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.
Pixar switches from Sun to Intel
- Thread starter MacQuest
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!
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
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
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.
Re: Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!
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.
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.
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.
So, finally Intel wins
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
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
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...
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...
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?
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?
From macnn.com
#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)
#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)
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.
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.
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.
Apple computer is not cost effective, period
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
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
Put Mac OS X on Intel or die
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 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.
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.
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.
Re: Apple computer is not cost effective, period
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?
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?
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.
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.
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"
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"
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).
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).
Even Solaris 9 now supports on Intel
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
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
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.
Let us remember...
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.
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.
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
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