier, but all those direct X games have to re-written specifically for OGL, and that's just piling more work on developers. Mac is a small market for games. I wish Apple would start a gaming strategy because that would bring in more users, but there is no indication that Apple will ever break out of the constraints they put on themselves, by saying we are interested in "this" and "that", but "these" sales, developers, and users are not for us.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #163 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

So back on topic...which of the various OS's (Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris) is best for a 8 core Mac Pro? Just from the perspective of SMP support...

Right now it would be Linux (depending on which version), and Solaris.

Solaris is designed for that, and the commercial versions of Linux are as well. So is IBM's AIX, and their other OS's.

Windows, so far, becomes less efficient above 4 sockets, or cores, and while X does pretty well at 4, we don't really know much about it with 8. The one test in Anands showed no problems with it running with 8 cores, but he didn't have time to do useful tests on performance, other than to say it seemed to do well with multitasking.

Hopefully, Leopard will have some optimizations in Mach that will eliminate some of the reported problems in threading.
post #164 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I'd say having all the top games on release day is what enticers gamers. Apple doesn't, and hasn't done anything to to bring in game developers to the Mac. The switch to Intel has made it somewhat easier, but all those direct X games have to re-written specifically for OGL, and that's just piling more work on developers. Mac is a small market for games. I wish Apple would start a gaming strategy because that would bring in more users, but there is no indication that Apple will ever break out of the constraints they put on themselves, by saying we are interested in "this" and "that", but "these" sales, developers, and users are not for us.

That's true. Apple seems to run hot and cold over games. Remember in the '90's when they made such a big deal about "Game Sprockets"? Then they did little to move further with it.

Right now, I see gamers as being excited about BootCamp. They don't seem to mind re-booting for games, as long as the performance is there.**graphics cards**

Unlike many other computer users, gamers are willing to put up with more bother for their hobby.

It really isn't such a big bother to re-boot. If you're turning your machine from a computer (OS X), to a game machine (XP or Vista), the two minutes isn't really such a big deal.

And from the word that is out there right now, Vista runs current games 15% to 20% slower than XP does. That will change over time, but it could be an incentive for gamers over the next year or so to move over and use XP for games, rather than to get a new Vista machine.
post #165 of 184
I don't know about that. Isn't Leopard supposed to be a multi-core-friendly OS?
post #166 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwidspawn

I don't know about that. Isn't Leopard supposed to be a multi-core-friendly OS?

It is. But that doesn't mean it scales infinitely well.

The requirements change slightly as the number of cores go up. What may be optimised for two cores may be very inefficient on four. You can work it out from there.

The more cores, the more threads needed. If the OS can't spread out with a lot of cores then the speed will hardly increase as the core count goes up. That's way oversimplified, but it's a problem that the OS teams have to deal with.
post #167 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

It is. But that doesn't mean it scales infinitely well.

The requirements change slightly as the number of cores go up. What may be optimised for two cores may be very inefficient on four. You can work it out from there.

The more cores, the more threads needed. If the OS can't spread out with a lot of cores then the speed will hardly increase as the core count goes up. That's way oversimplified, but it's a problem that the OS teams have to deal with.

So as I understand it, the speed of chips wont have to go up as long as the number of cores breaks down the number calculations the OS has to do..er I mean each individual core. Like a huge graphic or 3d render job spread over 8 cores that run at say 2ghz is much more efficient as doing all the computational work on one or 2 cores runing at say 3-4 ghz?
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
post #168 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa

So as I understand it, the speed of chips wont have to go up as long as the number of cores breaks down the number calculations the OS has to do..er I mean each individual core. Like a huge graphic or 3d render job spread over 8 cores that run at say 2ghz is much more efficient as doing all the computational work on one or 2 cores runing at say 3-4 ghz?

This is what they're hoping. But it doesn't really work that way.

Only some programs can work with more than two cores and gain more speed.

Look at PS. Two cores give almost twice the speed, but going to four does nothing. it must be rewrittwn for more cores.

An example: An OS on one core might do a task in, say for ease of arithmetic, 10 seconds. with two cores, it might take 6 seconds. With 4, it might take 4 seconds, with 8, it might take 2.5 seconds. You don't get linear scaling.

The problem is threefold.

The chips don't scale linearly either. They get more inefficient as the number goes up. Then the OS loses efficiency as well.

Then, finally, the program has to scale well.

There will be many cases where a program works 25% faster on an 8 core machine then it does on a one core machine.

For most users, the gain will be in multitasking. Using several programs at once.

That was supposedly the advantage of the OS with one cpu as well. But, it never lived up to its hype.

OS X works much better with two cores, even for OS tasks alone.
post #169 of 184
I guess the quesiton isn't just support but efficiency at the kernel level for SMP. Is xnu any better than say Linux? Is Solaris king? How well locking and synchconization is implemented will impact the OS's performance in SMP environments. How well IOKit handles synchonization determines how well drivers work in a SMP environment.

I know just enough to ask the question but not enough to figure out the right answer. Perhaps I need to start reading Ars again.

Vinea
post #170 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

I guess the quesiton isn't just support but efficiency at the kernel level for SMP. Is xnu any better than say Linux? Is Solaris king? How well locking and synchconization is implemented will impact the OS's performance in SMP environments. How well IOKit handles synchonization determines how well drivers work in a SMP environment.

I know just enough to ask the question but not enough to figure out the right answer. Perhaps I need to start reading Ars again.

Vinea

Just don't post. If you think I'm bad...
post #171 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

This is what they're hoping. But it doesn't really work that way.

Of course you're generalizing somewhat. What problem the software is trying to solve and how its written play a huge part in the efficiency numbers. I've seen (and written) cases where a linear speed up was achieved on an increasing number of cores. Its even better to get better than linear in some cases. What it comes down to is where the bottleneck is, and how the software partitions the work. Unfortunately most software quickly becomes bandwidth and/or memory latency bound, and then adding cores typically doesn't improve the situation much. Software the has to communicate between the cores runs into other bottlenecks. And so on. As time goes on and developers get better at this (and the tools improve) then the performance scalability should generally be better.

Keep in mind also that nothing scales linearly... clock rate, cache sizes, number of cores, etc. all suffer from diminishing returns. Even mindlessly increasing bandwidth or decreasing latency involves tradeoffs that mean its not worth pushing them to extremes.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #172 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

Of course you're generalizing somewhat. What problem the software is trying to solve and how its written play a huge part in the efficiency numbers. I've seen (and written) cases where a linear speed up was achieved on an increasing number of cores. Its even better to get better than linear in some cases. What it comes down to is where the bottleneck is, and how the software partitions the work. Unfortunately most software quickly becomes bandwidth and/or memory latency bound, and then adding cores typically doesn't improve the situation much. Software the has to communicate between the cores runs into other bottlenecks. And so on. As time goes on and developers get better at this (and the tools improve) then the performance scalability should generally be better.

Keep in mind also that nothing scales linearly... clock rate, cache sizes, number of cores, etc. all suffer from diminishing returns. Even mindlessly increasing bandwidth or decreasing latency involves tradeoffs that mean its not worth pushing them to extremes.

I was going to mention that a very few specialized programs can scale better than linearly, but not by much, and it is rare enough so that is doesn't affect most people.

If we take a look at the top 500 supercomputer list and specs, we can see just how poorly some cpu's scale.
post #173 of 184
Well I don't know if this has been said, but couldn't Apple put SLi or Crossfire in their Mac Pro, which would obviously increase the graphics power. It seems like they could easily do that, am I right?
post #174 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrometheusMMX

Well I don't know if this has been said, but couldn't Apple put SLi or Crossfire in their Mac Pro, which would obviously increase the graphics power. It seems like they could easily do that, am I right?


Arrrggg!

But, welcome anyway.
post #175 of 184
If they do have a 8 core macpro, it should have 32gb of memory. That would cost $20000 more.
post #176 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpiddly

If they do have a 8 core macpro, it should have 32gb of memory. That would cost $20000 more.

Ummmmmm yeah. Not for quite a while my friend...
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
post #177 of 184
Quote:
I'd say having all the top games on release day is what enticers gamers. Apple doesn't, and hasn't done anything to to bring in game developers to the Mac. The switch to Intel has made it somewhat easier, but all those direct X games have to re-written specifically for OGL, and that's just piling more work on developers. Mac is a small market for games. I wish Apple would start a gaming strategy because that would bring in more users, but there is no indication that Apple will ever break out of the constraints they put on themselves, by saying we are interested in "this" and "that", but "these" sales, developers, and users are not for us.

That's true. Apple seems to run hot and cold over games. Remember in the '90's when they made such a big deal about "Game Sprockets"? Then they did little to move further with it.

Right now, I see gamers as being excited about BootCamp. They don't seem to mind re-booting for games, as long as the performance is there.**graphics cards**

Unlike many other computer users, gamers are willing to put up with more bother for their hobby.

It really isn't such a big bother to re-boot. If you're turning your machine from a computer (OS X), to a game machine (XP or Vista), the two minutes isn't really such a big deal.

And from the word that is out there right now, Vista runs current games 15% to 20% slower than XP does. That will change over time, but it could be an incentive for gamers over the next year or so to move over and use XP for games, rather than to get a new Vista machine.

Nods. Apple does seem to run hot and cold. And they do seem to have some unnecessary self imposed barriers to gaming.

3 gaming towers under the Quad range ie some Conroe towers would be a great range between the mini Mac and the Workstation. They'd sell more towers that way. And get a nice cut. Sure they'd lose 'some' cannibal iMac sales. But those who want a gaming rig probably aren't going to buy an iMac anyway?

Apple seem to make a fuss about games on its gaming pages...but it's not at the fore of Apple's business. But they don't mind 'boasting' about Doom and Quake framerates on the Mac Pro page. And they DO support Open GL...the open(?) standard. So...there's something(!) there. Isn't the technologies to port Direct X to GL/Macs out there now? There have been a couple of such technologies boasting Press Releases in the last few years?

Apple aren't far away now from selling 2 million Macs per quarter. That's 8 million a year. After four years? That's 32 million Macs on top of installed base of 30 million?

Don't tell me people can walk away from 64 million of anything? That's comparable to any amount of sales the PS3, 360 or Wii may get over the next four years?

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #178 of 184
http://www.barefeats.com/imcd4.html

Hmm. Gaming iMac is starting to look a reality...

But that doesn't rule out a Conroe tower with an Ati 1900...

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #179 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple aren't far away now from selling 2 million Macs per quarter. That's 8 million a year. After four years? That's 32 million Macs on top of installed base of 30 million?

Don't tell me people can walk away from 64 million of anything? That's comparable to any amount of sales the PS3, 360 or Wii may get over the next four years?

What you are missing is that most of the people buying Macs aren't buying any (or at least not many) games for them, whereas the gaming console owners are buying on average 10 games per year (and that's conservative). So if you compare the game sales for the 360 to Mac, and assume both will be about 64 million machines in 4 years, then you'll see ~50 times the game sales on the console. And developing for a console is easier/cheaper than for the Mac (there is exactly 1 version of the console hardware, as opposed to many flavors of Mac).

This doesn't mean there won't be any games for the Mac, just that it isn't going to be notable as a significant gaming platform. You may see Apple put a bit of increased emphasis on it in the near future in order to add games to iTV much like the iPod now has games. They'll typically be the big hits and a lot of casual games.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #180 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

What you are missing is that most of the people buying Macs aren't buying any (or at least not many) games for them, whereas the gaming console owners are buying on average 10 games per year (and that's conservative). So if you compare the game sales for the 360 to Mac, and assume both will be about 64 million machines in 4 years, then you'll see ~50 times the game sales on the console. And developing for a console is easier/cheaper than for the Mac (there is exactly 1 version of the console hardware, as opposed to many flavors of Mac).

This doesn't mean there won't be any games for the Mac, just that it isn't going to be notable as a significant gaming platform. You may see Apple put a bit of increased emphasis on it in the near future in order to add games to iTV much like the iPod now has games. They'll typically be the big hits and a lot of casual games.

I agree with the idea of problems with Mac game development.

But, I'm'talking about the interes in the Mac platform from PC gamers.

We wouldn't need much game development for the Mac, if they could play PC games well.

Crossover allows some games to play very well on Linux. That's another area to look to.

When Crossover Mac is officially out, we will see how many games it plays, and how well.
post #181 of 184
This is a such a small market as to be insignificant, and does not justify any costs accured to Apple in pursuit of it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #182 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

This is a such a small market as to be insignificant, and does not justify any costs accured to Apple in pursuit of it.

I've always said that it is a small market, as a percentage of total computer users. But, taking that market as a percentage of Mac users, it isn't so small. It can easily equal the entire yearly sales of the platform, if not more. That's not just the "crazies" of course.

Providing Boot Camp, is already part of Apple's program. Exactly why they are providing it is only a guess. Is it for business users? For schools? For home users? For gamers?

For all of them?

That part of the requirement is already in place. If Apple provided three or four other video cards, they wouldn't be only for gamers.

The cost to Apple isn't enormous, but the benefits could be.

If Apple picked up just 200 thousand users who moved because games could now be played on the platform, at an average price of $2,000, that would be $400 million in sales.

Any costs to achieve that would be trivial.

Apple has wasted far more than that on initiatives over the years.
post #183 of 184
Quote:
This is a such a small market as to be insignificant

I don't think 64 million is insignificant. I wouldn't say even 30 million as an installed base is insignificant.

If Apple can get some die hard gamers sold on Apple kit? I'm for it. With X-Code, Open GL 2, Leopard...Apple's platform is hardly prehistoric to develop for.

To me, the gaming market is Apple's untapped gold mine which could really add to the bottom line of a company which is already performing outstandingly well. An extra 100k or 200k of units per year? All adds to the bottom line. And let's face it, the Mac Pro is outstanding value for money but it's still expensive compared to your average PC tower...selling in the £795 to £1395 range. That's a big chunk of buyers. Auntie Gladice and iMac sales aside.

It's been a while since the Apple II had the gaming halo or the Mac has Lucas Films developing hot games. But things are different now.

2, 4, 8 cores. GPUs that are hardly pushed to their limits in many ways. Loads of ram. Loads of hard drive space. Forward thinking technology in Leopard.

I think Apple's Mac is looking like a very potent gaming platform or anything platform. There are more Mac developers than there have every been. Apple are selling more Macs than ever, in record numbers. And they have stores to sell Apple software...games...all sorts of stuff. Apple sell alot of developer software at their stores. So, sooner or later, more games, more concurrent game releases will be a reality if Apple's current growth tradjectory holds fast.

I remain steadfast in my believe that gaming on the Mac is an untapped seam.

It just requires a different tower range along side the iMac range. GPU power that trades the bundled monitor. And obviously uses Conroe instead. And as Apple reaches higher quarterly sales, there's no reason why they mightn't broaden their outlook and their range or product. (They did add the 'low cost' Mac Mini, didn't they? Despite the genuine reservations many had on these boards before it came to pass...)

And that's Bootcamp aside.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #184 of 184
Quote:
I've always said that it is a small market, as a percentage of total computer users. But, taking that market as a percentage of Mac users, it isn't so small. It can easily equal the entire yearly sales of the platform, if not more. That's not just the "crazies" of course.

Providing Boot Camp, is already part of Apple's program. Exactly why they are providing it is only a guess. Is it for business users? For schools? For home users? For gamers?

For all of them?

That part of the requirement is already in place. If Apple provided three or four other video cards, they wouldn't be only for gamers.

The cost to Apple isn't enormous, but the benefits could be.

If Apple picked up just 200 thousand users who moved because games could now be played on the platform, at an average price of $2,000, that would be $400 million in sales.

Any costs to achieve that would be trivial.

Apple has wasted far more than that on initiatives over the years.

Yeah. Something like that.

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores