8-cores a nerd

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

8-cores a nerd

Post by feyd »

I just saw that Apple has made 8-core Mac Pro's available. I can see my pennies will be very thin this year. :lol:

Nerd-out!
Last edited by feyd on Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JayBird
Admin
Posts: 4524
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:02 am
Location: York, UK
Contact:

Post by JayBird »

Woooohoooo!
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Damn, that is like geek-heaven right there.
User avatar
Kieran Huggins
DevNet Master
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Kieran Huggins »

...upgrade from two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon to two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $2156].....limp again.
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Kieran Huggins wrote:...upgrade from two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon to two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $2156].....limp again.
And worth every penny. :)
thiscatis
Forum Contributor
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:00 am

Re: 8-cores a nerd

Post by thiscatis »

feyd wrote:I just saw that Apple has made 8-core Mac Pro's available. I can see my pennies will be very thin this year. :lol:

Nerd-out!
Isn't that for like music composers & other hipsters?
Ow wait... feyd :)
J/K, looking nice
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Who says I don't compose music or edit videos?

;)

I'm hip; down with it; jiggy. Tucka-tucka-tucka-tucka...
User avatar
Buddha443556
Forum Regular
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by Buddha443556 »

The more Apple raises the bar the cheaper the other end of the consumer spectrum gets. Go Apple! Go Apple!

Liked the other title for this topic better in all it's non-PC glory.
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Buddha443556 wrote:Liked the other title for this topic better in all it's non-PC glory.
Yeah, me too. Unfortunately, I was reminded it was a bit on the inappropriate side of things.
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

Do a lot of the applications running on the Mac platform support multiprocessor systems? It seems pretty cool, but I feel that $1,200 for 4gb of ram is over the edge. I imagine the actual production costs for those chips are quite a bit less.
User avatar
Kieran Huggins
DevNet Master
Posts: 3635
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Kieran Huggins »

As with any computer purchase, buy the minimum amount of ram and upgrade yourself!

Depends on the app - you won't see a huge speed increase in Mail.app, but you would in video editing and compilation. I have an old dual-athlon system and one of the biggest pro's is that I can multi-task like a mofo (well, at least my computer can...).
User avatar
Oren
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Israel

Post by Oren »

I believe that you wouldn't notice any difference, most applications were written for just one processor and therefore, it'd be just like running them with one processor - even if you have 4, 8 or 1000, it won't make any difference. Only in the future, when all applications will be written for these machines with mul processors, will you see the difference, and even then, 2 processors doesn't mean 2 times faster.
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

Yeah, reason I ask is because It's common that I run a CPU intensive bit of software, it will peg out 1 core while the other just sits at 0-2% usage. I know video editing software, rendering software etc is designed to use multi core, multi processor systems, but I don't think most folks would benefit.

I think having 2 cores is good, because then you can max one out without slowing down your box, but more than that and it may actually be slowing things down, depending on the speed of each core of course.

Think of it this way, if you have a 2000Mhz processor, and you max it out compressing a file or something, it's running at 2000Mhz. If you split that into 4 cores, and each core is running at 500Mhz, it will now take 4 times as long to compress that file, assuming your compression program isn't designed to use more than one core/processor.

Something to consider.
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

Do you have a reference to that architecture? I could have sworn "dual core" is the same as "dual cpu" except with advantages on the amount of power needed to run them. Therefore I'd say each core runs at the speed specified -- not divided.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never seen such a mention of it. Most apps use just one core, so I doubt intel would reduce the speed of each core.
User avatar
Oren
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Israel

Post by Oren »

I don't think that's what he meant. He meant that right now, the dual processors are slower than one processor. I'll explain what I mean. Right now, if you go to buy a PC, it would probably come with a 2.4GHz - 3.8GHz processor, but if you go and buy a PC with 2 processors, each would be about 1.3GHz - 2.0GHz. In real life, currently, the machines with mul processors run with slower processors. Maybe there exist machines with mul processors where each processor has a clock time of 3+GHz, but, if it exists, it'd cost 1000's of dollars - not practical.

I hope that was clear. If not, tell me and I'll try to explain better what I mean :P
Post Reply