Pixar switches from Sun to Intel

[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]

Re: price discount

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]

Blade Servers

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]

Onto Intel!

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]

Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!

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.

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]

Re: Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!

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.

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]

Moving from 64-bits to 32-bits

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]

Re: Moving from 64-bits to 32-bits

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Itanium: RTFA!

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]

Re: Re: Moving from 64-bits to 32-bits

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]

Re: Put Mac OS X on Intel or die

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]

Re: Story may be true but picture is definitely FAKE.

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]

One thing.......

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]

Re: One thing.......

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]

Re: Re: One thing.......

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.

 

[Akira]

Re: Re: Re: One thing.......

Originally posted by d.f


OK. it's more specialist that i thought.

you're hereby forgiven

 

[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!