Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
8-Core Mac Pros have arrived.
- Thread starter arcsbite
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think I should add a little bit:
1. It is possible to write software that doesn't work on any machine with two cores (tough if you try to run it on a Mac), or not on a machine with two processors, or that needs to stay on the same processor, or on the same core. Such software is basically broken. Windows has provisions to let such software work by fixing it to one specific core.
2. If the operating system is stupid, then a task can move from one core to another without any good reason. That just wastes processing power. If that is the case, the operating system needs fixing.
3. Certain software runs faster if all its threads are on two cores on the same processor; other software runs faster if all its threads are on two different processors, and yet other software doesn't care much. If the programmer knows which is the case, it would be nice if he/she could tell the operating system. MacOS X 10.4 doesn't allow this. Second best would be if the operating system could figure this out itself, but that is very very difficult.
Actually, the problem with ejected iPods being corrupted on Vista was a Vista problem and has now been fixed by Microsoft.
I was looking for the rebates on this. Couldn't find them; this came up instead:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...ce/en/2006/2006_07_13_rr_001?c=us&l=en&s=corp
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...ice/en/2006/2006_11_21_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=gen
so apple decided to release this before NAB, does this point to something bigger being released at NAB?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
8 cores is new to the MP but not to PC world. It is still of course not common.
My guess is that Apple probably wants the attention at NAB to focus on the software side...the new FCP Suite.
-HG
My guess is that Apple probably wants the attention at NAB to focus on the software side...the new FCP Suite.
-HG
I can't think of any reasons for software to fail if it gets on the wrong CPU on a truly symmetric hardware platform, but I suppose there's some oddball case.
Fixing to a specific core is also useful if the programmer/user knows something about the application that the OS couldn't figure out.
For example, if I have a quad, and I want to run 4 threads of SETI or Folding or whatever - it would make sense for me to lock each thread to one CPU, running at the lowest priority. There's no reason to migrate SETI jobs between cores.
I think what we've been hearing is that OSX 10.4 is stupid in this regard. XP 32-bit is OK; Win2K3, Vista, XP 64-bit, Linux 2.6 are good.
10.5 has improvements, we hear.
W2k3, XP 64-bit and have APIs so that the program can determine the topology of the system (which cores are in which sockets, where memory is, etc).
They also have three affinity modes:
- Let the system decide which of the available CPUs to run on
- Tell the system which CPUs are "ideal", but allow it to run on any available CPU
- Lock the thread/process to a particular set of CPUs
Note that the "available CPUs" are defined by the application, so one can say "only run on the two cores in socket 1" - and then do the second level (decide/ideal/lock) within those two cores.
Yahoo! for GetNumaHighestNodeNumber, GetNumaNodeProcessorMask, SetThreadIdealProcessor, SetProcessAffinityMask and other APIs to find out more.
thats why im waiting to hit buy until after that date .. if i can wait that long. although its probably in vain because the price will be the same as well as the product.
One problem with AMD chips is that there is no way to get their real time clocks running in sync. So it is possible that a program asks for the exact time, switches to another processor, asks again for the exact time, and gets an earlier time. That could lead to all kinds of problems. Fixed by running on one CPU only.
This doesn't match at all with what I would want. A much better way would be to let you describe the behavior of a thread and then let the system decide. For example: On a two chip system, you want threads with huge memory bandwidth usage on different chips (because each chip has its own connection to the FB-DIMMs). Some threads use lots of L2 cache, some use little. You'd want to combine them in pairs. Some threads communicate with each other a lot, you want them in the same pair of cores. Apart from the last case, this goes beyond your own application, so one application has no chance to make a good decision on its own. And the characteristics of processors change, what is a good use of affinity today might not be next year. If you can give a description of the characteristics of a thread, the OS can arrange all threads of all applications optimally.
All excellent observations!
This class of bug surfaced in a big way when Intel introduced Hyper Threading. A buggy multi-threaded app with locking problems (race conditions and/or deadlocks) would work fine on a single-CPU system. When Hyper Threading was added, all of a sudden Bad Luck that had been avoided up until that time surfaced with a vengeance. Fortunately, it was easy to turn off Hyper Threading in many BIOS, and Windows also has a way to bind processors. There is also some freeware utility you can use as a Launcher for those type of apps that will set the affinity automatically each time it starts.
Yes, this has always struck me as the best behavior. If you have two apps each trying to set their own affinity, there is a chance that they both lock on to the first handful of cores, and the higher numbered cores are left idle!
D'Oh ! <smack>
For some reason I was trying to apply the question to correctly written programs.
I guess that I've been writing multi-threaded stuff for so many decades I didn't consider the possibility of ignorant programming
.Logic 7.2 Crossgrade not availab,e cannot use logic anymore =( Advice?
Well, I finally bit the bullet and sold my old G4 Dual 1.0 ghz and picked up a Mac Pro 8-Core last week. I was totally excited about getting my new machine until I realized that the Logic 7.2 Crossgrade is no longer available in Japan. I went to the Shibuya Apple store yesterday and inquired about it, however the Apple Rep there only said that it is no longer available, and that the only way that I could use Logic on my new Mac is to buy the full retail Logic 7.2 version for 100,000yen (uhh, no way)
I find this to be quite an unsettling situation to be in. Is 7.3 coming out soon, or whatever the next version of Logic is? I don't really need any new features, I just want to get my studio up and running again.
I really don't think Apple should have discontinued the 7.2 Crossgrade until they have something else to offer their current Logic 7 userbase first...
Any advice would be deeply appreciated
Cheers,
PortableFishy
Well, I finally bit the bullet and sold my old G4 Dual 1.0 ghz and picked up a Mac Pro 8-Core last week. I was totally excited about getting my new machine until I realized that the Logic 7.2 Crossgrade is no longer available in Japan. I went to the Shibuya Apple store yesterday and inquired about it, however the Apple Rep there only said that it is no longer available, and that the only way that I could use Logic on my new Mac is to buy the full retail Logic 7.2 version for 100,000yen (uhh, no way)
I find this to be quite an unsettling situation to be in. Is 7.3 coming out soon, or whatever the next version of Logic is? I don't really need any new features, I just want to get my studio up and running again.
I really don't think Apple should have discontinued the 7.2 Crossgrade until they have something else to offer their current Logic 7 userbase first...
Any advice would be deeply appreciated
Cheers,
PortableFishy
Nab
Just wait one week. The NAB keynote should answer all your questions. Most likely Logic 8 or it's equivalent will debut next week.
Just wait one week. The NAB keynote should answer all your questions. Most likely Logic 8 or it's equivalent will debut next week.
Everybody Knew The Crossgrade Upgrade Deadline Was March 20
You had since last Spring and they even extended the cross grade deadline from December 20 to March 20. Why didn't you get the crossgrade when you had the chance all winter long? Are you saying you didn't know the deadline was March 20? It was fairly common knowledge up on their website for almost a YEAR.
You had since last Spring and they even extended the cross grade deadline from December 20 to March 20. Why didn't you get the crossgrade when you had the chance all winter long? Are you saying you didn't know the deadline was March 20? It was fairly common knowledge up on their website for almost a YEAR.
Even without knowing of the deadline you should always assume an offer will end without notice. All good things come to an end. Etc. etc. Always take the deal when offered. Don't wait. Now if you can't afford it that is a different issue but then you are gambling and that is always your risk.
Call Me Dumb but....
I have Logic 7.1, plain 'ol PPC version. Should I bother with the 7.2 UB crossgrade? Will there be that much cost savings when Logic 8 comes out and I buy a Mac Pro?? 7.1 has been fine on my Powerbook (except maybe of course the clicking I'm getting from my M-Audio Ozone).
I know that it was a big deal to do the upgrade for FCS and FCE for the more serious movie-types, but I haven't seen much on the need to do the same for Logic Pro.
Should I?? (and, Multimedia, if you choose to respond, please don't use the words daft or Stoakley-Seaburg )
Thanks
I have Logic 7.1, plain 'ol PPC version. Should I bother with the 7.2 UB crossgrade? Will there be that much cost savings when Logic 8 comes out and I buy a Mac Pro?? 7.1 has been fine on my Powerbook (except maybe of course the clicking I'm getting from my M-Audio Ozone).
I know that it was a big deal to do the upgrade for FCS and FCE for the more serious movie-types, but I haven't seen much on the need to do the same for Logic Pro.
Should I?? (and, Multimedia, if you choose to respond, please don't use the words daft or Stoakley-Seaburg
)Thanks
$49 Is Not Much Money For Bug Fixes and Intel Compatibility
$49 is cheap insurance to be future-proofed for when you buy your first Intel Mac. I don't understand the downside. You need me to give you the $49? If so please PM me and I will.I have Logic 7.1, plain 'ol PPC version. Should I bother with the 7.2 UB crossgrade? Will there be that much cost savings when Logic 8 comes out and I buy a Mac Pro?? 7.1 has been fine on my Powerbook (except maybe of course the clicking I'm getting from my M-Audio Ozone).
I know that it was a big deal to do the upgrade for FCS and FCE for the more serious movie-types, but I haven't seen much on the need to do the same for Logic Pro.
Should I?? (and, Multimedia, if you choose to respond, please don't use the words daft or Stoakley-Seaburg
Thanks
No, I think I can scrape together $49.00
....but I was planning to get the newest Logic 8 at the same time as I get the Mac Pro. I'm just having a little difficulty convincing myself to buy it when I have no idea what kind of pricing, or price breaks, the newest Logic will have. Perhaps I should have clarified that.
Now, the $99 deal to get FCE was a no-brainer, but we have seen no information on Logic X, nor have we seen "deals" for Logic such as the FCE deal they offered last month.
Wait. What bug fixes? Can anyone attest to a "tangible" difference when going from 7.1 PPC to 7.2 UB crossgrade????
Admittedly, I have not messed with my music in a while. I'm in an MBA/MSIT program at the moment so that occupies most of my time. And I know myself. When I get into messing around with my music, I lose all track of time and spend ungodly amounts of time with the music.
....but I was planning to get the newest Logic 8 at the same time as I get the Mac Pro. I'm just having a little difficulty convincing myself to buy it when I have no idea what kind of pricing, or price breaks, the newest Logic will have. Perhaps I should have clarified that.
Now, the $99 deal to get FCE was a no-brainer, but we have seen no information on Logic X, nor have we seen "deals" for Logic such as the FCE deal they offered last month.
Wait. What bug fixes? Can anyone attest to a "tangible" difference when going from 7.1 PPC to 7.2 UB crossgrade????
Admittedly, I have not messed with my music in a while. I'm in an MBA/MSIT program at the moment so that occupies most of my time. And I know myself. When I get into messing around with my music, I lose all track of time and spend ungodly amounts of time with the music.
Not Worth Risking Your Logic Future When The $49 Upgrade Has Apeared Once More
I think you better get the $49 deal just to inoculate yourself against a possible disappointment. The 7.2 Crossgrade includes improvements to the 7.1 you have. If they pull the crossgrade when 8 is announced, the upgarde from 7.1 to 8 might very well be more expensive than the upgrade from 7.2 UB. I wouldn't risk it. I bought the upgrade to 5.1.4UB FCS for $199 based on the thinking that the upgrade from 4.5 to 6 might be much more expensive or not even available to old 4.5 PPC FCP owners. 'Til March 20 any academic copy of FCP 4 could go to 5.1 UB for $199. Now they can't even be used to go to 5.1UB for $699. You are gambling a lot of IFs for a measley $49.
Is there any reason for a consumer (non professional) to go octo-core?
I do want to do some basic, for my own purposes, video and graphics editing, but not much beyond that.
But most applications won't take advantage of 8 cores so is it worth paying for it? Do you think in the future multithreading will be so standard that getting an octocore now would mean my computer would last longer?
Or is octocore, or multi core in general, just a sort of stalling and distraction until individual processor speeds really increase significantly?
/confused
I do want to do some basic, for my own purposes, video and graphics editing, but not much beyond that.
But most applications won't take advantage of 8 cores so is it worth paying for it? Do you think in the future multithreading will be so standard that getting an octocore now would mean my computer would last longer?
Or is octocore, or multi core in general, just a sort of stalling and distraction until individual processor speeds really increase significantly?
/confused
The current offering is only worth it for those who know how to and know they can use it. It's aimed at a select number within a niche market. We are unlikely to see processor speeds increase significantly (certainly in terms of Ghz) , multicore (and more processes per clock cycle) is the future. Though 8 core should be the limit, and I'd venture staple for Mac Pros, for around 18-24 months at least.
Thanks for the response Umbongo.
So if you think multicore is the future, and I'm the type of person who buys a new computer every 5-8 years, should I go 8 core or no? If it's something that will be useful in the future, as in next 1-3 years, then it is definitely worth the extra cash to me now. But if it's something that is unlikely to ever, or in the near future ever, make a significant difference in performance, then obviously it's a waste of money.
I guess I'm also worried that we will soon switch to an altogether different form of computing (quantum or synaptic) within the near future.
So if you think multicore is the future, and I'm the type of person who buys a new computer every 5-8 years, should I go 8 core or no? If it's something that will be useful in the future, as in next 1-3 years, then it is definitely worth the extra cash to me now. But if it's something that is unlikely to ever, or in the near future ever, make a significant difference in performance, then obviously it's a waste of money.
I guess I'm also worried that we will soon switch to an altogether different form of computing (quantum or synaptic) within the near future.
