PDA

View Full Version : Quad Core's Are Out:)



pantone
04-04-2007, 07:31 AM
http://www.apple.com/macpro/

nemac4
04-04-2007, 07:51 AM
wow,. that is a beast.:jam:

Darth Mole
04-04-2007, 08:03 AM
No pricing on the UK Apple store as yet. I specced a US version and it came out at $4994 - or £2530.

ouch

Anyone wanna buy a Quad G5?

tribbles
04-04-2007, 08:38 AM
They had to do this. Two days after I'd ordered the refurb'd one (knew I had a knack of choosing the wrong time).

However, it looks like they haven't really changed the prices (but I'd need to see the UK prices to verify).

dsol
04-04-2007, 08:48 AM
it's a shame they don't do a dual 2.6GHz Quad as I suspect that would cost about the same as the dual 3Ghz duo but be much much faster for LW rendering. I guess it didn't fit into their marketing. I guess I could get a dual 2 Ghz Duo and upgrade the CPUs myself :)

Scazzino
04-04-2007, 09:04 AM
The 3GHz 8 core is only $700 more than the 3GHz 4 core...

So for $700 your almost doubling your render speed... that's a bargain...

Gotta go count my pennies... ;)

BazC
04-04-2007, 09:13 AM
The 3GHz 8 core is only $700 more than the 3GHz 4 core...

So for $700 your almost doubling your render speed... that's a bargain...

Gotta go count my pennies... ;)

Not necessarily, I'd wait for some benchmarks to be sure. From what I've heard the quad cores don't give the speedboost you'd expect!

peteb
04-04-2007, 09:26 AM
I just done a spec for a dual quad with 8 gig of ram and a 23 inch monitor. Came out at $6500. That's around £3200 but I have a feeling when they release this on the UK site it will be around £4000. Tad too expensive for me I don't really want to be spending more the £2800

Pete B

dsol
04-04-2007, 09:28 AM
Not necessarily, I'd wait for some benchmarks to be sure. From what I've heard the quad cores don't give the speedboost you'd expect!

Dunno, from what I've seen, in most cases the LW renderer scales fairly linearly with the number of processors. There will obviously be some exceptions - perhaps with GI or the new SSS nodes, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least in the region of 50-75% faster than the dual cores.

Sadly, it won't speed up many (or any) non-rendering tasks - eg, modelling, layout, calculating dynamics. I want one anyway :) The last big job I did taught me you can never have enough processing power!

Scazzino
04-04-2007, 10:38 AM
Not necessarily, I'd wait for some benchmarks to be sure. From what I've heard the quad cores don't give the speedboost you'd expect!

I'll run some benchmarks when I get mine... ;) :D

cresshead
04-04-2007, 10:47 AM
now where's my piggy bank?
24gighz of xeon render power....yummy!...will be great for lightwave 9.2 and max 9

tribbles
04-04-2007, 11:08 AM
I remember a course at university where we talked about this kind of system - 5 cores was the optimum number, but then I suppose it depends on how efficient the cache and applications are.

Matt
04-04-2007, 11:34 AM
Looks nice!

If multiple cores are anything to go by, my Intel Quad Core 2 Extreme rips through previously slow scenes.

Captain Obvious
04-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Lightwave scales very well with eight cores. I'd say about 90% efficiency, as long as you stay away from that old interpolated radiosity.

toby
04-04-2007, 11:50 AM
Sorry about that Tribbles, that's supposed to be the story of MY life. Don't fret though, I'm sure you spent almost half as much money - hey, see if they'll cancel the order?

gerry_g
04-04-2007, 11:54 AM
Thing is do we cave in to temptation and buy now or do the smart thing and wait for Panther at the end of June and do it properly, Apple are an arrogant lot and would think nothing of changing the machines entire spec two months hence just so it'll run some new Panther goodies a little better

tribbles
04-04-2007, 12:02 PM
Sorry about that Tribbles, that's supposed to be the story of MY life. Don't fret though, I'm sure you spent almost half as much money - hey, see if they'll cancel the order?

Actually, I'm not worried at all - I don't really need an 8-core machine at this moment in time, and I wouldn't have bought one at that price. Since the prices of the more basic machines haven't changed (if they have, it's not bu much), I haven't lost anything at all. As it's already on its way to me, I'll also get it sooner.

I was actually grinning this afternoon when I saw what had happened (I was in two minds as to whether to check the prices out, or not look in case it scared me).

The only annoying thing is that I bought a top-of-the-range Mac (processor-wise), and it became out-dated before it arrived :)

tribbles
04-04-2007, 12:03 PM
The only annoying thing is that I bought a top-of-the-range Mac (processor-wise), and it became out-dated before it arrived :)

I think I'll make that my tag-line...

cresshead
04-04-2007, 12:05 PM
we worked out that a uk priced 8 core with 2gig ram and the ati 512mb video card would be around £3050 inc vat....

we'll see eh?

tribbles
04-04-2007, 12:26 PM
The upgrade from 4x2.6 to 4x3.0 was around $800/£540, so I guessed the 8x3.0 would be just around £1000 from that. So £3050 seems about right (might be a [very] little bit low).

I paid £1900 for my 4x3.0, so saved £340. I'm still happy with it though. As long as they haven't reduced the price of the 4x3.0 too much though. We'll see when the UK site gets updated.

Animapper
04-04-2007, 12:50 PM
Well - this means I will be building the next machine instead of going macpro. Even with my discount I configured the machine at around $5000 with four gigs of ram and the x1900 video card. I can build it for about $3200 and have four times the horsepower in video cards. Wow. This seems like the old days again... exclusivity for a price. I'll be following Matt's lead perhaps. btw, did you look into a dual quad build setup Matt?

Okaaaaayyyy,

cresshead
04-04-2007, 01:00 PM
Well - this means I will be building the next machine instead of going macpro. Even with my discount I configured the machine at around $5000 with four gigs of ram and the x1900 video card. I can build it for about $3200 and have four times the horsepower in video cards. Wow. This seems like the old days again... exclusivity for a price. I'll be following Matt's lead perhaps. btw, did you look into a dual quad build setup Matt?

Okaaaaayyyy,

err how exactly are you going to run osx on a home built ''pc''?:D

if you config a dell ''winbox'' pesicion it's comes out as around £2000 more expensive [£4750 plus vat]than a mac pro for the very same config...[8core] except you can't select a 3ghz 8 core and have to make do with a 2.66 8 core for more cash and no mac boot....which is really funny seeing as dell sell themselves as a cheap pc vendor.

btw you can save 30% on ram for mac pro's by getting it yourself and plugging them in rather than buying from apple

Animapper
04-04-2007, 01:28 PM
sorry - i was musing and wasn't clear. I have a macpro 266 now and only boot into mac os for final cut/editing comps. I run LW in win xp because it's so fricken fast.

What I was trying to say, is that this machine is not priced within what I can build "myself" (no dells, etc.) anymore. Of course, I can't run OS-X on anything I build but I really am only looking at a hotrod modeling box right now that will run win xp pro. Hopefully that makes more sense.

Funny thing is that just yesterday I was posting about how I couldn't build an equvilent "macpro" type box cheaper than I could get it from apple. Now that the quads are out, I can.

Regards,

Scazzino
04-04-2007, 01:49 PM
btw you can save 30% on ram for mac pro's by getting it yourself and plugging them in rather than buying from apple

Right, I just ordered a Mac Pro 8-core with ATI Radeon X1900 XT with only 1 GB of RAM. Then I ordered 4 more GB of NetList RAM (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/53FB1GD4GBK/) (Same RAM Apple uses) from MacSales.com (OWC) for $499.

You can typically get RAM and HD's less expensively by adding them yourself, which is a piece of cake in these Macs.

:thumbsup:

Scazzino
04-04-2007, 01:55 PM
sorry - i was musing and wasn't clear. I have a macpro 266 now and only boot into mac os for final cut/editing comps. I run LW in win xp because it's so fricken fast.

Once the LW UB's released, you won't need to run it under Windows any more... it should be just as fast, or maybe even a little faster under Mac OS X ;)

BazC
04-04-2007, 02:27 PM
Right, I just ordered a Mac Pro 8-core with ATI Radeon X1900 XT with only 1 GB of RAM. Then I ordered 4 more GB of NetList RAM (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/53FB1GD4GBK/) (Same RAM Apple uses) from MacSales.com (OWC) for $499.

You can typically get RAM and HD's less expensively by adding them yourself, which is a piece of cake in these Macs.

:thumbsup:

Woohoo! Looking forward to your benchmarks! :D

Scazzino
04-04-2007, 02:49 PM
Woohoo! Looking forward to your benchmarks! :D

Me too! :D

I'll be moving up from an aging first revision Power Mac 2GHz dual processor G5... which hasn't been top of the line for quite a few years now... it's served me well though and will become my home machine, replacing an even older Power Mac 1GHz dual processor G4... ;)

toby
04-04-2007, 03:23 PM
Right, I just ordered a Mac Pro 8-core with ATI Radeon X1900 XT with only 1 GB of RAM. Then I ordered 4 more GB of NetList RAM (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/53FB1GD4GBK/) (Same RAM Apple uses) from MacSales.com (OWC) for $499.
Congrats! Keep us updated!
My God the UB LW will be a beast on that thing! You'll hit F9 three times before you realize it finished already :D

BazC
04-04-2007, 04:00 PM
I take it back, I've just read a post from a Luxology member that they tested these 8 core machines a while back and got near 100% speed increase from the 8 core 3GHz over the 4 core 3GHz! :eek:

Link! (http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=16180)

tribbles
04-04-2007, 04:19 PM
The benchmark graph shows a 1.6x increase from the quad-core, rather than 2x, so it's while it'll be 100% CPU, it's not quite the same as 2x.

Edited to add: Although this is mentioned: "In practice, we've seen up to 1.94x speedups over my Quad 3.0 MacPro."

Captain Obvious
04-04-2007, 06:19 PM
Well - this means I will be building the next machine instead of going macpro. Even with my discount I configured the machine at around $5000 with four gigs of ram and the x1900 video card. I can build it for about $3200 and have four times the horsepower in video cards. Wow. This seems like the old days again... exclusivity for a price. I'll be following Matt's lead perhaps. btw, did you look into a dual quad build setup Matt?

Okaaaaayyyy,
A) Where can you build it for that amount of money? I want to know.

B) The drivers for the 8800GTX are crap.

cresshead
04-04-2007, 07:03 PM
here's question about multicore pc's...how's the memory work on say a 2million poly scene that renders okay on a single core with 1 gig of ram...

how will that scale up for an 8 core?.....

how's the memory split for each core needed to render frames out...so you need the same amount of ram for each core to render the scene as in around a gig or do they simply dip into that 1 gig needed to render out?

i imagine there must be some hit on the extra cores but how much?


so in the aboveexample would i need 8 gig of ram to render with all 8 cores and only a percentage of that 8 gig?

sorry i'm not a techy on this so explain in ''fish n chip english'' if you can!

Chilton
04-04-2007, 07:31 PM
ack.

Weepul
04-04-2007, 07:38 PM
Well that's not a good sign. :p

cresshead
04-04-2007, 07:46 PM
he edited the reply out by the looks of it....my email version said something different!

Chilton
04-04-2007, 08:01 PM
Hi, wrong message, wrong thread ;-)

Animapper
04-04-2007, 09:02 PM
I'm researching which MB to go with now but I'll post the info when I'm through. Most of the items are from newegg.com. Stay tuned - ;-)

BazC
04-05-2007, 12:16 AM
ack.

Sorry, that's still too tehnical! :D

tribbles
04-05-2007, 01:52 AM
here's question about multicore pc's...how's the memory work on say a 2million poly scene that renders okay on a single core with 1 gig of ram...

how will that scale up for an 8 core?.....

how's the memory split for each core needed to render frames out...so you need the same amount of ram for each core to render the scene as in around a gig or do they simply dip into that 1 gig needed to render out?

It depends on how the program has been written.

If it's been written nicely, then the poly, image and final output buffer memory will be shared across all processors, so this data isn't replicated in the memory space.


i imagine there must be some hit on the extra cores but how much?

Probably not much - each computational process running will be using the shared memory for the data, but will have some local memory that it will need for its execution (stack memory). This will be reserved for each processor, but it shouldn't be too significant (1M would be a bit excessive for this).


so in the aboveexample would i need 8 gig of ram to render with all 8 cores and only a percentage of that 8 gig?

That would be an indication of very bad programming at work (or very inefficient).

tribbles
04-05-2007, 02:18 AM
UK site is now updated - the 4x3.0 is £30 cheaper, and the 8x3.0 is less than I thought it would be (it's £960 instead of £1000).

1G of memory's dropped by £11 (still expensive though).

So, my £350 off is still a good deal anyway. Yay! :)

peteb
04-05-2007, 04:33 AM
I just added up the cost of an 8 core with a 20 inch monitor and 8 gigs of ram on the UK site. £5100. Hmmm might have to sell a few things...like my house.


Pete B

tribbles
04-05-2007, 04:36 AM
I've just ordered 2x24" Dell LCD monitors (1920x1200) - £409+VAT each. Yummy!

zapper1998
04-05-2007, 05:00 AM
I'm researching which MB to go with now but I'll post the info when I'm through. Most of the items are from newegg.com. Stay tuned - ;-)

I am wondering what motherboard they are using myself..
Intel MB or Nvidia MB ??







Michael

cresshead
04-05-2007, 05:48 AM
I've just ordered 2x24" Dell LCD monitors (1920x1200) - £409+VAT each. Yummy!

£409?? are you sure?
http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&s=bsd&cs=ukbsdt1&sku=59234

is £479 plus vat....

is your monitors second hand/refurbs?

cresshead
04-05-2007, 05:52 AM
quoted:-
It depends on how the program has been written.

If it's been written nicely, then the poly, image and final output buffer memory will be shared across all processors, so this data isn't replicated in the memory space.

end of quote

so a 2 or 4 gig machine is quite viable 8core render for lightwave 9.2 and large scenes of 2-4million polys, i'd imagine that max/mentalray will have even better ram managemant for rendering as it's has a bucket renderer and so doesn't need to hold the whole scene in ram and just the bucket it's rendering.:thumbsup:

tribbles
04-05-2007, 07:14 AM
£409?? are you sure?
http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=uk&l=en&s=bsd&cs=ukbsdt1&sku=59234

is £479 plus vat....

is your monitors second hand/refurbs?

I don't think they're refurbs (a mate of mine told me about them; he said that refurbs were cheaper [but not by much]).

I'll give out details when I've had a look at mine (don't want to either find out it's a dodgy supplier [and other people get burned], or they're refurbs, or that you lot won't go and take all their stock so I don't get mine :) ).

Total inc. vat and delivery was £975.78.

tribbles
04-05-2007, 07:16 AM
so a 2 or 4 gig machine is quite viable 8core render for lightwave 9.2 and large scenes of 2-4million polys, i'd imagine that max/mentalray will have even better ram managemant for rendering as it's has a bucket renderer and so doesn't need to hold the whole scene in ram and just the bucket it's rendering.:thumbsup:

If your scene renders fine on a 4-core machine, it shouldn't have any problems at all on an 8-core machine with the same memory.

Unless "rendering too fast" is a problem for you :)

cresshead
04-05-2007, 07:20 AM
sounds fair..keep us posted!

tribbles
04-05-2007, 07:33 AM
I've just checked, and they're 2407WFP, so not an earlier version (has the hub, card reader etc).

Slightly worried that my sales order number is #292 (although I did order something from one on-line supplier a few years back, and it was order #84 - that was okay).

My mate's monitors look fine, and he's happy with them.

I'm now tempted to get another one as well, but I'll see how they turn out first of all.

pantone
04-05-2007, 08:01 AM
I thought I'd pass this along from the After Effects list. 8 Cores is great if you can afford to feed them properly:)

(Nucleo Pro is a network rendering solution for After Effects.)

----

I wanted to make sure that anyone who is considering purchasing the just
announced 8 Core MacPro understands that if you want to use it with Nucleo
Pro, or even just AE CS3's multiprocessing capability - you MUST buy the
appropriate RAM.

8 Cores are absolutely fantastic IF you have the RAM. If you purchase an 8
core workstation yet put only say 2-4GB of RAM, you will be completely
annoyed by the performance.

Thought I would pro-actively point this out before folks run to buy one.
You need to put at least 8GB, ideally 16GB of RAM in that beast to make it
sing.

Steve
GridIron Software Inc.

cresshead
04-05-2007, 08:14 AM
okay so now we totally opposed views on ram usage with multicore cpu's....:thumbsdow

can someone from newtek chime in here and TELL us just what's the absolute DEAL here regarding lightwave 9.2 i am NOt interested in views with after effects or some out there 'app' that can only get to start to work with 8 gigs!:D

re buying ram...
http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/listparts.aspx?model=Mac+Pro

tribbles
04-05-2007, 08:28 AM
I think it depends on the application.

Once an image has started to render, Lightwave spends most of its time reading data, and writing the odd bit once it's calculated the current pixel's values. Since the entirety of the LW scene is in memory (i.e. all the polys), it's all shared between processors. (At least, that's how I'd write such a renderer).

I'm not an expert in After Effects, but I would imagine that each processor is reading and writing its own bit of a very large file - i.e. the file is not (or cannot be) held in memory, and there is little information to share between the processors. As a result, you would need more memory.

Or they've got crap coders :)

BazC
04-05-2007, 08:58 AM
I can tell you that I ran my quad for four months with only 1gig (256Mb per core) with no problem at all using various 3d apps and photoshop (big images med sized 3d scenes) so I don't believe you'll need masses of RAM for these 8 cores. I'll be interested to here what Chilton has to say though

Scazzino
04-05-2007, 09:49 AM
I can tell you that I ran my quad for four months with only 1gig (256Mb per core) with no problem at all using various 3d apps and photoshop (big images med sized 3d scenes) so I don't believe you'll need masses of RAM for these 8 cores. I'll be interested to here what Chilton has to say though

Hopefully 5 GB will be sufficient to get me started, since that's all I ordered so far... I'll let you know how it goes, but I expect it to be fine. I'm currently using 4GB on an old first generation Power Mac 2GHz dual processor G5, so the 3GHz eight core Mac Pro with 5GB should give me a nice speed boost... It'll still have 2 slots free if I need to stuff more RAM in there...

:goodluck:

Scazzino
04-05-2007, 09:56 AM
Until Leopard is out (and LW goes 64 bit on the Mac), I don't think any single app can really go beyond 3GB anyway (regardless of number of cores)... Currently on a 7.5 million polygon scene LW 9.0 crashes when trying to render after hitting about 3GB of RAM use on this dual processor G5... The console log shows many entries like this, just before LW crashes:

LightWave(4116,0xa000ed98) malloc: *** vm_allocate(size=1069056) failed (error code=3)
LightWave(4116,0xa000ed98) malloc: *** error: can't allocate region
LightWave(4116,0xa000ed98) malloc: *** set a breakpoint in szone_error to debug

gerry_g
04-05-2007, 12:24 PM
I only ordered four, but I know for sure I'll end up doubling that eventually regardless of whether I'm stuck in 32bt mode or Newtek astound me with a 64bt Mac version, simply because I run several progs at once each capable of swallowing their own 2Gigs allocation.............BTW, is trying to render 7.5mil polys on a thirty two bit system a sane proposition in the first place

Scazzino
04-05-2007, 12:35 PM
BTW, is trying to render 7.5mil polys on a thirty two bit system a sane proposition in the first place

Who said I was sane??? :jester:
I like to push it to the limit, to see what the limits are... ;)

kopperdrake
04-05-2007, 12:53 PM
Another one here looking forward to your test scenes Scazzino :D Nice buy :thumbsup:

cresshead
04-05-2007, 04:30 PM
i have vue infinate rendering a 50million poly scene on a single core acer laptop with just 1 gig of ram...

so it's not all down to brute force rendering with ''bags of ram''..if your renderer/app is efficient and has intelligent instancing or a bucket style renderer then millions and billions of polys can be rendered on 32bit with just a gig of ram.

both lightwave ad fprime do not have bucket renderers...

even final render stage 0 on my old pIII 700mhz could render 10's of millions of polys back in 3dsmax 4 days.... i'm hoping that lightwave 9.3 or whatever finally gets bucket rendering and instancing in the core updates.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2007, 06:06 PM
bucket rendering rocks
Unfortunately, bucket rendering only lets you render billions of polygons if you don't do any ray tracing what-so-ever. Global illumination or reflections or anything of the sort means that you have to keep all polygons in memory, and it will choke.

cresshead
04-05-2007, 06:28 PM
from cebas:-
A lot of confusion is going on with the term "Bucket Rendering" many users think that this term describes a special rendering method or a special algorithm how images are rendered. Some developers have (mis-)use the term to explain why their rendering system creates better images. Bucket Rendering is nothing more than a description of the way that a frame buffer or image is subdivided. The well known scanline rendering method for example, uses "scanlines" to render an image. Single or multiple scanlines of the image may be rendered in one go. Also, scanlines may be split amongst multiple CPUs for multi processor computers. This is what 3ds max's renderer usually does. In contrast to scanlines, Buckets are not "lines", they are rectangular (usually quadratic e.g. 32x32, 64x64 pixels) areas of the image to be rendered. Buckets have some advantages over scanlines when load balancing and network distribution is involved. finalRender's raytracer fully supports bucket rendering and for future versions of finalRender you can expect to see distributed network rendering at its best.

also for the help system in max:-
Differences Between the mental ray Renderer and the Default Scanline Renderer
Compared to the default 3ds Max scanline renderer, the mental ray renderer relieves you of the need to simulate complex lighting effects "by hand" or by generating a radiosity solution. The mental ray renderer is optimized to use multiple processors and to take advantage of incremental changes for efficient rendering of animations.

Unlike the default 3ds Max renderer, which renders scanlines from the top of the image downward, the mental ray renderer renders rectangular blocks called buckets. The order in which the buckets are rendered can vary, depending on the method you choose. By default, mental ray uses the Hilbert method, which picks the next bucket to render based on the cost of switching to the next one. Because objects can be discarded from the memory to render other objects, itís important to avoid having to reload the same object multiple times. This is especially important when you have enabled placeholder objects (see the Processing panel > Translator Options rollout).

If you use distributed rendering to render a scene, it might be hard to understand the logic behind the rendering order. In this case, the order has been optimized to avoid sending lots of data over the network. Each CPU is assigned a bucket as the bucket becomes available, so different buckets can appear in the rendered image at different times. See the Renderer panel > Sampling Quality rollout.

Note: The mental ray renderer can also be run in a standalone fashion, using a command-line interface based on the mi2 or mi3 scene description format. This is described in the manual mental ray Programming, which is written for programmers writing custom shaders.

from brazil site:-
Bucketed rendering paradigm offers priority-based/ordered bucket rendering and selectable bucket-size for controllable use of available memory

Haven1000
04-06-2007, 01:56 AM
I only ordered four, but I know for sure I'll end up doubling that eventually regardless of whether I'm stuck in 32bt mode or Newtek astound me with a 64bt Mac version, simply because I run several progs at once each capable of swallowing their own 2Gigs allocation.............BTW, is trying to render 7.5mil polys on a thirty two bit system a sane proposition in the first place

If you are a registered member of the 9.2 Beta I'd checkout the 5th paragraph of the release notes of the latest build announcement in the open beta forum.
Remember that universal binaries can contain four different app codes: PPC 32 & 64bit and Intel 32 & 64bit.

So a 64bit mac version will not be a separate application like the windows version, it will be part of a Universal Binary App (which is currently in a beta phase:hey: )

That extra addressable ram may not be that far away.

gerry_g
04-06-2007, 04:03 AM
Yes thank you I did, but obviously after I stopped by here to make a post first.

Captain Obvious
04-06-2007, 06:16 AM
Cresshead:

I'm not saying bucket rendering isn't a good method. It's a great method. If you create a new renderer today, I see no reason to use any other method of splitting up the image. However, there are plenty of other things I'd rather see them devote their time to.

cresshead
04-06-2007, 06:34 AM
true!...it's on my wish list though!
higher on my list is show samples in render for gi and even more is better sample point uage with fewer sampler on large flat areas compared to detailed areas rather than the brute force approach we currnetly have i believe [though i'm a few ob versions behind the current ob21]