Apple's own pro apps via Compressor then Qmaster - After Effects - C4D - there's heaps more ... no point having all that heavy hitting capacity and not using it to full advantage.
Most of us set up the renders/transcoding to run at the end of the day - come back next am, all done. Sweet !
I say that with the qualification that some software isn't, never will be and doesn't benefit from threading. However the vast majority of apps available on Apple platforms use some amount of threading, either by design or via included libraries.
The advent of Snow Leopard (SL) and Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) resulted in improved threading for many apps without a major coding effort for the developers. Of course you need to understand that GCD is just one way to exploit extra execution engines in your hardware. Many of Apples included apps got a significant boost in performance simply the result of SL. Other apps useing various approaches to threading exist. Video processing, Ray Tracing, engineering software and other apps can be heavily threaded. Development tools can often start up multiple instances of a compiler to drastically reduce compile times.
These are heavier uses of threading but most Mac software uses some threading to keep the user interface responsive while things happen in background. For example printing a document can be handled in a thread while the main app continues to function. Like wise with spell cheating and other things that happen concurrently as you create a document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeph
Specifically, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading?
I'm not sure what you mean by full advantage? How an app benefits from threading depends upon a couple of things. For one; each solution to a problem results in a program that may or may not heavily leverage threading. Two; programmer skill is significant here, just because programmer X implements a threaded solution, it doesn't mean programmer Y can't do a better job. Three; even highly threadable problems run into hardware limitations where adding more cores slows down the overall gain significantly. This due to communications and data transfer overhead. Four; one programmer might add one thread to an app and consider it fully threaded, another might add ten to the same app.
In the end what I'm saying is that there is no way to truly define an answer to your question.
Quote:
To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this.
I believe your choice of words is less than optimal here, as the word optimized implies optimal usage of a capability. I believe this is misguided for one thing you might not be able to ever find the optimal threading implementation for an app. Some problems are almost brain dead easy to thread but even then what does it mean to have an optimal solution.
Quote:
Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
The list of software that uses no threading at all is likely tiny compared to apps that leverage two or more threads. Think about your common tools that most user operate these days. Mail programs, word processors, web browsers and many others on everybodies desktop have some threading built in of one sort or another.
Something like some versions of Safari use multiple techniques such as running Flash in a separate process. This to reduce crashing but it also means that flash could be running on a different CPU. WebKit is currently being reworked to support more threading capabilities. Will this result in future versions of Safari using 24 cores efficiently? Probably not but those cores aren't exclusive to Safari anyways.
A few days ago, in another unrelated thread, I mentioned that it was time for the Mini to go quad core. I believe this is the case because it is the best way to support common use cases. For example it is not uncommon for people to have FaceTime, Skype or other video calling program running while doing other things. Some of these programs can take a significant amount of your CPU performance thus extra cores brings you back to parity. Also enhancements to apps means that they can better leverage those cores. Really if you look back to when dual cores where announced people dismiss them as unneeded, yet we saw very rapid adoption once the benefit was seen by users. SL gave Apple the long term infrastructure to make 2+ cores viable. So yeah a minimal of quad cores in a Mini makes sense these days. We simply have another level of expectations.
There was a time when Apple would sue, win, and subsequently bankrupt a company for doing any design even remotely close to theirs.
Where the heck have those days gone?!
Maybe they'd be embarrassed to make a fuss over a machine whose specs put their "big iron" desktop MacPro to shame? Nah, nothing embarrasses them, probably better to think they seriously do NOT want to draw any extra attention to a computer like this Sony.
And for the record, I've been using Macs since May 1984... that year I invested in the machine, the fat mac 512k upgrade and a 10MB internal HDD to the tune of over 4 grand (would have been over 5 but I got an edu discount on the machine itself).
There was a time when Apple would sue, win, and subsequently bankrupt a company for doing any design even remotely close to theirs.
Where the heck have those days gone?!
Laugh all you want, but the HDMI IO is useful. You can use the display as a TV when you have a digital TV box. Why not use that screen? Reversely, you can use the BluRay/DVD drive to play back movies on a big-screen TV.
It does not look as good as an iMac and (more importantly) it does not have OSX, but if the price is right I can see this doing well.
On a different note, why is this in the MacPro thread?
I say that with the qualification that some software isn't, never will be and doesn't benefit from threading. However the vast majority of apps available on Apple platforms use some amount of threading, either by design or via included libraries.
etc.etc.etc.
The list of software that uses no threading at all is likely tiny compared to apps that leverage two or more threads. Think about your common tools that most user operate these days. Mail programs, word processors, web browsers and many others on everybodies desktop have some threading built in of one sort or another.
edited for brevity
I am an ignoramus (albeit an enthusiastic one!) so I'll take your word for it.
However, there were some DAW benchmark tests last year that demonstrated that most DAW's do not take full advantage of hyper-threading and multi-core processing under OSX. It was better under SnowLeopard (compared to Leopard) but nowhere near as efficient as W7.
For perspective, the guy doing the testing builds custom DAW PC's for a living, so he is not entirely devoid of bias, but I believe his basic method is sound and don't think he could fake it completely without being found out.
Laugh all you want, but the HDMI IO is useful. You can use the display as a TV when you have a digital TV box. Why not use that screen? Reversely, you can use the BluRay/DVD drive to play back movies on a big-screen TV.
HDMI is digital lossless audio/video: yes it is very usefull: you can connect second LCD monitor, or run HDMI cable to your stereo receiver to view BluRay or streaming movies on big TV, listen streaming Pandora or your MP3 collection though some quality floor standing speakers. I wish iMac would come out with HDMI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeph
It does not look as good as an iMac and (more importantly) it does not have OSX, but if the price is right I can see this doing well.
I agree, you can't beat iMac industrial design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeph
On a different note, why is this in the MacPro thread?
Sorry, my bad: I've had iMac thread opened in the other tab but posted in this thread instead.
Just seven? Theoretically may be seven. There is no 1x7 Thunderbolt splitter available. You can get 1x16 HDMI splitter now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple TV. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
"Better" if you don't mind paying $100 for AppleTV and agree to be locked into its limitations. And how do you get your video from AppleTV to TV? Via HDMI! AppleTV is just a $100 middle man with lots of limitations and no web browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
AirPlay. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
AirPlay cost $100. Plus I would have to throw away my receiver to buy AirPlay compatible Denon receiver. The cheapest is $700 street, but the good audiophile quality AirPlay compatible Denon will cost twice more. HDMI is on the other hand industry standard works with most even 5 year old receivers/TVs.
Also AirPlay works over your Wi-Fi network and, as anybody who uses Wi-Fi knows, it's not always rock-solid. In testing some AirPlay speakers, we experienced the occasional dropout and even a few complete disconnections, but if you want go from computer to receiver wirelessly, there are much cheaper solutions compatible with any receivers/speakers (so you more equipment choices).
Direct HDMI wire will always be cheapest, most reliable and setup-free solution.
Yes, you can browse web on your TV using VAIO-HDMI connection and included wireless keyboard. You can also do it using Sony stand alone BluRay player (via Wi-Fi or Ethernet), or Logitech Google TV device.
While I have no use for this machine, I don't think it dead yet. It will continue for a few more years, but very soon hardware will no longer matter. We are quickly approaching a world were the hardware is way beyond the needs of the software. Then the MacPro will die.
Yes, you can browse web on your TV using VAIO-HDMI connection and included wireless keyboard. You can also do it using Sony stand alone BluRay player (via Wi-Fi or Ethernet), or Logitech Google TV device.
You did not know it???
I'm making fun of the idea of doing it at all. I've known it was possible since before the Internet existed. There's just absolutely no reason to do it.
One problem with the list is there aren't any video programs in that, most of those are still image apps of different kinds. Most still image software uses probably do fine with a quad, it's the video and maybe 3D users that might want more than that.
Comments
Guess you didn't read my post about Handbrake...
So that makes one.
Most of us set up the renders/transcoding to run at the end of the day - come back next am, all done. Sweet !
The advent of Snow Leopard (SL) and Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) resulted in improved threading for many apps without a major coding effort for the developers. Of course you need to understand that GCD is just one way to exploit extra execution engines in your hardware. Many of Apples included apps got a significant boost in performance simply the result of SL. Other apps useing various approaches to threading exist. Video processing, Ray Tracing, engineering software and other apps can be heavily threaded. Development tools can often start up multiple instances of a compiler to drastically reduce compile times.
These are heavier uses of threading but most Mac software uses some threading to keep the user interface responsive while things happen in background. For example printing a document can be handled in a thread while the main app continues to function. Like wise with spell cheating and other things that happen concurrently as you create a document.
Specifically, what software out there takes full advantage of multi-threading?
I'm not sure what you mean by full advantage? How an app benefits from threading depends upon a couple of things. For one; each solution to a problem results in a program that may or may not heavily leverage threading. Two; programmer skill is significant here, just because programmer X implements a threaded solution, it doesn't mean programmer Y can't do a better job. Three; even highly threadable problems run into hardware limitations where adding more cores slows down the overall gain significantly. This due to communications and data transfer overhead. Four; one programmer might add one thread to an app and consider it fully threaded, another might add ten to the same app.
In the end what I'm saying is that there is no way to truly define an answer to your question.
To my (admittedly limited) knowledge there is very little out there that has been optimized for this.
I believe your choice of words is less than optimal here, as the word optimized implies optimal usage of a capability. I believe this is misguided for one thing you might not be able to ever find the optimal threading implementation for an app. Some problems are almost brain dead easy to thread but even then what does it mean to have an optimal solution.
Other than Apple's own software (Logic Pro) I really do not know of any.
The list of software that uses no threading at all is likely tiny compared to apps that leverage two or more threads. Think about your common tools that most user operate these days. Mail programs, word processors, web browsers and many others on everybodies desktop have some threading built in of one sort or another.
Something like some versions of Safari use multiple techniques such as running Flash in a separate process. This to reduce crashing but it also means that flash could be running on a different CPU. WebKit is currently being reworked to support more threading capabilities. Will this result in future versions of Safari using 24 cores efficiently? Probably not but those cores aren't exclusive to Safari anyways.
A few days ago, in another unrelated thread, I mentioned that it was time for the Mini to go quad core. I believe this is the case because it is the best way to support common use cases. For example it is not uncommon for people to have FaceTime, Skype or other video calling program running while doing other things. Some of these programs can take a significant amount of your CPU performance thus extra cores brings you back to parity. Also enhancements to apps means that they can better leverage those cores. Really if you look back to when dual cores where announced people dismiss them as unneeded, yet we saw very rapid adoption once the benefit was seen by users. SL gave Apple the long term infrastructure to make 2+ cores viable. So yeah a minimal of quad cores in a Mini makes sense these days. We simply have another level of expectations.
Some specs:
There was a time when Apple would sue, win, and subsequently bankrupt a company for doing any design even remotely close to theirs.
Where the heck have those days gone?!
Some specs:
There was a time when Apple would sue, win, and subsequently bankrupt a company for doing any design even remotely close to theirs.
Where the heck have those days gone?!
Maybe they'd be embarrassed to make a fuss over a machine whose specs put their "big iron" desktop MacPro to shame? Nah, nothing embarrasses them, probably better to think they seriously do NOT want to draw any extra attention to a computer like this Sony.
And for the record, I've been using Macs since May 1984... that year I invested in the machine, the fat mac 512k upgrade and a 10MB internal HDD to the tune of over 4 grand (would have been over 5 but I got an edu discount on the machine itself).
There was a time when Apple would sue, win, and subsequently bankrupt a company for doing any design even remotely close to theirs.
Where the heck have those days gone?!
Laugh all you want, but the HDMI IO is useful. You can use the display as a TV when you have a digital TV box. Why not use that screen? Reversely, you can use the BluRay/DVD drive to play back movies on a big-screen TV.
It does not look as good as an iMac and (more importantly) it does not have OSX, but if the price is right I can see this doing well.
On a different note, why is this in the MacPro thread?
I say that with the qualification that some software isn't, never will be and doesn't benefit from threading. However the vast majority of apps available on Apple platforms use some amount of threading, either by design or via included libraries.
etc.etc.etc.
The list of software that uses no threading at all is likely tiny compared to apps that leverage two or more threads. Think about your common tools that most user operate these days. Mail programs, word processors, web browsers and many others on everybodies desktop have some threading built in of one sort or another.
edited for brevity
I am an ignoramus (albeit an enthusiastic one!) so I'll take your word for it.
However, there were some DAW benchmark tests last year that demonstrated that most DAW's do not take full advantage of hyper-threading and multi-core processing under OSX. It was better under SnowLeopard (compared to Leopard) but nowhere near as efficient as W7.
For perspective, the guy doing the testing builds custom DAW PC's for a living, so he is not entirely devoid of bias, but I believe his basic method is sound and don't think he could fake it completely without being found out.
http://www.dawbench.com/
New All in one Sony
i7 quad-core 3.3 gHZ
hum...
Up to Intel® Core? i7-2720QM quad-core processor (2.20GHz, up to 3.30GHz with Turbo Boost)
Not the same thing at all.
Laugh all you want, but the HDMI IO is useful. You can use the display as a TV when you have a digital TV box. Why not use that screen? Reversely, you can use the BluRay/DVD drive to play back movies on a big-screen TV.
HDMI is digital lossless audio/video: yes it is very usefull: you can connect second LCD monitor, or run HDMI cable to your stereo receiver to view BluRay or streaming movies on big TV, listen streaming Pandora or your MP3 collection though some quality floor standing speakers. I wish iMac would come out with HDMI.
It does not look as good as an iMac and (more importantly) it does not have OSX, but if the price is right I can see this doing well.
I agree, you can't beat iMac industrial design.
On a different note, why is this in the MacPro thread?
Sorry, my bad: I've had iMac thread opened in the other tab but posted in this thread instead.
hum...
Up to Intel® Core? i7-2720QM quad-core processor (2.20GHz, up to 3.30GHz with Turbo Boost)
Not the same thing at all.
Agree
i7 quad-core 3.3 gHZ --Hmm, Sandy Bridge?
HDMI? Input --lol, television port on a computer.
HDMI? Output --Wouldn't that be the same port?
Yes, i7-2720QM is Sandy Bridge.
HDMI In/out: Two separate HDMI ports.
HDMI In: connect external audio/video source to your Computer (cable box, camcorder, etc.) for capture/playback.
HDMI Out: use your computer as audio/video source and hook it up to a second monitor or large screen TV and/or high-end stereo system.
connect second LCD monitor
Thunderbolt. Seven monitors.
run HDMI cable to your stereo receiver to view BluRay or streaming movies on big TV
Apple TV. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
listen streaming Pandora or your MP3 collection though some quality floor standing speakers.
AirPlay. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
I wish iMac would come out with HDMI.
And for those reasons, they absolutely never will.
wow, this was posted right before mine
Thunderbolt is superior for the aforementioned reasons.
Thunderbolt. Seven monitors.
Just seven? Theoretically may be seven. There is no 1x7 Thunderbolt splitter available. You can get 1x16 HDMI splitter now.
Apple TV. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
"Better" if you don't mind paying $100 for AppleTV and agree to be locked into its limitations. And how do you get your video from AppleTV to TV? Via HDMI! AppleTV is just a $100 middle man with lots of limitations and no web browser.
AirPlay. Better, as you're not restricted by wire.
AirPlay cost $100. Plus I would have to throw away my receiver to buy AirPlay compatible Denon receiver. The cheapest is $700 street, but the good audiophile quality AirPlay compatible Denon will cost twice more. HDMI is on the other hand industry standard works with most even 5 year old receivers/TVs.
Also AirPlay works over your Wi-Fi network and, as anybody who uses Wi-Fi knows, it's not always rock-solid. In testing some AirPlay speakers, we experienced the occasional dropout and even a few complete disconnections, but if you want go from computer to receiver wirelessly, there are much cheaper solutions compatible with any receivers/speakers (so you more equipment choices).
Direct HDMI wire will always be cheapest, most reliable and setup-free solution.
...TV... ...web browser.
...TV... ...web browser.
Yes, you can browse web on your TV using VAIO-HDMI connection and included wireless keyboard. You can also do it using Sony stand alone BluRay player (via Wi-Fi or Ethernet), or Logitech Google TV device.
You did not know it???
Yes, you can browse web on your TV using VAIO-HDMI connection and included wireless keyboard. You can also do it using Sony stand alone BluRay player (via Wi-Fi or Ethernet), or Logitech Google TV device.
You did not know it???
I'm making fun of the idea of doing it at all. I've known it was possible since before the Internet existed. There's just absolutely no reason to do it.
http://macperformanceguide.com/Revie...ere-Cores.html
I'm gonna do some more reading, but so far I have not seen any evidence that 4+ cores yield significant real-world performance gains.
OK, I've been doing some reading and this article also suggests that most apps do not multi-thread efficiently:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Revie...ere-Cores.html
I'm gonna do some more reading, but so far I have not seen any evidence that 4+ cores yield significant real-world performance gains.
That page doesn't talk much about specific software. This has some:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Grades.html
One problem with the list is there aren't any video programs in that, most of those are still image apps of different kinds. Most still image software uses probably do fine with a quad, it's the video and maybe 3D users that might want more than that.