Since forums make it hard to determine emphasis and indirect meaning, we really need a way to make it clear that we are being sarcastic and rhetoric without the lengthy explanation.
How about a backslash after the question:
Yes, that is the next cpu, but how long are we going to have to wait for those from now?/
As for sarcasm, I vote for tilde before and after the sentence(s):
~Yeah, this will catch on like wildfire.~
I like the sarcasm one. Not too sure about the backslash, as it could be mistaken for typos.
What about surrounding it with backslashes?
/Yes, that is the next cpu, but how long are we going to have to wait for those from now?/
I agree something is needed in the forums book of the road
Ram hasn't significantly dropped to almost ddr2 prices, no new graphics cards have come out?
FB-DIMMs will brobably never be close to standard DIMMs, it will probably always be like 25% higher than DIMMs. Also, it's rare that Apple's memory pricing is competitive, so that's another 25% to add to the price.
As I see it there isn't enough time at NAB to do a full blown introduction of a Mac Pro along with all the software, so they saved graphics cards until then to add icing on the cake. They better have because I'm getting more upset by the minute.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
Can anyone say with any degree of accuracy that if you buy a machine now the next gen chips will be socket compatible and thus theoretically a drop in upgrade? or will the next gen 45nm??? chips more than likely by a different sock configuration?
It's unlikely that the 45 nm chips will be drop-in replacable.
FB-DIMMs will brobably never be close to standard DIMMs, it will probably always be like 25% higher than DIMMs. It's rare that Apple's memory pricing is competitive.
I agree, but the prices have significantly dropped since their introduction. They are pretty close as it is.
A 1 gig stick of FB-DIMM is down as low as $150. That's pretty damn close in price. Close enough that it doesn't bother me any more.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
Nvidia makes no cards. It's either Apple or third parties who makes them.
Nvidia makes no cards. It's either Apple or third parties who makes them.
No market, no make!
Apple already has 7600gt's... (iMac 24"), so that would be an easy add to the mac pro. I'll let them slide on the 8800gts, but the 7600gt being absent is inexcusable.
It might be what they need to do to keep him from working for a competitor. There's a lot of time spent iterating and fine tuning designs such that they are right. It's more than just the look, there's the aspect of manufacturability and assembly as well.
Let's also not forget disassembly and ease of service. Replacing something as basic as a power supply in a Power Mac G5 Quad was ridiculously complicated. The current iMacs are also a service nightmare.
So for someone using mostly Photoshop CS3 will upgrading to an 8-core be overkill? Ok to stay with 4-cores? Or should I hold out until NAB and see what ends up happening with a new config?
As I have mentioned a number of times on this forum, unless you have some application that will take advantage of the 8-cores or 4-cores for that matter, don't get all excited and expect a huge performance boost.
Example:
PS3 running in the Intel native mode on dual 3.0 xeon (4-cores) with 8 gigs of ram
Resize 1.3 gig image cymk image CPU usage 20%
Rotate same image 2 degrees - CPU usage 7% (took about 6 minutes)
In either case PS3 never used more than 1.8 gigs of the available ram
Unless there is going to be some huge difference between PS3 beta and the final release, I don't see any real advantage to 8-cores, least not for Photoshop. Maybe Leopard will help some.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
I agree totally. There should be a Nvidia 8800 GTX available from the Apple store.
I think there may be a problem with Apple updating because they may have a backlog of Quadro 4500's laying around that they are trying to get rid of before. I think if they introduce a 8800GTX it will outperform the Quadro 4500 in every way - even pro 3D, and unless apple has an NVIDIA Quadro® FX 5600, they wont beat a 8800 GTX, and they will be stuck with a lot of 4500's. If Apple were to release either of those cards I will get the 5600.
Apple already has 7600gt's... (iMac 24"), so that would be an easy add to the mac pro. I'll let them slide on the 8800gts, but the 7600gt being absent is inexcusable.
Since Apple has made the choice to limit the upgradable line to the Mac Pro, and give card manufacturers no incentive to make cards for us, then it's also Apple's responsibibity to have a fairly broad line, and keep it up to date, even if it costs them money to do so.
I agree totally. There should be a Nvidia 8800 GTX available from the Apple store.
I think there may be a problem with Apple updating because they may have a backlog of Quadro 4500's laying around that they are trying to get rid of before. I think if they introduce a 8800GTX it will outperform the Quadro 4500 in every way - even pro 3D, and unless apple has an NVIDIA Quadro® FX 5600, they wont beat a 8800 GTX, and they will be stuck with a lot of 4500's. If Apple were to release either of those cards I will get the 5600.
Game cards don't beat pro cards in pro 3D work, just as pro cards don't beat game cards in games.
The software on the cards is different in just enough ways as to ensure that the cards do best in the markets they are sold in. You can't look at raw specs. That's never worked.
As I have mentioned a number of times on this forum, unless you have some application that will take advantage of the 8-cores or 4-cores for that matter, don't get all excited and expect a huge performance boost.
Example:
PS3 running in the Intel native mode on dual 3.0 xeon (4-cores) with 8 gigs of ram
Resize 1.3 gig image cymk image CPU usage 20%
Rotate same image 2 degrees - CPU usage 7% (took about 6 minutes)
In either case PS3 never used more than 1.8 gigs of the available ram
Unless there is going to be some huge difference between PS3 beta and the final release, I don't see any real advantage to 8-cores, least not for Photoshop. Maybe Leopard will help some.
What people don't get when they say above, is just because 1 application can't use the whole system, doesn't mean it's bad. It's actually a good thing! This way you don't have an application taking over your whole computer you. You can have illustrator using 2 cores, PS using 4 cores, finder / web browser / etc using the other 2 cores. You can now multitask between applications without your computer being slowed down by the other processes.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
What people don't get when they say above, is just because 1 application can't use the whole system, doesn't mean it's bad. It's actually a good thing! This way you don't have an application taking over your whole computer you. You can have illustrator using 2 cores, PS using 4 cores, finder / web browser / etc using the other 2 cores. You can now multitask between applications without your computer being slowed down by the other processes.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
Also, to go one step further than you have, this is Apple's PRO machine.
Hopefully, most people, and businesses, who buy this, know what they need it for.
As I wrote in post #50, there are very good uses for this machine, if you need it.
If you don't need it, but have the money to buy it anyway, then go for it! Why not?
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
That's not nearly as much as a problem as you think it is.
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
Each CPU shares cache between it's cores, I was under the impression that os x actually assigns the thread to one of the 2 cores on the same cpu it was previously on. This wouldn't thrash the cache at all if this is 100% the case. As I said, under the impression... I can't back that up.
Comments
Since forums make it hard to determine emphasis and indirect meaning, we really need a way to make it clear that we are being sarcastic and rhetoric without the lengthy explanation.
How about a backslash after the question:As for sarcasm, I vote for tilde before and after the sentence(s):
I like the sarcasm one. Not too sure about the backslash, as it could be mistaken for typos.
What about surrounding it with backslashes?
/Yes, that is the next cpu, but how long are we going to have to wait for those from now?/
I agree something is needed in the forums book of the road
Ram hasn't significantly dropped to almost ddr2 prices, no new graphics cards have come out?
FB-DIMMs will brobably never be close to standard DIMMs, it will probably always be like 25% higher than DIMMs. Also, it's rare that Apple's memory pricing is competitive, so that's another 25% to add to the price.
As I see it there isn't enough time at NAB to do a full blown introduction of a Mac Pro along with all the software, so they saved graphics cards until then to add icing on the cake. They better have because I'm getting more upset by the minute.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
Can anyone say with any degree of accuracy that if you buy a machine now the next gen chips will be socket compatible and thus theoretically a drop in upgrade? or will the next gen 45nm??? chips more than likely by a different sock configuration?
It's unlikely that the 45 nm chips will be drop-in replacable.
FB-DIMMs will brobably never be close to standard DIMMs, it will probably always be like 25% higher than DIMMs. It's rare that Apple's memory pricing is competitive.
I agree, but the prices have significantly dropped since their introduction. They are pretty close as it is.
A 1 gig stick of FB-DIMM is down as low as $150. That's pretty damn close in price. Close enough that it doesn't bother me any more.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
Nvidia makes no cards. It's either Apple or third parties who makes them.
No market, no make!
...about the backslash.... with backslashes?
Why isn't "/" just a "slash?"
Nvidia makes no cards. It's either Apple or third parties who makes them.
No market, no make!
Apple already has 7600gt's... (iMac 24"), so that would be an easy add to the mac pro. I'll let them slide on the 8800gts, but the 7600gt being absent is inexcusable.
I was hoping this would come with a price drop on the other processor configs. Oh, well.
Me too, wouldn't mind the 2.0ghz one for personal use.
It might be what they need to do to keep him from working for a competitor. There's a lot of time spent iterating and fine tuning designs such that they are right. It's more than just the look, there's the aspect of manufacturability and assembly as well.
Let's also not forget disassembly and ease of service. Replacing something as basic as a power supply in a Power Mac G5 Quad was ridiculously complicated. The current iMacs are also a service nightmare.
So for someone using mostly Photoshop CS3 will upgrading to an 8-core be overkill? Ok to stay with 4-cores? Or should I hold out until NAB and see what ends up happening with a new config?
As I have mentioned a number of times on this forum, unless you have some application that will take advantage of the 8-cores or 4-cores for that matter, don't get all excited and expect a huge performance boost.
Example:
PS3 running in the Intel native mode on dual 3.0 xeon (4-cores) with 8 gigs of ram
Resize 1.3 gig image cymk image CPU usage 20%
Rotate same image 2 degrees - CPU usage 7% (took about 6 minutes)
In either case PS3 never used more than 1.8 gigs of the available ram
Unless there is going to be some huge difference between PS3 beta and the final release, I don't see any real advantage to 8-cores, least not for Photoshop. Maybe Leopard will help some.
I know we've crashed heads before, but i'm with you on this one. As Melgross stated, there are better ATI cards than what is available... but what about NVidia? Nvidia is TOASTING ati right now with their 8800gtx and gts. Hell the 8600 is in production now and just starting to ship, that would be a very nice bottom end graphics card. But we have a 7300gt that is stock? Hell the AppleTV comes with a 7300 mobile! I have said it all along, it was a pathetic move for apple to have a sub $100 graphics card ship standard in the mac pro. In today's computers, the graphics card is usually just as much as the cpu. It should AT LEAST have a 7600gt in it.
Apple definitely needs to get this graphics card situation straightened out.
I agree totally. There should be a Nvidia 8800 GTX available from the Apple store.
I think there may be a problem with Apple updating because they may have a backlog of Quadro 4500's laying around that they are trying to get rid of before. I think if they introduce a 8800GTX it will outperform the Quadro 4500 in every way - even pro 3D, and unless apple has an NVIDIA Quadro® FX 5600, they wont beat a 8800 GTX, and they will be stuck with a lot of 4500's. If Apple were to release either of those cards I will get the 5600.
Apple already has 7600gt's... (iMac 24"), so that would be an easy add to the mac pro. I'll let them slide on the 8800gts, but the 7600gt being absent is inexcusable.
Since Apple has made the choice to limit the upgradable line to the Mac Pro, and give card manufacturers no incentive to make cards for us, then it's also Apple's responsibibity to have a fairly broad line, and keep it up to date, even if it costs them money to do so.
I agree totally. There should be a Nvidia 8800 GTX available from the Apple store.
I think there may be a problem with Apple updating because they may have a backlog of Quadro 4500's laying around that they are trying to get rid of before. I think if they introduce a 8800GTX it will outperform the Quadro 4500 in every way - even pro 3D, and unless apple has an NVIDIA Quadro® FX 5600, they wont beat a 8800 GTX, and they will be stuck with a lot of 4500's. If Apple were to release either of those cards I will get the 5600.
Game cards don't beat pro cards in pro 3D work, just as pro cards don't beat game cards in games.
The software on the cards is different in just enough ways as to ensure that the cards do best in the markets they are sold in. You can't look at raw specs. That's never worked.
As I have mentioned a number of times on this forum, unless you have some application that will take advantage of the 8-cores or 4-cores for that matter, don't get all excited and expect a huge performance boost.
Example:
PS3 running in the Intel native mode on dual 3.0 xeon (4-cores) with 8 gigs of ram
Resize 1.3 gig image cymk image CPU usage 20%
Rotate same image 2 degrees - CPU usage 7% (took about 6 minutes)
In either case PS3 never used more than 1.8 gigs of the available ram
Unless there is going to be some huge difference between PS3 beta and the final release, I don't see any real advantage to 8-cores, least not for Photoshop. Maybe Leopard will help some.
What people don't get when they say above, is just because 1 application can't use the whole system, doesn't mean it's bad. It's actually a good thing! This way you don't have an application taking over your whole computer you. You can have illustrator using 2 cores, PS using 4 cores, finder / web browser / etc using the other 2 cores. You can now multitask between applications without your computer being slowed down by the other processes.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
What people don't get when they say above, is just because 1 application can't use the whole system, doesn't mean it's bad. It's actually a good thing! This way you don't have an application taking over your whole computer you. You can have illustrator using 2 cores, PS using 4 cores, finder / web browser / etc using the other 2 cores. You can now multitask between applications without your computer being slowed down by the other processes.
You still definitely benefit from more cores. OS X handles this just fine as does any BSD unix.
Also, to go one step further than you have, this is Apple's PRO machine.
Hopefully, most people, and businesses, who buy this, know what they need it for.
As I wrote in post #50, there are very good uses for this machine, if you need it.
If you don't need it, but have the money to buy it anyway, then go for it! Why not?
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
That's not nearly as much as a problem as you think it is.
Why isn't "/" just a "slash?"
It is if you're Slashdot--- "/."
It's not necessarily good enough though. OS X will schedule a task for any and all processors, even if that task won't use the equivalent of 100% of a core. Rather than reassigning a task to the core it previously ran on, it will assign it to any core it likes. So the task basically takes 25% each of four cores, or 13% each of eight cores, resulting in a needless amount of cache thrashing.
Each CPU shares cache between it's cores, I was under the impression that os x actually assigns the thread to one of the 2 cores on the same cpu it was previously on. This wouldn't thrash the cache at all if this is 100% the case. As I said, under the impression... I can't back that up.