Motorola

[Blackcat]

Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?

I think quite simply Pixar needed some high powered boxes, Intel based ones fitted the bill.

If you're rendering a 2 hour movie, you can't afford to wait 9 months for an unknown cpu, time is money.

 

[ryan]

Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?

Depends on what you mean by "soon." When people talk about upgrading their computer, like what Pixar did recently only on a much larger scale, I always like to point out that tomorrow's fastest computer won't help you finish the work you need done today. Intel XEON processors provide the best bag-for-the-buck now and probably will for some time to come, although things may change somewhat in ~6 months when we'll probably see the 970 in a Mac.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?

I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.

I think that whoever thinks that Pixar should use Apple for rendering... is on crack and needs to realize the truth. Apple has nothing to offer for that type of stuff.

Steve Jobs is CEO of both for one primary reason--to increase revenue and profit for both companies. If a 1024 processor blade cluster of Linux render servers saves and earns Pixar money. Let them!

 

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Telomar

As for current AthlonXP processes the new 3000 is a step down from the old one (2800). Their numbering scheme increases but performance doesn't move and they've been out of the race for top dog since Intel hit around 2 GHz and especially after Intel started increasing FSB speeds. AthlonXP's major advantage was price/performance and it doesn't even cut it on that anymore.

Take a look at this review of the AthlonXP 3000.
Here.

It is a long review showing that indeed the P4 3.06 GHz is ahead, but not by much, and in fact many applications show the XP to be the clear winner. Also there is a very detailed explination as to why (or why not) an increase in Cashe memory helps the processor.

Also, since it was brought up in another post, AMD used to produce a straight x86 processor. As of the Athlon, they produce a RISC processor with x86 built in emulation. The Athlon64(that will be the consumer 64-bit processor) is even different. Absolutely not an x86 processor, just emulation built in. With the Opteron (Server/workstation processor) being released very soon (next month I think), AMD could release the less complex consumer processor, however M$ is draging their heels developing a 64-bit OS. I suspect they are budding up to Intel, slowing AMD down so Intel can catch up with their design for 64-bit processors.

I think it would be nice if Apple went with AMD processors, but find it very unlikely with all the x86 bashing in the last 3-4 years.

 

[avus]

Re: Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.

I think that whoever thinks that Pixar should use Apple for rendering... is on crack and needs to realize the truth. Apple has nothing to offer for that type of stuff.

Steve Jobs is CEO of both for one primary reason--to increase revenue and profit for both companies. If a 1024 processor blade cluster of Linux render servers saves and earns Pixar money. Let them!

I hate any automotive analogy in computer talks but people here and other thread are so clueless, I would like to add this to your post:

Comparing the xServe and the blade server is like comparing the Ford F-150 and the Catapiller Off-Highway truck.

I mean, they are both called "truck" and very practical to carry heavy loads, but they are very different, aren't they? And just because Ford doesn't offer any vehicle that matches the maxium payload of the Catapillar, is Ford a failure as business? No, Ford is in a different market from Catapillar, and everyone can understand that, right?

When you have to move a mountain full of dirt, you buy the Catapiller. You don't buy 150 F-150s to do the job. This is what Pixar did. While there can be an argument about going from Sun to Intel, we should NEVER mix Apple (or the 970, a scale-down version of the Power4) into this. It is just foolish.

 

[ddtlm]

Telomar:

Again AMD currently is either in the process of closing or has closed all their Texas fab plants leaving them with a whole 1 fab in Dresden.

Dresden alone can supply 30% (or more) of the x86 market (it has made all of AMD's chips for a while and has lots of room to spare).

Increasingly they rely on external contracts for their parts.

Noone besides AMD makes AMD chips. They were talking to a Taiwanese company but it never happened.

As for current AthlonXP processes the new 3000 is a step down from the old one (2800).

Wrong. It is generally but not always faster, as Aceshardware, Anandtech, Tech-Report and presumably everyone else concluded.

I have no problem with quoting them but you'd be a fool to take them as the best cross-platform benchmark test and leave it there.

How about you find me a better one?

As I said until you've looked at performance of high end servers like Alphas or POWER4s compared to the competition you just aren't aware of how misleading looking at those numbers can be. I rather expect your knowledge comes from theory rather than any experience in these areas though.

My high-end experience is unforunately all with Sun and SGI machines, however I place far more wieght in SPEC than I do in anyone's perception of performance.

 

[pgwalsh]

AMD's new Barton core. These are the true clock speeds for the procs. The fist numbers are for comparison to the PV 3.06. Maybe IBM, Moto, and AMD are sharing good things. As these numbers show the Mhz is a myth, to some extent.

Barton 3000+ 13*166MHz = 2.167GHz

Barton 2800+ 12.5*166MHz = 2.083GHz

Barton 2500+ 11*166MHz = 1.833GHz

 

[NicoMan]

Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
Perhaps the 970 is a way off yet. If the 970 was soon to be released in the X Server, would Jobs have moved from Sun to Intel for Pixar?
I would think that if the 970 (or G5) was coming out soon and was a rocket, wouldn't Pixar move to Apple?

It doesn't mean anything long-term. Those render-farms are paid for after only a couple of movies. So if it's the fastest today, it makes sense for Pixar to use Intel. They can always change in a year or 2...

NicoMan

 

[DharvaBinky]

Re: Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I don't think Pixar would ever use anything Apple for rendering. Apple boxes are for end users, not high-end rendering users.

Until then, show me an Apple blade server with 128 G4s or 970s in it. That's right. They don't have one. That's not Apple's concern.

errmmm... except for the fact that Star Wars: Episode I was composited at ILM on custom built quad G4s in After affects running early OS X code...

ILM gave a presentation on their setup at Siggraph the year Ep 1 came out...



Dharvabinky

 

[jethroted]

Power 5

The G4 must die! It has been around too long. We have to move on fast. Bring on the Power 5! Let's get past this old g4 technlogy and move on towards a new chip that will move us lightyears ahead, not just a couple of Mhz here and there.

 

[Wash!!]

Re: Power 5

Originally posted by jethroted
The G4 must die! It has been around too long. We have to move on fast. Bring on the Power 5! Let's get past this old g4 technlogy and move on towards a new chip that will move us lightyears ahead, not just a couple of Mhz here and there.

R&D takes time and money and apple does not have pockets as deep as IBM or Intel to make their own chips. At this point is just a waiting game.

Apple needs to move to chip like the ones SGI boxes run on, but those chips don't run a GHZ speeds they still run under 800Mhz. so to show you that is not how fast is the chip is how well integrated the hardware and software is to get the most out of the CPU.

I don't care what intel/ADM do even if they make 1,000GHZ chip they still run winblows which ever flavor they have.
OSX is not completly optimeze to run on the PPC chips yet because of the legacy code of OS9, that's the reason they are pushing boot on X only machines now so they can finally optimized the code without the extra bagage. Once they do that you will see a huge different in the preformace of the apps to come.

PS. take a look at the specs SGI offers and see for your self that MHZ means in the real world
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/
my $.02
cheers

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: Re: Re: 970 soon?

Originally posted by avus
Comparing the xServe and the blade server is like comparing the Ford F-150 and the Catapiller Off-Highway truck.

I mean, they are both called "truck" and very practical to carry heavy loads, but they are very different, aren't they? And just because Ford doesn't offer any vehicle that matches the maxium payload of the Catapillar, is Ford a failure as business? No, Ford is in a different market from Catapillar, and everyone can understand that, right?

When you have to move a mountain full of dirt, you buy the Catapiller. You don't buy 150 F-150s to do the job. This is what Pixar did. While there can be an argument about going from Sun to Intel, we should NEVER mix Apple (or the 970, a scale-down version of the Power4) into this. It is just foolish.

Duh. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Apple doesn't have anything to match the blade servers, so they shouldn't be used, IMO. Not worth the price and Quartz overhead. Two processors per server in several U1 rackmount towers, could you say loud, even more power consuming, etc. I'd rather have what Pixar is getting.

Like I said, Apple is an end-user company. Apple cares more about the regular Joe consumer.

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
errmmm... except for the fact that Star Wars: Episode I was composited at ILM on custom built quad G4s in After affects running early OS X code...

ILM gave a presentation on their setup at Siggraph the year Ep 1 came out...

My point was, it was rendered on non-Mac hardware. Episode II was rendered on a cluster farm of AMD Athlon MPs.

Mac OS X can't match Linux's flexibility as a UNIX operating system as Linux can be customized and tweaked to the ultimate for any situation. For example, Pixar and ILM most likely tweaked Linux for rendering, multi-proc optimizations, better network load balancing, etc. Yes, there is Darwin, but who would want to run that on several Xserves? Not me. Too expensive and too slow. Darwin doesn't run that well on x86 yet. So I wouldn't count that in either.

Whole point is: Intel and AMD, when used with Linux, are eclipsing Sun Microsystem with more performance per dollar. Pixar is using Intel because it's better for them economically. Apple has no rendering workhorses to offer to Pixar.

BTW, wtf... quad G4... uh huh whatever, I've heard about it but it was never confirmed, to my knowledge.

 

[alset]

Enter CENTRINO.

Intel is about to make our chips easier to back up.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2003/tc20030211_8644_tc119.htm

Have fun.

Dan