Pixar switches from Sun to Intel

[MacQuest]

I think we may owe "LoopRumors" an apology.

Their seemingly false rumor report [last month] of SJ's presence at Intel's conference was true after all.

This c/net article states "Later that month [Jan. '03], Jobs then delivered the morning keynote address at Intel's annual sales conference in Las Vegas."

The announcement was related to Pixar however, not Apple.

[Originally posted on MacMinute]

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983898.html

[MacQuest]

Also, from the above article:

"The Pixar deal comes amid a spate of shuttle diplomacy taking place between Intel and Apple Computer"

[dricci]

Hmm.. Maybe we should be worried. 970 Steve.. remember that? Don't tell us you couldn't wait 12 more months and switched Pixar over to rack mount 970 Xserves. Hopefully somebody can dig up some more information.

However, don't forget that LoopRumors had a fake Photo. While their story may have have been (somewhat) true, the photo was still of a big Apple logo (that was obviously photoshoped on). Apple has nothing to do with this announcement, other than sharing the same CEO.

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by dricci
Hmm.. Maybe we should be worried. 970 Steve.. remember that? Don't tell us you couldn't wait 12 more months and switched Pixar over to rack mount 970 Xserves.

My thoughts exactly.:(

Originally posted by dricci
However, don't forget that LoopRumors had a fake Photo. While their story may have have been (somewhat) true, the photo was still of a big Apple logo (that was obviously photoshoped on).

This is speculative, and I saw strong arguments on both sides about whether or not the photo was doctored. I, however, will refrain from commenting in order to keep from getting off topic. It's irrelevant now anyways since we know that the event, which is what the focus was on, actually happened.

Originally posted by dricci
Apple has nothing to do with this announcement, other than sharing the same CEO.

As I stated in my original post:

"The announcement was related to Pixar however, not Apple."

That's why I posted it in this "Other News" forum.

[Mr. Anderson]

Think about the money involved here. If you had to buy a couple hundred machines for a render farm and wanted to get the most for you millions what would you choose? Especially if getting things done faster, say 100 days instead of 200 was the issue involved?

Its unfortunate that the Intel chips are better than what Apple has, but its a fact. And in this case if they're still trying to render for Nemo or another movie and need to get it done fast, Intel might be the cheapest and fastest solution.

Maybe not next year, but that would be another movie and another couple million for a new render farm.

Just speculation here, based on common sense.

D

[mymemory]

Mmmmm.... I do not know.

I do not see a Mac render farm that big in the near future or even a year from now.

Apple is way to behind, Macs are not even better platform to do 3D animations tha PC's yet, imagine a render farm for that.

Remember that professional 3D animators uses their PC's just for that and their are custom build, I do not consider Macs that flexible yet and they cost a lot more for the same end.

[krafix]

From a poweruser photoshop expert, take my word, the pic was a huge fake. Really. Anyone in graphic design, used to work in photoshop sees this and knows it could have been done so much cleaner. That's even more incredible.

[maclamb]

along these lines I have finally decided to bring my mac home from work. At work I will now use company provided compaq en & 17in monitor. I added an extra video card so Win2k now uses two displays.
My dual1G G4 comes home and may get sold on ebay. why?
1. Win2k on a fast PIII is significantly more responsive and quicker in *most* (not all) tasks - the UI surely is. (for example I'm wriitng this on my Dell laptop win2k833MzPII and it's generally snappier and has a higher resolution display than my pb, the wirteless lucnet card works in more places in my hose than my airport card..)
Some things, like burning a cdrom while trying to do anything else on the PC is a sick joke. But I don't do it all that often at work(most CDs I burn at home on the mac.). I use office, WebSphere Studio Developer, Rational Rose and Notes most at work. These perform better on the PC.
Connecting to shared servers, accessing other PCs, etc. is easier and faster on the PC. Not worth running VPC on the mac (tried it too slow for production daily work).
2. I do 3d anim at home on the mac - but would agree with prev. posts - I suspect that 3DStudio pro on a P3 will out perform my Mac - but not sure.
I love my mac laptop (PB667) and it's fine and I'll upgrade to whateve ris avail when the lease runs out in Nov. and by then it could be my only mac and that's why I may sell the G4 - plus I could use the $ so it may go - but love having it...so for now It's a luxury...

I think the Mac graphics vastly superior to the PC (don;t even mention XP to me ugh) and the interface is better - but in an all pc world, given that I am as comfortable on a mac as a pc I find the PC a better choice. While I can *make* the mac work there it's a stuggle.

my 2 cents...

[ktlx]

Originally posted by mymemory
Apple is way to behind, Macs are not even better platform to do 3D animations tha PC's yet, imagine a render farm for that.

Remember that professional 3D animators uses their PC's just for that and their are custom build, I do not consider Macs that flexible yet and they cost a lot more for the same end.

The rumors I have heard is that Pixar is not moving to PC based upon the Pentium 4 or AMD lines but it moving to workstations and servers based upon the Itanium. The Itanium has the highest SPECfp marks of any mass produced CPU and not far off in the SPECint marks from the Pentium 4 (the current top in SPECint).

I would imagine that most of Pixar's software is developed in house which means they could modify it to better take advantage of the Itanium VLIW processor.

[springscansing]

I see nothing wrong with moving to Intel. I guses when it came down to Itanium vs. Power 4, the Itanium was a better choice. It's not like Pixar has much to do with Apple when it really comes down to it.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by springscansing
I see nothing wrong with moving to Intel. I guses when it came down to Itanium vs. Power 4, the Itanium was a better choice. It's not like Pixar has much to do with Apple when it really comes down to it.

Execpt all of us mac people would start complaining.

Bah this doesn't mean apple ---> intel this means that steve as head of Pixar thinks it is a better choice, which I do not.

[mattmack]

anyone think that this could mean a intel compatible X:confused:

[EddieB]

Post Edited By Moderator: Please no personal attacks. Previous members have been banned for offenses such as this. Respect your fellow community members.

[michaelyoung]

I do visual effects for movies. I spend all day, every day, making fake things look real.


That photo was fake. I could list a million reasons. But the top two:

The Apple logo was a photo a Titanium Laptop.

The size of the screen happened to be the size of the center circle on the test pattern. That type of test patter has been around since the dawn of TV . The fact that that screen was the exact size of the test pattern on the real screen is too much.

Finally, why would two screens be square and dangling from wires with thick edges and the apple one was round and flush mount into the backdrop so well it has absolutely no edge at all?

[macr1jxb]

Pixar is an independant company and should do whatever makes the best business sense for them (and if that's switching to Intel, so much the better) Would you rather they wait to do their rendering on a G5 or "Finding Nemo" come out this year?

I'm oversimplifying, but the point is valid.

That said, now that they are on Intel they'll be able to run Darwin, which isn't available on Sun right?

[bonehead]

Originally posted by Eddie B:

Post Edited By Moderator: Please no personal attacks. Previous members have been banned for offenses such as this. Respect your fellow community members.

What kind of response is that? If you disagree with someone, fine, but leave the insults at school.

[Mr. Anderson]

Just because Pixar is using 1024 Intel chips running Linix doesn't mean that Intel is coming to the Macintosh line of computers. Think it through - what chips give you the biggest rendering bang for the buck? Obviously its not a Motorola, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

They're not running windows on these machines. Shessh!

D

[mattmack]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Just because Pixar is using 1024 Intel chips running Linix doesn't mean that Intel is coming to the Macintosh line of computers. Think it through - what chips give you the biggest rendering bang for the buck? Obviously its not a Motorola, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

They're not running windows on these machines. Shessh!

D
You would think that maybe this decision would wake Steve and Apple up that in order for them to be competative in this industry they need to come up with some powerhouse solutions and QUICK

[MacCoaster]

Jeez, would you guys even RTFA!

It isn't based on the 64 bit Itanium. From the C|Net article:
In all, the blade system contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system.

[Sonofhaig]

This is not a big deal at all.
Oh No...Look at what Steve is doing!!
Really..........:o

[pnz999]

pixar, should use x-servers!

come on Steve show off the x-serve's power! or not

[law guy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Jeez, would you guys even RTFA!

It isn't based on the 64 bit Itanium. From the C|Net article:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all, the blade system contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wow. 1,024 processors in 8 servers... that's 128 2.8 Xeons per server! Now that's multi-processor capable. Crap.

What would it take to make the Mac OS run on intel? Even if it became possible for the Mac OS to run on other machines (which we know Steve Jobs doesn't like from the way he killed the mid-90s apple clones like Power Computing), wouldn't Apple's integration / execution of the systems be different enough? Perhaps they could do their own mother boards with better I/O for example?

[Akira]

Originally posted by pnz999
pixar, should use x-servers!

come on Steve show off the x-serve's power! or not
Yeah right! And spend a ********* of bucks trying to port RenderMan to the PowerPC architecture with AltiVec and MultiProcessor support as well?
They would eventually spend twice as much or even more that way....

Some people just don't get it.......

[mattmack]

Originally posted by law guy


Wow. 1,024 processors in 8 servers... that's 128 2.8 Xeons per server! Now that's multi-processor capable. Crap.

What would it take to make the Mac OS run on intel? Even if it became possible for the Mac OS to run on other machines (which we know Steve Jobs doesn't like from the way he killed the mid-90s apple clones like Power Computing), wouldn't Apple's integration / execution of the systems be different enough? Perhaps they could do their own mother boards with better I/O for example?
I don't think the mac os will ever come out on any hardware apple doesn't control. Because apple prides itself on seamless hardware/software integration and the only way to achieve that is by controlling what hardware your system runs on. Besides I don't think Apple is ready to compete directly with microsoft at this time

PS I don't think it would take much to make the os run on intel

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by law guy
Wow. 1,024 processors in 8 servers... that's 128 2.8 Xeons per server! Now that's multi-processor capable. Crap.

What would it take to make the Mac OS run on intel? Even if it became possible for the Mac OS to run on other machines (which we know Steve Jobs doesn't like from the way he killed the mid-90s apple clones like Power Computing), wouldn't Apple's integration / execution of the systems be different enough? Perhaps they could do their own mother boards with better I/O for example?
Where did you get the number 8? I didn't see anything about that.

This is also the reason why I laugh at Steve Jobs' attempt to market the G4 as a supercomputer: TOP 500 Supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/). :rolleyes:

[yosoyjay]

Originally posted by pnz999
pixar, should use x-servers!

come on Steve show off the x-serve's power! or not

Not.

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by law guy

What would it take to make the Mac OS run on intel? Even if it became possible for the Mac OS to run on other machines (which we know Steve Jobs doesn't like from the way he killed the mid-90s apple clones like Power Computing), wouldn't Apple's integration / execution of the systems be different enough? Perhaps they could do their own mother boards with better I/O for example?

Mac OS does run on intel, if, by OS, you mean the kernel: darwin for x86 has been out for quite a while, and Apple is obviously dedicating resources to keep it working. Apple probably does have a version of its window manager running on x86 somewhere deep in cupertino as well. Steve's famous "options" speech would seem to confirm that.

In the x86 world, Intel makes the chips as well as most of the chip sets for motherboards. It would be extremely difficult for apple to come out with an x86 chipset that would perform better than the intel chipsets. Apple *could* do it to ensure do-it-yourselfers couldn't build thier own macs, by building in required proprietary ROMs, but it would be for that reason alone, rather than for performance reasons.

I still think that the 970 is the great hope for Apple. The economics seem grim, of course, but perhaps they can pull it off. Faster, IBM, faster.

Cheers,
prat

[MorganX]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Jeez, would you guys even RTFA!

It isn't based on the 64 bit Itanium. From the C|Net article:


Xeons are not Itaniums. Remember, Xeons also have hyperthreading so if the apps is aware, double the CPU count.

[DakotaGuy]

Maybe the G4 is not a supercomputer, but look at all those IBM machines in the top 500!!! IBM has what it takes from the look of that list.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mattmack

I don't think the mac os will ever come out on any hardware apple doesn't control. Because apple prides itself on seamless hardware/software integration and the only way to achieve that is by controlling what hardware your system runs on. Besides I don't think Apple is ready to compete directly with microsoft at this time

PS I don't think it would take much to make the os run on intel


Apple doesn't REALLY control the G4, either. I mean, sure, they make the specifications, but they can't make motorola come out with a highly competitive chip, which is about the only thing apple really needs right now. they are staying above water, with dual processors and an SMP aware OS at least, as well as most of their programs... i think the only real hardware spec apple really needs to hold onto is the velocity engine.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Where did you get the number 8? I didn't see anything about that.

This is also the reason why I laugh at Steve Jobs' attempt to market the G4 as a supercomputer: TOP 500 Supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/). :rolleyes:

Maybe the G4 is not a supercomputer, but look at all those IBM machines in the top 500!!! IBM has what it takes from the look of that list.

[jaykk]

I think Intel is way ahead with its 64bit chips, and even Steve Jobs admits that. Pixar wanted to save money and went with Intel, why cant we mac users have a cheaper machine then? I personally think, Os X on intel is a strong possibility otherwise Mac user base is going to shrink by less than 1% in near future

[GPTurismo]

Intel is NOT ahead with their 64 bit chips.

But since Pixar at the moment is an linux shop, intel 32 bit is a good way to go.

Silly people.

Espeically since in the market ath pixar is you can change computers twice in one year easy...

I still believe that Apple is going to head to PPC970...

[geeman]

You lot are STILL not hearing it, are you?

Linux on even a modest-spec Intel or (even better) AMD architecture blows anything Apple can currently do out of the water. X Serve archtecture is great, but with a slug of a CPU at the front it ain't gonna cut it.

I don't like saying this, but I've witnessed the tests myself. With some apps the difference is more than 8 times better performance with hardware that costs 60% of the price.

Regardeless of how much better the OS is, how can any business argue with those numbers?

[pnz999]

From macnn.com

Pixar Animation Studios -- which shares CEO Steve Jobs with Apple Computer -- is switching from Sun Microsystems to Intel, according to c|net. The film studio is replacing servers from Sun in its render farm with eight new servers from Rackspace. In all, the blade system contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system. As part of the switch to Intel for rendering, Pixar has ported its Renderman software to run on Linux. Sun and AMD both submitted bids on the Pixar deal. At Macworld in January, Intel President Paul Otellini sat in the front row for Steve Jobs' keynote as a VIP guest of Apple. Later in January, Jobs delivered the morning keynote address at Intel's annual sales conference in Las Vegas

#8 is for "render farm with eight new servers from Rackspace" (Macnn, 2003)

Ok, say if you have 2 company like Steve Jobs, Pixar and Apple, (I dont care if they are independent company from one other but to show SUPPORT of your other company.... Dont you think Pixar will somehow use Apple product OS X, G4) What happen to "the dual 1.42GHz PowerPC G4 processor configuration hits speeds of 21 gigaflops" (http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html)? Thats a supercomputer already... according to Apple its "beats" P4 very similar to the XEON. Alleast, use the G4 as a WORKSTATION.

Is Pixar saying that Apple products are less POWERFUL than Intel? (what happen to the MHz myth)

or finds Apple are too expensive? (even avg. customer find Apple computer expensive)

[MorganX]

Originally posted by geeman
You lot are STILL not hearing it, are you?

Linux on even a modest-spec Intel or (even better) AMD architecture blows anything Apple can currently do out of the water. X Serve archtecture is great, but with a slug of a CPU at the front it ain't gonna cut it.

I don't like saying this, but I've witnessed the tests myself. With some apps the difference is more than 8 times better performance with hardware that costs 60% of the price.

Regardeless of how much better the OS is, how can any business argue with those numbers?

For file serving and what not, the CPU is rarely the bottleneck. Even for Xserve. For a 3D rendering farm you're looking at raw processing speed.

The biggest hurdle for Xserve is that's it's entering a well established market with stable infrastructures built on mostly Intel and Windows based products.

[geeman]

You're way out here.

Linux (by that I mean Red Hat 8.0, I don't know about any other distro) thrashes OS X by a mile. It's not even close.

Why? because of CPU cycles, nothing else. X Serve, with it's superior architecture, should whip any (non proprietary) Linux box out there, but doesn't. Forget the Mhz myth (that only applies to Windoze). Linux screams past anything I ever seen (Solaris and IRIX included) because of "Peer Review". 150 000 programmers from around the world (including ones working at M$, Sun, SGI, maybe even Apple!) are creating the ultimate OS without mega-bucks of marketing.

Servers are commodity purchases. You want one that offers the best bang per buck, on an OS that you can administer. XServe runs slow compared to any Intel/AMD-based Linux box. Fact. I don't like to say it any more than you like to hear it... But that don't make it less true.

Well-established markets? Linux has only come into the fore in the last two years (it was dog-unreliable before that) and now you've got companies like Merril Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Boeing, etc. dumping their enterprise servers in favour of Linux - even for Mission Critical stuff like databases.

It's not a coincidence.

[jaykk]

Apple computer is not cost effective in Corporate world, so Linux is going to beat Mac in every form. Mac os X will have its nice market ( market share can fall well below if Linux picks up) . If IBM comes with Linux based thinkpad, that will be most cost-effective solution for Corporate Market. Finally Steve admits that Linux on Intel is faster than any other solution available at the moment. I dont bet too much on IBM's chip making anything good either for Apple, because i see more PPC based Linux Deskptops/latop from IBM than apple's Mac OS X. I think Steve will finally put Mac oS X on intel, thats the only way out

[iJed]

I hope Apple will move the Mac range to Intel chips as soon as possible. PPC has consistently shown that it is completely unable to scale beside Intel chips probably due to a lack of investment. I would certainly not be unhappy to see a 3GHz PowerMac P4 or a 2.5GHz iMac that were actually competitive with wintel systems.

[geeman]

Exactly!

Who cares what chip it is - as long as it's running OS X!

Steve, swallow that pride and move to Intel/AMD. Forget 970 - it's never gonna compete with the other guys, if only for the fact that Intel and AMD sell gazillons more chips that feed their R&D far more than Motorola or (even) IBM. It's a question of basic economics.

[pnz999]

The new server is Linux but what distro is it? Red Hat?

Pixar is in the 3D animation and movie business,

I was looking for 3D animation and video editting software for Linux? I cant find one! (even a sourceforge.net)

Where do company gets thier 3D software for Linux or Unix do they develop thier own App?

[geeman]

You're not looking hard enough, my friend.

Maya has been out on Linux for longer than OS X. All those SGI Octanes at ILM, for example, were replaced with Dells and HPs running Linux. Now those machines are being replaced with Macs - but only for modelling, not rendering. Rendering means CPU horsepower. Today, the best trade-off between CPU performance and a reliable OS in the SERVER market is Intel/AMD on Linux. No question.

Video editing? No, stick to Commotion, Flame or Blaze (on NT, unfortunately). You're right: there's nothing on Linux. Linux scores on SERVER apps, not desktop.

Don't get me wrong, people. I've been a devout Mac fan since my Quadra 900 days back in 1993. Today I use a PB15inch 1Ghz/1Gb RAM/SuperDrive and wouldn't exchange it for anything (not even an AliPB 17 inch!)

I much prefer using 10.2.4 than Red Hat 8, Solaris, IRIX or even x86. But Steve needs to know that servers are a totally different market than desktops. Apple's servers were always viewed as a bit of a joke in the past (not much more than glorified desktop machines with a bit more storage). That's changed. They now know what it takes to make a server (i.e. XServe). But an immature OS and the wrong CPU are what is keeping them cleaning up in that market.

I for one certainly wish them luck.

[dricci]

The Xeon is a 32 Bit chip like the G4. What I was trying to say in my first post was why didn't Steve wait a few more months and switch Pixar over to the 970-based Xservers (it's kinda obvious these are coming) instead of taking the easy route out? I'm not talking about the current G4. This would benefit both out, Pixar by having a state of the art 64-bit render farm, and Apple by having a major success story to tout to other renderfarms.

Maybe Steve just didn't want to risk it, since it's still an un-released product and Steve doesn't want to be investigated for some type of "insider trading" :eek:

[geeman]

What makes you think that OS X / 970 is gonna whip a quad Xeon / Red Hat 8 combo for much the same price?

Performance is an combination of CPU, OS and hardware (mobo).

Apple have 750 developers working on OS X. Linux have 150 000. That's more than M$, Apple, Sun, IBM (with their AIX version of UNIX) and SGI combined. (Even IBM have 300 employees working on Linux!)

And if you want 64-bit architecture, Linux have it already with the SGI Altix servers

http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/index.html

BTW: Remember that addressing instructions in a 64-bit word length instead of 32-bit can make your applications run SLOWER, not faster (unless you use a different compiler - and that's not always possible depending on the app you're developing).

[jaykk]

On a side note, even Sun reversed it stand on intel. I didnt see anyone discussing this article anywhere. Sun finally decided to support Solaris on Intel again. So what does it all tell us ?




Read the full story here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29236.html)

[geeman]

Good point!!

And did you see what desktop GUI they've decided on for the next version of Solaris?

It's GNOME - the open-source Linux desktop GUI!

[MacKid]

Originally posted by geeman
You lot are STILL not hearing it, are you?

Linux on even a modest-spec Intel or (even better) AMD architecture blows anything Apple can currently do out of the water. X Serve archtecture is great, but with a slug of a CPU at the front it ain't gonna cut it.

I don't like saying this, but I've witnessed the tests myself. With some apps the difference is more than 8 times better performance with hardware that costs 60% of the price.

Regardeless of how much better the OS is, how can any business argue with those numbers?

I agree. The Xserve was mind-blowingly fast for a 1U and everything when it came out, but now its stats in terms of speed aren't that impressive anymore, which is why I think Apple is waiting to debut the PPC970 on an Xserve update. It has been SO long since the Xserve has been updated and press has died down about it, that it only makes sense to do something like that.

[serpicolugnut]

Let us remember that these machines are for a Render Farm. That means they are just being fed scenes to render. No direct user interaction. No need for a good GUI. Just lots of CPU power.

This is just not an area where the current G4 chips fare well. Apple's current strength is in OS X , not it's currently available hardware. This doesn't necessarily mean that Apple is moving to Intel, or that the 970 isn't the next generation chip for the Mac. It just means that right now, Pixar opted to go with the most cost effective/powerful platform for a render farm. And that, due to costs and availability, is the Xeons running Linux.

We should know by this summer which direction Apple will take with it's CPU choices. If by fall Apple hasn't implemented the IBM970 in to it's pro hardware line, then it is because they are currently prepping a planned move to x86. Such a move would have to happen fast. There can be little lag time between an announcement and shipping products, because once a move to a different CPU is announced, current hardware based on G4 chips will stop selling. This is why a move to x86 is unlikely - it's just too precarious of a transition to be used as anything other than a last resort.

Think of the pitfalls...

1- Once it's announced that Apple is moving to x86, all current PPC G4 hardware will stop selling. Even if Apple tries to go a dual path for a while (with x86 only in servers), the general Mac public will see the writing on the wall and refrain from buying G4 Macs, instead waiting on the x86 offerings.

2-Most developers weren't thrilled with having to "carbonize" their apps. Do you think they'll be any more excited about having to recompile for a whole other CPU architecture? While it should hypothetically be just a matter of taking their source and running through a new x86 compiler, I doubt it is ever really that easy.

3-On x86, Apple now becomes compared even more to PC prices. Do you think Apple will be able to get away with selling a 3ghz P4 Mac for $3000, when a 2ghz P4 Windows machine will be had for $1500? Even for Mac users who are used to paying more, this would be WAY to hard to swallow.

As you see, a move to x86 is probably reserved in Steve Jobs playbook as the "doomsday scenario". As long as Apple can make a profit with PPC (G4 or 970), you can bet they will stick with it.

[groundhog troll]

I know Linux on Intel is a cheap solution for Pixar but you would think Steve Jobs could get a good discount on Mac hardware. Here's my KDE Red Hat Linux desktop

[GPTurismo]

Render farms you want one of two things,

Super cheap, stable, strong boxes

or

ONE super duper momma jamma that doesn't have clustering overhead.

Unfortunately they got a budget and clustering a ton of cheap intel boxes with linux is the best solution.

As it goes now, linux on intel is great for clustering and servers. Even if I had a mac on everyones desk I still would use linux for a majority of servers here at work.

Macs are great as workstations and desktops and laptops, but servers, the only reason I like them now is easy management and netinfo networking O:-)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by geeman
Exactly!

Who cares what chip it is - as long as it's running OS X!


whatever else your opinions may be, i strongly agree with this, provided we mean "it runs OS X WELL."

I think intel is evil, sure, but if they could be reined in and make apple a processor without any of that DRM on it, hey, i'm all for that. even motorola is OK, i guess, as long as they haul their rears into action which doesn't seem likely.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by groundhog troll
I know Linux on Intel is a cheap solution for Pixar but you would think Steve Jobs could get a good discount on Mac hardware. Here's my KDE Red Hat Linux desktop

KDE is fun. have you tried it on PPC? i have been thinking about running just an X server from the console without aqua, but i haven't tried it yet.
if you have, how does it perform? it's kinda sluggish at certain things on my box.

[Maxkraft]

Apple doesn't make anything like a blade server.
Even if the xserves had 2Ghz chips Pixar couldn?t use them because they?re looking for a large server of hundreds of cpu in one system.
Apple wasn't even an option, so why are people so disappointed.

[sedarby]

Okay, let's say the 970 is not in Apples plans but move to Intel. They release this bit of news to the public. Now, why would I want to run OS X on a chip that I can run Linux, Solaris, (God forbid) Windows XP/2000/ME/98? I have already invested a considerable amount of money in software that runs on Windows xx and I get Linux software for cheap. Where is the incentive to buy new software just for OS X? Because it's nicer? Because of iLife?

Anyone remember OpenStep? This was a great operating system that ran on Intel but didn't do so well. Competing directly with M$ is not such a viable scheme in my mind.

So, If Apple moves to Intel I'll just bid farewell now and keep hacking Linux. I currently use Linux on Mac (Yellow Dog Linux), Playstation 2 and PIII 750 Mhz (SuSE).

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by MorganX
Xeons are not Itaniums. Remember, Xeons also have hyperthreading so if the apps is aware, double the CPU count.
Uh yeah, I said it ISN'T the Itanium, but the Xeon.
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Maybe the G4 is not a supercomputer, but look at all those IBM machines in the top 500!!! IBM has what it takes from the look of that list.
Have you even counted the processors? Some have thousands, some have as few as 16, give or take. I really doubt Apple is going to build something that big with hundreds of 970s. Perhaps someone could build racks of 970-powered Xserves.
Originally posted by geeman
Good point!!

And did you see what desktop GUI they've decided on for the next version of Solaris?

It's GNOME - the open-source Linux desktop GUI!
Yes, GNOME. Funded by Ximian, the same guys who fund the development of Mono, an open source UNIX implementation of the Microsoft .NET platform. :p
Originally posted by jaykk
On a side note, even Sun reversed it stand on intel. I didnt see anyone discussing this article anywhere. Sun finally decided to support Solaris on Intel again. So what does it all tell us?
That Sun hardware blows (was so frickin' proprietary) and are too expensive, so they have to make a last resort: x86!

[law guy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Where did you get the number 8? I didn't see anything about that.

This is also the reason why I laugh at Steve Jobs' attempt to market the G4 as a supercomputer: TOP 500 Supercomputers (http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/). :rolleyes:

It's in the article on CNET Arn linked to - not in the above discussions; right before the 1024 processor number - here's an excerpt:

CNET Article quote:

with eight new blade servers from Rackspace. In all, the blade system contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system.

***

[AidenShaw]

Others have made comments about the 970's 64-bit capabilities - but note that Pixar is moving from Solaris (a 64-bit architecture) to Linux-x86 (a 32-bit architecture).

As one post noted - if you don't *need* 64-bits, it only slows you down....

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Others have made comments about the 970's 64-bit capabilities - but note that Pixar is moving from Solaris (a 64-bit architecture) to Linux-x86 (a 32-bit architecture).

As one post noted - if you don't *need* 64-bits, it only slows you down....

i doubt it slows you down, but i'm sure it costs a lot more for the same performance ;) .

[stocke2]

Originally posted by geeman
What makes you think that OS X / 970 is gonna whip a quad Xeon / Red Hat 8 combo for much the same price?

Performance is an combination of CPU, OS and hardware (mobo).

Apple have 750 developers working on OS X. Linux have 150 000. That's more than M$, Apple, Sun, IBM (with their AIX version of UNIX) and SGI combined. (Even IBM have 300 employees working on Linux!)

And if you want 64-bit architecture, Linux have it already with the SGI Altix servers

http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/index.html

BTW: Remember that addressing instructions in a 64-bit word length instead of 32-bit can make your applications run SLOWER, not faster (unless you use a different compiler - and that's not always possible depending on the app you're developing).

if I recall correctly IBM recently released a POWER4 server that runs linux natively as well!!

[stocke2]

Originally posted by MorganX


For file serving and what not, the CPU is rarely the bottleneck. Even for Xserve. For a 3D rendering farm you're looking at raw processing speed.

The biggest hurdle for Xserve is that's it's entering a well established market with stable infrastructures built on mostly Intel and Windows based products.

don't forget... Linux outruns OS X on Apple hardware as well. OS X is great for a desktop machine, I love it. however, for a server I use Linux, OS X might do for a file server, but for a render farm you can't beat Linux.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by law guy
It's in the article on CNET Arn linked to - not in the above discussions; right before the 1024 processor number - here's an excerpt:

CNET Article quote:

with eight new blade servers from Rackspace. In all, the blade system contains 1,024 Intel 2.8GHz Xeon processors, and it runs the open-source Linux operating system.

***
Wow. I can't believe I missed that completely... I read that sans the "eight." Thanks for pointing that out!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


i doubt it slows you down, but i'm sure it costs a lot more for the same performance ;) .


64-bit pointers are twice the size of 32-bit pointers.

A 64-bit program, therefore, needs twice the memory bandwidth for pointer accesses, and twice the cache to hold the pointers.

For applications where pointers are a small part of the total data, the effect is small.

For others, (like apps that keep their data in balanced B-trees) the pointers can be a significant percentage of the total memory use. These apps are slower on 64-bit processors, unless they're doing something that benefits from 64-bits (e.g. the "B-tree" is 16GB).

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by iJed
I hope Apple will move the Mac range to Intel chips as soon as possible. PPC has consistently shown that it is completely unable to scale beside Intel chips probably due to a lack of investment. I would certainly not be unhappy to see a 3GHz PowerMac P4 or a 2.5GHz iMac that were actually competitive with wintel systems.

I take it you've never heard of a POWER4 have you? The reason why Apple has ****ty chips is because Apple didn't invest in getting better ones. It's that simple. If Motorola or IBM wanted to make a high performance desktop chip, they could. With the 970, it seems like IBM has finally found a reason to make one. Apple is not a reason unless they invest enough that the processor doesn't end up losing money for the company making it. I think your post should be retitled "Move to Intel and die". Who the hell would want a more expensive computer with no software (it wouldn't run ANY existing software, you'd have to buy new versions). There's another computer line that's expensive and has no software, it's anything based off of Intel's Itanium. Intel expects it to be profitable sometime in 2007 iirc (it's been in development for 10 years now).

[arn]

Originally posted by michaelyoung
I do visual effects for movies. I spend all day, every day, making fake things look real.


That photo was fake. I could list a million reasons. But the top two:

The Apple logo was a photo a Titanium Laptop.

The size of the screen happened to be the size of the center circle on the test pattern. That type of test patter has been around since the dawn of TV . The fact that that screen was the exact size of the test pattern on the real screen is too much.

Finally, why would two screens be square and dangling from wires with thick edges and the apple one was round and flush mount into the backdrop so well it has absolutely no edge at all?

Is this one fake too then?

[AmigaMac]

That Sun hardware blows (was so frickin' proprietary) and are too expensive, so they have to make a last resort: x86!

Yeah, RIGHT! Do some real data crunching between SPARC and x86 and then say that again!

Sun's hardware is for real computation and that is why it has a strong influence in Engineering/Scientific/Enterprise markets!

And for the person who said a 64bit CPU is slower than a 32bit one, that is nonsense... if you have enough system bus/RAM bandwidth, the 64bit CPU will stomp a 32bit one, PERIOD! I see it every day between our Sun Ultra 60s versus our AMD Athlon Linux boxes!

Furthermore, context switching on the x86 architecture is slow (compared to PowerPC) and is purely the wrong platform for OSes that use a Microkernel, which OS X does use!

[d.f]

i agree that Pixar is a stand alone Co. that will choose the most profitable soulution - in this case Intel.

BUT the key fact is that how can Steve Jobs claim that businesses should buy his products.

Can you imagine how much this helps the sales rep in PC Wold, "oh, those Apple's, sure they're pretty but the boss of the company Steve Jobs doesn't even use them for his own work......" it kinda puts the office manager from going through the hassle and extra cost of 'Switching'.

please don't flame - I LOVE Apple, but this will hurt sales of the Pro Line. Couldn't Steve have made the Mac platform work for these needs....?

[Akira]

Originally posted by d.f
i agree that Pixar is a stand alone Co. that will choose the most profitable soulution - in this case Intel.

BUT the key fact is that how can Steve Jobs claim that businesses should buy his products.

Can you imagine how much this helps the sales rep in PC Wold, "oh, those Apple's, sure they're pretty but the boss of the company Steve Jobs doesn't even use them for his own work......" it kinda puts the office manager from going through the hassle and extra cost of 'Switching'.

please don't flame - I LOVE Apple, but this will hurt sales of the Pro Line. Couldn't Steve have made the Mac platform work for these needs....?
Pixar bought 8 computers with a total of 1024 processors. Apple doesn't have any products that would meet Pixars requirements, OK?!

Does everybody get it now?! A bunch of Xserves can't match the processing power per square inch of those Xeonbeasts. In addition, Pixars own RenderMan software doesn't run on Xserves!

This wil NOT hurt any Apple Pro line sales, because the Xeons are used as a renderfarm, there aren't any Apple products that would be great to use as a renderfarm

[d.f]

Originally posted by Akira

Pixar bought 8 computers with a total of 1024 processors. Apple doesn't have any products that would meet Pixars requirements, OK?!

Does everybody get it now?! A bunch of Xserves can't match the processing power per square inch of those Xeonbeasts. In addition, Pixars own RenderMan software doesn't run on Xserves!

This wil NOT hurt any Apple Pro line sales, because the Xeons are used as a renderfarm, there aren't any Apple products that would be great to use as a renderfarm

OK. it's more specialist that i thought.:rolleyes:

[Akira]

Originally posted by d.f


OK. it's more specialist that i thought.:rolleyes:
you're hereby forgiven :p

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by AmigaMac

And for the person who said a 64bit CPU is slower than a 32bit one, that is nonsense... if you have enough system bus/RAM bandwidth, the 64bit CPU will stomp a 32bit one, PERIOD!

But that same 64-bit CPU (the one with enough bandwidth) will be faster on most programs if they're compiled in 32-bit mode than if they are in 64-bit mode.

64-bit pointers use more memory, more bandwidth, and more cache. If you don't need the extra address space, you are better off with 32-bit.

And, if Sun hardware is so fast, why is Pixar moving from 64-bit Sun boxes to 32-bit Pentium 4 systems?

[MacKid]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


But that same 64-bit CPU (the one with enough bandwidth) will be faster on most programs if they're compiled in 32-bit mode than if they are in 64-bit mode.

64-bit pointers use more memory, more bandwidth, and more cache. If you don't need the extra address space, you are better off with 32-bit.

And, if Sun hardware is so fast, why is Pixar moving from 64-bit Sun boxes to 32-bit Pentium 4 systems?

I was kind of wondering the same thing. I don't know what kind of system architecture Sun's are made of, but Xserve either tied or beat all of the Dell and Sun 1U servers in the benchmark. Also, it might just be because some of these Pentiums are cheaper for their number (and in the list of top 500 Supercomputers, the top Sun has 896 400MHz processors).

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by AidenShaw

....

And, if Sun hardware is so fast, why is Pixar moving from 64-bit Sun boxes to 32-bit Pentium 4 systems? Because they are a lot cheaper, that's why. Pixar is buying rackmounted servers. Here, the servers save space and have better IO than you can get from a P IV tower. However, it is not uncommon today to buy commodity P III or P IV towers, install Linux and MPI on them, plug them into a concentrator, stack them on shelves in a room somewhere, and you have a supercomputer cluster for $500 or less per node. The price advantage is overwhelming. If they can do the job, nothing else can compete.

The mistake here is to think that such a supercomputer cluser has anything to do with general purpose servers or workstations. You are not confusing apples and oranges; you are confusing apples and fruit salad. The whole point of such clusters is to dedicate each node to a single thread, if possible. If a processor has weak multithreading, it is not really a problem here.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by AmigaMac
Yeah, RIGHT! Do some real data crunching between SPARC and x86 and then say that again!
My point was, they are EXPENSIVE! Yes their hardware is very nice, but--EXPENSIVE! The price/performance ratio is much higher on x86, that is why Pixar is switching. Oh, yes, don't forget George Lucas, and so on.
Sun's hardware is for real computation and that is why it has a strong influence in Engineering/Scientific/Enterprise markets!
Interesting. I know several people majoring in engineering, my brother included, and the universities are or have already switching or switched to Linux. I know my brother was forced to use Linux in their Engineering lab.
Furthermore, context switching on the x86 architecture is slow (compared to PowerPC) and is purely the wrong platform for OSes that use a Microkernel, which OS X does use!
Kernel design has *NOTHING* to do relative with which processor is right for which kernel. Kernel design is generally a philosophy of an OS' design. In fact, Mac OS X's microkernel--Mach--was developed on x86. It is being used in GNU/Hurd as well. It's just a design philosophy. Microkernels are best for Mac OS X because of the way it is implemented, but it might not be the best for Linux. Different strokes for different people/needs.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by MisterMe
Because they are a lot cheaper, that's why.

All your points are good, but the Xeons are not only cheaper, but they're faster per CPU than Sun.

The claim that SPARC would "stomp" a Pentium 4 (Xeon) was pretty funny.

Intel isn't in anything that can challenge the throughput of an E15K, but, like you say, for the "embarrassingly parallel" jobs like rendering they can't be touched.

[AmigaMac]

Originally posted by AidenShaw

And, if Sun hardware is so fast, why is Pixar moving from 64-bit Sun boxes to 32-bit Pentium 4 systems?

It has more to do with the price/performance ratio than anything else... also with all the marketing hoopla surrounding Linux and the Film Industry these days, it was probably a good business decision from the cool/hip factor!

I deal with both systems now for doing live data streaming and data archive/retrieval, trust me SPARC is a better workhorse than x86 in this space! We purchased and utilized a SPARC laptop not so long ago to use for some operational requirements for an engineer on travel in the US, which an x86 system (in a laptop of similar spec) could not handle!

We currently have a few Xeon (SuperMicro) servers that we installed for our basic needs in moving data, but for our major data intensive requirements, our Sun (Netra) servers currently do the job with no problems!

[GPTurismo]

I have to agree with the guys talking about the blade servers etc. Steve Jobs said Apple is sticking with PPC last year.

This is pixar, and as they said, these are humongous servers, with many many chips, and apple doesn't even offer anything in this area.

Especially blade servers.

Yes, Sun systems are great. Especially for databases. BUT, the big thing is cost. It's one reason when we do oracle systems now unless they are just huge we use linux on intel. The fact that linux on intel is very very very cost effictive in the server environment.

sheesh.

*waits for more idiotic marklar and mosx on intel remarks*

[AmigaMac]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Kernel design has *NOTHING* to do relative with which processor is right for which kernel. Kernel design is generally a philosophy of an OS' design. In fact, Mac OS X's microkernel--Mach--was developed on x86. It is being used in GNU/Hurd as well. It's just a design philosophy. Microkernels are best for Mac OS X because of the way it is implemented, but it might not be the best for Linux. Different strokes for different people/needs.

Well most OS vendors have shied away from the microkernel design concept/philosophy due to performance latencies:

The Microkernel Experiment is Going On (http://www.gnu-friends.org/story/2002/6/2/145844/7148)

skip down to 'Microkernel Vs Macro Kernel' in the next link:

MorphOS in Detail (http://www.blachford.info/morphos/morphos_in_detail.html)

Of course this concept won't go away, but until systems are optimized to take advantage of this approach, we're still reliant on the best of both worlds!

[cevin]

OK neat! :mad:

But if this is true. Then why don't Pixar and Intel write a pressrelease about it? I mean it's rather big news if it is true.

That's my two cent's anyway.
____________________________________
If it is true... then I will switch... to SUN.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by cevin
But if this is true. Then why don't Pixar and Intel write a pressrelease about it?

Maybe Jobs said "No" when a press release was suggested? :confused:

[cevin]

OK, I took some time to think more about this. If this is true then Steve has to answer to Apples shareholders. And that won't be funny for him.

So, perhaps this is a way for some guy/guys to make the Apple stock fall. I mean it obvious that news like this will make the Apple stock hurt and it's no news that Apple has a lot of products in there product pipeline for 2003.

So, I think this story is made by some idiot who is trying to make some big $$.

This isn't the first time I have seen this type of thing happening. There are this guy who writes for a big newspaper in the US that wrote a lot of negative things about Apple. He was one of the first to write that Apple probably would change to Intel (or AMD) after the Q1 last year. That guy owns a lot of Intel stock so he tried to get some $$. I think this is really lame. If this is true I hope those involved will be sentenced for 20 years of boredom.

[iJon]

this doesnt surprise me at all. i see future happening with intel and apple because intel owes apple a lot of respect. if it wasnt for apple, usb wouldnt be as big today in my opinion.

iJon

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by cevin
If this is true then Steve has to answer to Apples shareholders.

Oh, it's true. Do a web search for "pixar linux", and you'll see lots of hits describing Pixar porting their software to Linux, buying IBM P4 workstations,....

Steve has to answer to Pixar's shareholders, not Apple's.

He's probably taken himself completely out of the loop on their hardware purchases - too much risk of conflict of interest. He probably can't do anything more than ensure that Pixar is treated like any other top tier Apple customer - same discounts, same access to non-disclosure info about future products.... Any special treatment, and Apple's shareholders could sue.

One thing you can probably deduce from this news, though, is not to expect any Pentium-toasting IBM 970-based Xserves by mid-autumn (N.H.). If they were that close, and they were that powerful, Pixar might have waited.

[mattmack]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


One thing you can probably deduce from this news, though, is not to expect any Pentium-toasting IBM 970-based Xserves by mid-autumn (N.H.). If they were that close, and they were that powerful, Pixar might have waited.
I wouldn't speculate like that because even if there are 970's in the works would pixar know about them. And if I'm not mistaken there are no Xserves that could meet the specsw that Pixar purchased (1024 processors in 8 servers)

[DavPeanut]

I found Fujitsu can put 20 blades in a 3U case, and have 2 P3 based Xeons per blade! Thats crazy. that would be 40 times 14 processors per rack, or 660 processors per rack total!! Xserve can't come close. 84 processors. Oh wow. I love Apple, but Unless Pixar wants to buy some new tracts of land for more buildings, Apples not the right company for them at the moment.:( OK, they wouldn't need a new building, but its 2 racks versus 13 racks, and racks are like 500 a piece. OK, thats not a whole lot (its the cost of 2 single processor Xserves) but still, its cooler to point at two filecabinet-like boxes and say that they rendered "Finding Nemo" than to point at a room and say the same thing.

[cevin]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


Oh, it's true. Do a web search for "pixar linux", and you'll see lots of hits describing Pixar porting their software to Linux, buying IBM P4 workstations,....

oh, damn.

Any special treatment, and Apple's shareholders could sue.

that's true.

One thing you can probably deduce from this news, though, is not to expect any Pentium-toasting IBM 970-based Xserves by mid-autumn (N.H.). If they were that close, and they were that powerful, Pixar might have waited.

I can't see why it could be so. As you wrote Any special treatment, and Apple's shareholders could sue. so that could be the case if it were the other way around. I mean that Apple sold XServes to Pixar then Apple would show Pixar special favors and that would be a problem of intrest instead.

So due to NDA Apple could not give Pixar any special favors and by that Pixar had to go the way they went.

And due to NDA we don't know if there will be a Pentium-toasting IBM 970-based Xserves.

so it's a bit of catch 22.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by cevin
So due to NDA Apple could not give Pixar any special favors and by that Pixar had to go the way they went.

I am assuming that Apple in fact does give some large customers NDA presentations.

For example, note: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0205/25.henrico.php

Henrico County was the centerpiece of Apple's launch of the new iBook when the remodeled consumer laptop was first unveiled a year ago. On the same day Apple introduced the new iBook, it announced Henrico County had signed up to buy more than 20,000 of them.

It seems pretty obvious that the Henrico school system must have had some NDA information if the placed an order for 20,000 before the new iBook was announced!

So, if Apple is discussing the 970 with some companies, then discussing it at the same level with Pixar would be OK. It's not a Catch-22.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


But that same 64-bit CPU (the one with enough bandwidth) will be faster on most programs if they're compiled in 32-bit mode than if they are in 64-bit mode.

64-bit pointers use more memory, more bandwidth, and more cache. If you don't need the extra address space, you are better off with 32-bit.

And, if Sun hardware is so fast, why is Pixar moving from 64-bit Sun boxes to 32-bit Pentium 4 systems?

Following this logic we should all just go back to 8 bit. Give me a break!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by sedarby
Following this logic we should all just go back to 8 bit. Give me a break!

:) LOL

That's a bit extreme, and not the point.

The point is that most programs fit in the 2GB to 4GB of virtual address space that a 32-bit program give you. Few would fit in a 16-bit or 8-bit virtual address space.

For those programs that are happy in 32-bits, they won't magically run faster if they're recompiled for 64-bits. They might run marginally slower, especially if they use lots of pointers. If you need more than 2GB of memory per process, 64-bits is wonderful and necessary. A few applications might benefit from native 64-bit integers even though they don't need > 2GB.

There are some really fast 64-bit processors (Alpha, PA-RISC, POWER4, Itanium, ...), but they are fast processors that happen to be 64-bit - they are not fast just because they are 64-bit. The P4 and G4 have internal datapaths up to 256-bits wide today - 64-bit addressing isn't needed for wider paths for data.

There's a "bit myth" developing that people think that the 970 will suddenly vault Apple into some new dimension of 64-bits. Ha.

If the 970 is used by Apple, it'll be a big step back to performance parity with the Pentium 4. It'll also be used as a 32-bit chip running 32-bit applications - we're not going to see OSX rewritten for 64-bits this summer, and we're not going to see all the apps rewritten for 64-bits.

[AmigaMac]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


:) LOL

That's a bit extreme, and not the point.

The point is that most programs fit in the 2GB to 4GB of virtual address space that a 32-bit program give you. Few would fit in a 16-bit or 8-bit virtual address space.

For those programs that are happy in 32-bits, they won't magically run faster if they're recompiled for 64-bits. They might run marginally slower, especially if they use lots of pointers. If you need more than 2GB of memory per process, 64-bits is wonderful and necessary. A few applications might benefit from native 64-bit integers even though they don't need > 2GB.

There are some really fast 64-bit processors (Alpha, PA-RISC, POWER4, Itanium, ...), but they are fast processors that happen to be 64-bit - they are not fast just because they are 64-bit. The P4 and G4 have internal datapaths up to 256-bits wide today - 64-bit addressing isn't needed for wider paths for data.

There's a "bit myth" developing that people think that the 970 will suddenly vault Apple into some new dimension of 64-bits. Ha.

If the 970 is used by Apple, it'll be a big step back to performance parity with the Pentium 4. It'll also be used as a 32-bit chip running 32-bit applications - we're not going to see OSX rewritten for 64-bits this summer, and we're not going to see all the apps rewritten for 64-bits.

From an application program point of view, 64bit CPUs won't make a difference in terms of speed. I think basically where the confusion starts is that a 64bit CPU (even running at the same clockspeed) won't be faster than a 32bit CPU and that is basically true from a technical mindset... but from a totally data (not program) point of view, addressing more data per operation will increase overall performance why not actually being any faster CPU speed wise! That is why 64bit servers are so popular, their whole function is to move data from point A to point B swiftly. Databases come to mind when speaking of this scenario! If this wasn't the case, then there would be no incentive to even market/develop 64bit CPU technology to address the shortcomings of 32bit CPU technology!!

;)

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by AmigaMac
addressing more data per operation will increase overall performance why not actually being any faster CPU speed wise!
...
That is why 64bit servers are so popular, their whole function is to move data from point A to point B swiftly. Databases come to mind when speaking of this scenario!

But 64-bit CPUs do not address more data per operation, with the sole exception of having a native 64-bit integer data that few (if any) 32-bit CPUs have!

In a 64-bit CPU (assuming C/C++ with the prevalent LP64 programming model), a short is still 16-bits, an int is 32-bits, floats and doubles are 32 and 64 bits - same as it ever was. With the single exception of 64-bit integers, nothing has changed.

Why is 64-bit good for databases? One of the main reasons is that one can cache multi-GB of the database in main memory on a 64-bit machine. Memory is much faster than disk - especially for the indices and other structures in a database.

Why are 64-bit UNIX servers so popular? Could it be because hardly anyone is making 32-bit UNIX anymore?

IBM's lineup is all 64-bit, except for two entry level single CPU machines using a PPC 604e. SUN is all 64-bit, except for the single Intel-powered model. HP sells 64-bit HP-UX on PA-RISC and Itanium, 64-bit OpenVMS (not UNIX), Tru64 UNIX and Linux on Alpha, 64-bit Windows and 64-bit Linux on Itanium.

All the big, fast iron is 64-bit, and has been for years.

[AmigaMac]

Originally posted by AidenShaw


But 64-bit CPUs do not address more data per operation, with the sole exception of having a native 64-bit integer data that few (if any) 32-bit CPUs have!

In a 64-bit CPU (assuming C/C++ with the prevalent LP64 programming model), a short is still 16-bits, an int is 32-bits, floats and doubles are 32 and 64 bits - same as it ever was. With the single exception of 64-bit integers, nothing has changed.

Why is 64-bit good for databases? One of the main reasons is that one can cache multi-GB of the database in main memory on a 64-bit machine. Memory is much faster than disk - especially for the indices and other structures in a database.

Why are 64-bit UNIX servers so popular? Could it be because hardly anyone is making 32-bit UNIX anymore?

All the big, fast iron is 64-bit, and has been for years.

You seem to be conflicting with yourself... being able to address more memory is a performance advantage, especially if the architecture supports it! Integer is one of the important ingredients of computation! The less read-write-swap you do the better!

And why would any company waste their time with 64bit if there wasn't any advantage point?! Seems pretty moot to me!

The last sentence sums it up quite well, which makes my point clear!

:rolleyes:

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by AmigaMac
You seem to be conflicting with yourself... being able to address more memory is a performance advantage,

You missed the "per operation" statment of my reply - it was directed at an earlier post.

Big databases need 64-bit addressing to keep huge caches in memory, that's a primary reason why big iron is 64-bit.

If someone has a desktop machine with 512MB to 2GB of RAM, it's very unlikely that there will be any advantage from 64-bits. If one has 2GB and has run out of memory room, then 64-bits may help (or a 32-bit system with 32GB or 64GB of RAM may be enough).

Remember what this story is all about - Pixar moving from a 64-bit system to a 32-bit system for speed.

[GeneR]

As much as this steams me, I have to admit that Pixar is doing the right thing.
(Caution: some b!+ching and complaining...)

It makes sense that Pixar went with Intel, even if I dislike the idea of them going to anyone other than Apple. Time is definitely money for film deadlines. So the idea that they would go with a slower machine (Apple's Xserve) does not add up at all.

The almighty buck is what matters here, so, if Linux is on an Intel server, fine. Just hope Apple gets going with faster processors (SOOON!!!!) so we can stop feeling like a snail...

I love Apple's products. I hate the waiting around. If Intel gives a better performance with their servers, then so be it. I will still be loyal to Apple's powerbooks, and desktops, but speed counts.

If you had to bring a film production on/under budget and that budget was $120 million for a calendar year of work, I think you'd want every second to count. I don't know how much Finding Nemo cost, but if you can't control the time tables because you have slow machines, then shoot, what's the point of having the slower equipment? Loyalty to Apple would (and is) drying up amongst a lot of Hollywood render farms as Apple fails to take care of this situation.

Having a lot of rendering software ported over to OSX is just as important as having darn fast server product. Hopefully, this too will be addressed.

Filmmakers need an inexpensive solution for rendering both non-linear files (FCP) and 3D animation and composite work. Apple's got it right giving us iLife, now we need an "iWork" workhorse solution for all our rendering needs.


:mad:

[afracinginc]

On a kind of related note:

I recently listened to an audio book (listened to it on my iPod!) named "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs."

This book does a great job of describing Job's life from the NeXT debacle, to his resurgance at Apple, and ends in the year 2000. It also goes in depth into Pixar. Describing its beginnings, the people, when Jobs bought the group from George Lucas, the first Disney deal, etc.

One very interesting thing you discover from the book is how little Steve Jobs has to do with the day to day running of Pixar even after the success with Disney and taking the company public. Saying Steve Jobs is in charge of Pixar is like saying that the Queen is in charge England. At Apple, Jobs is without question large and in charge. At Pixar however, Jobs has mostly been in the role of figurehead and financier. He tried over and over through the years to implement his policies and philosophies at Pixar to no avail. Ed Catmull and John Lasseter run Pixar.

So in my opinion making assumptions that the things Pixar does is somehow foretelling of future directions at Apple, or vice versa, is wrong. I think they are two VERY separate companies.

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by dricci
However, don't forget that LoopRumors had a fake Photo. While their story may have have been (somewhat) true, the photo was still of a big Apple logo (that was obviously photoshoped on).

Um, you might want to check out the post from Sunday, Feb. 9th at their site.

"We contacted the source who since sent in more photos to prove the original image was not altered. I've resized the images below so you can pull them onto your desktop and open them for a closer view, and for those who are still not convinced, there's a soundclip..."

http://www.looprumors.com/

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by AmigaMac
Furthermore, context switching on the x86 architecture is slow (compared to PowerPC) and is purely the wrong platform for OSes that use a Microkernel, which OS X does use!
And to further prove you wrong, Windows NT and its derived OSes' kernels are in fact a microkernel [source (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp)]. Windows XP is plenty responsive on an 1 GHz Athlon. Mac OS X is okay on a single 1 GHz G4, but that is mostly due to Quartz, not the microkernel design decision.

Again, microkernels has NOTHING to do with what processors the microkernels are best run on, just the latency it creates doex exist on all processors.