Yes, I know about that. What does that have to do with your assertion that the 5300's perform as well as the new 5400's?
I'm suggesting that a 5300 clocked at 3.5GHz is going to perform the same if not better than a 5400 clocked at 3.1xGHz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't understand that either. You are saying that Apple would use the older cpu's? They might not update right away, but they won't wait for too long.
I'm saying they could to cut costs. I thought I made that clear in the post. Cut cost on CPU in order to spend more on other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Well, of course, we know that's why Apple went with the Xeon. But, there still has been a call for Intel to drop the FB-BIMM requirement coming from other people than Mac users.
Most of the newer chips will give some options in memory types.
But does the Xeon? That's all that is relevant when your talking about the Mac Pro.
I'm suggesting that a 5300 clocked at 3.5GHz is going to perform the same if not better than a 5400 clocked at 3.1xGHz.
Where do you get that idea from?
Quote:
I'm saying they could to cut costs. I thought I made that clear in the post. Cut cost on CPU in order to spend more on other things.
Ok, I didn't get that. But, it will only be true for a short while. Intel is dropping prices again next week. Many of these older chips will be dropped shortly after the new ones come out.
Quote:
But does the Xeon? That's all that is relevant when your talking about the Mac Pro.
Honestly, I don't remember. I haven't had time to check.
I guess that's one reason why Apple always uses the latest intel processors. Unlike IBM - intel has their ship together.
Beyond this processor is Nehalen. Is Nehalen the version that was or is supposed to have ODMC's?
Nehalen, yes.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
Saw the links Mel. Nice.
I'm a bit surprised at the changes under the hood. I thought Penyn was a dye shrink and that architectural changes weren't scheduled until Nahalem.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
I'm not a fan of AMD, but without competition from AMD, Intel would not be pushed to develop new technology. Intel would grow stagnant and complacent again. So, I'm pulling for something coming out of AMD that will continue to push Intel to bring better and advanced technology to me.
I'm not a fan of AMD, but without competition from AMD, Intel would not be pushed to develop new technology. Intel would grow stagnant and complacent again. So, I'm pulling for something coming out of AMD that will continue to push Intel to bring better and advanced technology to me.
Intel has two competitors. Like every other company in the technology business, Intel competes with itself, almost as much as with AMD (and less with others).
If Intel doesn't continue to raise the bar, their own sales will be at best, flat, or at worst, shrink. That's even without AMD.
Will performance increases slow? Sure!
I'm not really certain that it wouldn't be a good thing either.
Right now, software is slow, bloated, and written with techniques from the dark ages. While there has been talk going back decades about how to fix it, the incentive hasn't been there.
Once, Gates was asked about MS's tendency to put everything it could cram, into its software. His response was that it was his job to put every feature a user could ever possibly want into the software, and let the performance be assured by the hardware makers.
That has worked to a certain extent, but the many bugs, and security lapses can be indirectly linked to that policy (on Apple's part as well).
While companies, and their customers, are after more performance without regard to quality, we will never see an improvement there.
But, if hardware performance increases slow for a good bit of time, that will change. Software companies will be forced to improve their own products in a way that are only seen in the mini and mainframe industry, where incremental advances are accepted as being necessary to an orderly, and reliable, ecology, something we don't have in the personal computer industry.
The greed for more performance and features has been blamed as being the cause for the hardware problems, as well as the software problems we see.
If people held their computers for a longer time, they would be more inclined to pay more for better quality hardware, and software makers would be forced to eke more performance, and reliability, out of their own products, which as we all are very much aware of, they don't do now.
My only point to all of this is that it wouldn't be such a dire future if AMD went back to being a 2nd tier provider, or even went out of business, though some people might see it that way.
I don't want them to disappear, but they are doing a good job of it themselves.
Wall-street now thinks that AMD won't regain profitability until sometime in 2009.
I wonder if they are optimistic? They are relying on AMD's claim that shortly after introduction, Barcelona will get up to the speed it was promised at for mid year. We will see, though I'M not optimistic.
Innovation comes from competition. I don't think IBM & Freestyle provides it anymore for the desktop/laptop, so that responsibility all falls on AMD. Without AMD, my guess is that innovation will stagnate, just like Windows.
Innovation comes from competition. I don't think IBM & Freestyle provides it anymore for the desktop/laptop, so that responsibility all falls on AMD. Without AMD, my guess is that innovation will stagnate, just like Windows.
BTW - this will affect Adobe too.
I don't believe it will stagnate. Slow down somewhat, yes.
I don't believe it will stagnate. Slow down somewhat, yes.
But, is that really such a bad thing?
You don't think Windows would improve drastically if they had some true competition? If they had some true competition, if they didn't improve drastically, then they would go out of business.
You don't think Windows would improve drastically if they had some true competition? If they had some true competition, if they didn't improve drastically, then they would go out of business.
MS is MS. They are very worried about Linux, and somewhat worried about OS X.
In the server space, they are catching up to Linux. They certainly have competition there.
Hardware is somewhat different. It isn't a matter of it being "good", but rather, how fast it would evolve. There is no way that any company will allow buggy chips. Rarely, a bug is out, but it is rare, and fixed rapidly, and the buggy chips replaced. This has happened even when Intel's competition was miniscule.
IBM has over 85% of the mainframe market, but it doesn't release buggy hardware or software, just the opposite.
It's considered to be the slower pace of innovation, and the attention to quality that is responsible for that. Those customers simply won't accept anything different.
The times I've called for Apple to slow down their software releases in order to take care of bugs, and get features working properly, I've been shot down by people who don't care. They want it NOW, bugs and all. Is it that Apple has no competition? You certainly don't believe that, do you?
If Intel could go slower, things could sort themselves out better, putting more pressure of software companies to improve their buggy products, and hardware companies to produce better quality machines.
Then we wouldn't be complaining that our machine become obsolete too rapidly. They would get faster as software got better.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
I agree that software companies can do more to make their software more efficient on existing and older machines. Seems like Apple is heading in that direction at least in the osx line as new versions tend to run at least as well as the previous version. I hope Leopard continues in that direction.
I think that multiple cores are potentially beneficial to a greater audience than you might. While the basic user who surfs the net and does word processing doesn't need such power, I think there is a group of users who wish to run multiple apps and multiple operating systems. Four cores might not be to many for these users especially if you have virus and spyware protection running in the background.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
Cinema 4D sees the advantage of 8 cores immediately. So does almost every rendering app, music apps like Logic, Pro Tools and alike do as well, as do video rendering and scientific computing see serious improvements in speed immediately. To say "almost no one" is take out almost the entirety of Apples Mac Pro customer base.
All apps can take advantage of cores. It's the cutting edge developers that are totally awesome hacks that actually give a shit about performance, and those are the people that drive cutting edge industries that are totally on top of it.
I'm convinced Photoshop developers are lazy, or just not as dedicated to their cause in comparison to these true diehards. Photoshop could wale on an eight core machine if the developers weren't obsessed with being lazy while pondering these ridiculous little tools that hardly matter any more.
I have noticed that Painter has made monumentous changes since version 8 in comparison to PS. At least one of these apps still has someone working on it's underlying infrastructure, and is leading it out of the dark ages.
I agree that software companies can do more to make their software more efficient on existing and older machines. Seems like Apple is heading in that direction at least in the osx line as new versions tend to run at least as well as the previous version. I hope Leopard continues in that direction.
I think that multiple cores are potentially beneficial to a greater audience than you might. While the basic user who surfs the net and does word processing doesn't need such power, I think there is a group of users who wish to run multiple apps and multiple operating systems. Four cores might not be to many for these users especially if you have virus and spyware protection running in the background.
No, no! I do think that 4 and 8 core will be a benefit to everyone. What I'm saying is that right now, most people will get little or no benefit.
But, if you buy a new machine, say by second half of next year, after Nehalen comes out, you are set for YEARS. More years than for anytime in the past. Why?
Because software isn't yet ready for it. So, over time, as software gets to use the cores that they don't now use, after some upgrades, the machines will seem to be more powerful than they were when they were bought. That's never happened before. But, it will now.
For most people, that will take the place of buying new machines as often as they do now.
Even PS only uses 4 cores!.
Think of having an 8 core machine. Right now, that's no better than having a 4 core machine, if you use PS and other programs.
But, perhaps CS4 WILL use 8 cores. Then PS will wizz by at twice the speed you saw when you bought the machine. So, why buy a new one?
Cinema 4D sees the advantage of 8 cores immediately. So does almost every rendering app, music apps like Logic, Pro Tools and alike do as well, as do video rendering and scientific computing see serious improvements in speed immediately. To say "almost no one" is take out almost the entirety of Apples Mac Pro customer base.
All apps can take advantage of cores. It's the cutting edge developers that are totally awesome hacks that actually give a shit about performance, and those are the people that drive cutting edge industries that are totally on top of it.
I'm convinced Photoshop developers are lazy, or just not as dedicated to their cause in comparison to these true diehards. Photoshop could wale on an eight core machine if the developers weren't obsessed with being lazy while pondering these ridiculous little tools that hardly matter any more.
I have noticed that Painter has made monumentous changes since version 8 in comparison to PS. At least one of these apps still has someone working on it's underlying infrastructure, and is leading it out of the dark ages.
Some of these apps do, but not all of them. Publishing apps rarely can use more than 2 cores right now. The same thing is true of illustrations apps.
Hi powered video and music program pro's aren't anywhere the majority of the Mac Pro user base.
Comments
Given the current Mac Pro chips and their prices, the 45nm version of the Mac Pro could look like this:
$2200 8-cores 2.50GHz
$2499 8-cores 2.83GHz
$3298 8-cores 3.00GHz
$3997 8-cores 3.16GHz
Sounds close but I think that Apple would either drop the $2200 price point or consider a single 2.50GHz quad core for a $1999 entry level.
Yes, I know about that. What does that have to do with your assertion that the 5300's perform as well as the new 5400's?
I'm suggesting that a 5300 clocked at 3.5GHz is going to perform the same if not better than a 5400 clocked at 3.1xGHz.
I don't understand that either. You are saying that Apple would use the older cpu's? They might not update right away, but they won't wait for too long.
I'm saying they could to cut costs. I thought I made that clear in the post. Cut cost on CPU in order to spend more on other things.
Well, of course, we know that's why Apple went with the Xeon. But, there still has been a call for Intel to drop the FB-BIMM requirement coming from other people than Mac users.
Most of the newer chips will give some options in memory types.
But does the Xeon? That's all that is relevant when your talking about the Mac Pro.
I'm suggesting that a 5300 clocked at 3.5GHz is going to perform the same if not better than a 5400 clocked at 3.1xGHz.
Where do you get that idea from?
I'm saying they could to cut costs. I thought I made that clear in the post. Cut cost on CPU in order to spend more on other things.
Ok, I didn't get that. But, it will only be true for a short while. Intel is dropping prices again next week. Many of these older chips will be dropped shortly after the new ones come out.
But does the Xeon? That's all that is relevant when your talking about the Mac Pro.
Honestly, I don't remember. I haven't had time to check.
Where do you get that idea from?
The difference between the processors does not seem that significant therefore the clock difference will probably outweigh the upgrade.
The difference between the processors does not seem that significant therefore the clock difference will probably outweigh the upgrade.
If we're talking current designs vs Penyrn, the is a big difference. Did you read the info I linked to?
If we're talking current designs vs Penyrn, the is a big difference. Did you read the info I linked to?
Well I'd like to say I did, but there are no links coming from your user name in this thread. You must have posted it elsewhere.
Well I'd like to say I did, but there are no links coming from your user name in this thread. You must have posted it elsewhere.
That's possible
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ance-sse4.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2115081,00.asp
There are more, but these two are good. It's a lot more than just a die shrink.
That's possible
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ance-sse4.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2115081,00.asp
There are more, but these two are good. It's a lot more than just a die shrink.
I guess that's one reason why Apple always uses the latest intel processors. Unlike IBM - intel has their ship together.
Beyond this processor is Nehalen. Is Nehalen the version that was or is supposed to have ODMC's?
I guess that's one reason why Apple always uses the latest intel processors. Unlike IBM - intel has their ship together.
Beyond this processor is Nehalen. Is Nehalen the version that was or is supposed to have ODMC's?
Nehalen, yes.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
Nehalen, yes.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
Saw the links Mel. Nice.
I'm a bit surprised at the changes under the hood. I thought Penyn was a dye shrink and that architectural changes weren't scheduled until Nahalem.
Anyway it makes Penryn look all that much better.
Nehalen, yes.
Also, they are going back to HyperThreading. And, while I can never remember what they call it, Intel has their own version of HyperTransport for that series as well. In addition, other fairly major improvements will be seen.
This leaves AMD with no breathing room. About the only claim to performance AMD has left is ODMC, and Hyper Transport.
Once Intel implements these, what will AMD have left?
Intel has the best process tech, while AMD has the worst. We're seeing that now with Barcelona.
I'm not a fan of AMD, but without competition from AMD, Intel would not be pushed to develop new technology. Intel would grow stagnant and complacent again. So, I'm pulling for something coming out of AMD that will continue to push Intel to bring better and advanced technology to me.
I'm not a fan of AMD, but without competition from AMD, Intel would not be pushed to develop new technology. Intel would grow stagnant and complacent again. So, I'm pulling for something coming out of AMD that will continue to push Intel to bring better and advanced technology to me.
Intel has two competitors. Like every other company in the technology business, Intel competes with itself, almost as much as with AMD (and less with others).
If Intel doesn't continue to raise the bar, their own sales will be at best, flat, or at worst, shrink. That's even without AMD.
Will performance increases slow? Sure!
I'm not really certain that it wouldn't be a good thing either.
Right now, software is slow, bloated, and written with techniques from the dark ages. While there has been talk going back decades about how to fix it, the incentive hasn't been there.
Once, Gates was asked about MS's tendency to put everything it could cram, into its software. His response was that it was his job to put every feature a user could ever possibly want into the software, and let the performance be assured by the hardware makers.
That has worked to a certain extent, but the many bugs, and security lapses can be indirectly linked to that policy (on Apple's part as well).
While companies, and their customers, are after more performance without regard to quality, we will never see an improvement there.
But, if hardware performance increases slow for a good bit of time, that will change. Software companies will be forced to improve their own products in a way that are only seen in the mini and mainframe industry, where incremental advances are accepted as being necessary to an orderly, and reliable, ecology, something we don't have in the personal computer industry.
The greed for more performance and features has been blamed as being the cause for the hardware problems, as well as the software problems we see.
If people held their computers for a longer time, they would be more inclined to pay more for better quality hardware, and software makers would be forced to eke more performance, and reliability, out of their own products, which as we all are very much aware of, they don't do now.
My only point to all of this is that it wouldn't be such a dire future if AMD went back to being a 2nd tier provider, or even went out of business, though some people might see it that way.
I don't want them to disappear, but they are doing a good job of it themselves.
Wall-street now thinks that AMD won't regain profitability until sometime in 2009.
I wonder if they are optimistic? They are relying on AMD's claim that shortly after introduction, Barcelona will get up to the speed it was promised at for mid year. We will see, though I'M not optimistic.
BTW - this will affect Adobe too.
Innovation comes from competition. I don't think IBM & Freestyle provides it anymore for the desktop/laptop, so that responsibility all falls on AMD. Without AMD, my guess is that innovation will stagnate, just like Windows.
BTW - this will affect Adobe too.
I don't believe it will stagnate. Slow down somewhat, yes.
But, is that really such a bad thing?
I don't believe it will stagnate. Slow down somewhat, yes.
But, is that really such a bad thing?
You don't think Windows would improve drastically if they had some true competition? If they had some true competition, if they didn't improve drastically, then they would go out of business.
You don't think Windows would improve drastically if they had some true competition? If they had some true competition, if they didn't improve drastically, then they would go out of business.
MS is MS. They are very worried about Linux, and somewhat worried about OS X.
In the server space, they are catching up to Linux. They certainly have competition there.
Hardware is somewhat different. It isn't a matter of it being "good", but rather, how fast it would evolve. There is no way that any company will allow buggy chips. Rarely, a bug is out, but it is rare, and fixed rapidly, and the buggy chips replaced. This has happened even when Intel's competition was miniscule.
IBM has over 85% of the mainframe market, but it doesn't release buggy hardware or software, just the opposite.
It's considered to be the slower pace of innovation, and the attention to quality that is responsible for that. Those customers simply won't accept anything different.
The times I've called for Apple to slow down their software releases in order to take care of bugs, and get features working properly, I've been shot down by people who don't care. They want it NOW, bugs and all. Is it that Apple has no competition? You certainly don't believe that, do you?
If Intel could go slower, things could sort themselves out better, putting more pressure of software companies to improve their buggy products, and hardware companies to produce better quality machines.
Then we wouldn't be complaining that our machine become obsolete too rapidly. They would get faster as software got better.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
I agree that software companies can do more to make their software more efficient on existing and older machines. Seems like Apple is heading in that direction at least in the osx line as new versions tend to run at least as well as the previous version. I hope Leopard continues in that direction.
I think that multiple cores are potentially beneficial to a greater audience than you might. While the basic user who surfs the net and does word processing doesn't need such power, I think there is a group of users who wish to run multiple apps and multiple operating systems. Four cores might not be to many for these users especially if you have virus and spyware protection running in the background.
Take 4 and 8 core machines. Almost no one will get the power these machines offer. The software companies have to grow their software into them. That will take years. But, they don't worry, because each core continues to speed up, even these days. So, the extra cores are still and afterthought for most software companies.
But, if the cores didn't speed up that quickly, then they would be forced to speed their software instead. We would then continue to see out machines get faster, even though they would be the same machines.
Cinema 4D sees the advantage of 8 cores immediately. So does almost every rendering app, music apps like Logic, Pro Tools and alike do as well, as do video rendering and scientific computing see serious improvements in speed immediately. To say "almost no one" is take out almost the entirety of Apples Mac Pro customer base.
All apps can take advantage of cores. It's the cutting edge developers that are totally awesome hacks that actually give a shit about performance, and those are the people that drive cutting edge industries that are totally on top of it.
I'm convinced Photoshop developers are lazy, or just not as dedicated to their cause in comparison to these true diehards. Photoshop could wale on an eight core machine if the developers weren't obsessed with being lazy while pondering these ridiculous little tools that hardly matter any more.
I have noticed that Painter has made monumentous changes since version 8 in comparison to PS. At least one of these apps still has someone working on it's underlying infrastructure, and is leading it out of the dark ages.
I agree that software companies can do more to make their software more efficient on existing and older machines. Seems like Apple is heading in that direction at least in the osx line as new versions tend to run at least as well as the previous version. I hope Leopard continues in that direction.
I think that multiple cores are potentially beneficial to a greater audience than you might. While the basic user who surfs the net and does word processing doesn't need such power, I think there is a group of users who wish to run multiple apps and multiple operating systems. Four cores might not be to many for these users especially if you have virus and spyware protection running in the background.
No, no! I do think that 4 and 8 core will be a benefit to everyone. What I'm saying is that right now, most people will get little or no benefit.
But, if you buy a new machine, say by second half of next year, after Nehalen comes out, you are set for YEARS. More years than for anytime in the past. Why?
Because software isn't yet ready for it. So, over time, as software gets to use the cores that they don't now use, after some upgrades, the machines will seem to be more powerful than they were when they were bought. That's never happened before. But, it will now.
For most people, that will take the place of buying new machines as often as they do now.
Even PS only uses 4 cores!.
Think of having an 8 core machine. Right now, that's no better than having a 4 core machine, if you use PS and other programs.
But, perhaps CS4 WILL use 8 cores. Then PS will wizz by at twice the speed you saw when you bought the machine. So, why buy a new one?
Cinema 4D sees the advantage of 8 cores immediately. So does almost every rendering app, music apps like Logic, Pro Tools and alike do as well, as do video rendering and scientific computing see serious improvements in speed immediately. To say "almost no one" is take out almost the entirety of Apples Mac Pro customer base.
All apps can take advantage of cores. It's the cutting edge developers that are totally awesome hacks that actually give a shit about performance, and those are the people that drive cutting edge industries that are totally on top of it.
I'm convinced Photoshop developers are lazy, or just not as dedicated to their cause in comparison to these true diehards. Photoshop could wale on an eight core machine if the developers weren't obsessed with being lazy while pondering these ridiculous little tools that hardly matter any more.
I have noticed that Painter has made monumentous changes since version 8 in comparison to PS. At least one of these apps still has someone working on it's underlying infrastructure, and is leading it out of the dark ages.
Some of these apps do, but not all of them. Publishing apps rarely can use more than 2 cores right now. The same thing is true of illustrations apps.
Hi powered video and music program pro's aren't anywhere the majority of the Mac Pro user base.