Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Apple News That Got Buried

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the times-eight dept.

347

An anonymous reader writes, "Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. They found that the two dual-core CPUs in the Mac Pro were not only removable, but that they were able to insert two quad-core Clovertown CPUs. OS X recognized all eight cores and it worked fine. Anandtech could not release performance numbers for the new monster, but did report they were unable to max out the CPUs."

cancel ×

347 comments

So fast, I got first post! (5, Funny)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093920)

Typing this on an 8-core Mac pro, I manged to get first post! Wow, it IS fast!

Re:So fast, I got first post! (1)

JimXugle (921609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094113)

Well, since you have so many cores at your disposal... try to max them out by using a custom-compiled rtgen and tell us if that'll do it.

remember... gmake -j8

I guess (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094125)

with 8 cores, that no one cares about Beowulf clusters anymore. :(

Re:I guess (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094380)

YOU may not care about beowulf clusters of 8 core processors, but somewhere out there is a nerd who wants to run 8 instances of World of Warcraft at the same time with 60 fps..

Re:I guess (5, Funny)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094416)

with 8 cores, that no one cares about Beowulf clusters anymore. :(

I suppose you could run 8 VMs on the machine and make a Beowulf cluster out of those.

Re:So fast, I got first post! (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094131)

That's because with 8 cores, it's more difficult to clog up the tubes with internets

Re:So fast, I got first post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094399)

typing this on Vista on tan 8-core Mac pro and this is the first post. Wow, it is fast!

CPU upgrade market (2, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093922)

Hrmmm. Well, seeing as how I just took delivery of a new quad 3.0Ghz Mac Pro, this dulls my bragging rights a bit. However, this bodes well for the CPU upgrade market. Companies like Sonnett, Newer, Powerlogix and OWC have had a tough time with the IBM/Freescale market because of poor performance among other critical reasons. The old 1.0 Ghz G4 I have at home as a media server is still an adequate system that currently holds a terabyte of storage space and I'd love to drop a good 2.0 Ghz or higher chip in it for a reasonable cost. There are some 1.8Ghz chips out there that may do the job just fine, but the market has been stuck at 1.8Ghz for quite some time.

And yes, my blog is down until we get a new transformer installed at my building...... Hopefully tomorrow by noon as they are installing a new one as we speak.

Re:CPU upgrade market (2)

nixmega (972206) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093929)

Can you say Mac Pro revision 2?

Re:CPU upgrade market (3, Funny)

mr_neke (1001861) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093969)

Not until they lift the NDA, methinks!

Re:CPU upgrade market (2, Interesting)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093957)

However, this bodes well for the CPU upgrade market. Companies like Sonnett, Newer, Powerlogix and OWC have had a tough time with the IBM/Freescale market because of poor performance among other critical reasons.


And it will still bode poorly for these companies because now that the Mac is all off-the-shelf components, so are the CPU upgrades.

Re:CPU upgrade market (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093978)

And yes, my blog is down until we get a new transformer installed at my building...... Hopefully tomorrow by noon as they are installing a new one as we speak.

Nobody cares that your blog is down. You're not that important. Get over yourself.

Re:CPU upgrade market (0, Offtopic)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094145)

Nobody cares that your blog is down. You're not that important. Get over yourself.

You won't mind if I reject advice from an anonymous coward, right? But for your information, I have received emails today asking about my server status from Slashdot users. Interestingly, the greatest number of hits on my blog occurred a couple of months ago and was 50,000 visits in a 24 hour period..... Usually I run about 2-300 hits/day so at least some folks want to know and those are the ones I care about.

Re:CPU upgrade market (1)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094039)

"this dulls my bragging rights a bit."

Mot at all. The quad cores are not on the market yet, but when they come out, you'll be able to drop them in your box. I'm jealous.

Re:CPU upgrade market (1)

Yakman (22964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094283)

Sure, but he'll have to drop $2,000 or whatever it will cost to buy two of these puppies first. His credit card is probably already strained from buying a $5,000 desktop to start with :)

In Australian dollars at least, it is over $1,000 extra to get the 3GHz vs the 2.66GHz CPUs in the Mac Pro - that's about US$750 at the current rate. So chances are these quad-core CPUs will be pricey.

Coming soon to an Apple Store near you... (2, Funny)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093931)

"Crimson and Clover."

Re:Coming soon to an Apple Store near you... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093987)

Isn't Clovertown where all the leprechauns hang out? 'Tis a fine place to spend your gold on some Guinness while watching some midget porn. Just don't get into an argument about pipe tobacco with one of those short-assed little shits.

Re:Coming soon to an Apple Store near you... (2, Funny)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094152)

"Eight Arms To Hold You"

Or "Octomac"

Great!! (3, Interesting)

yabos (719499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093942)

I can't say I'm surprised that it works since it's pin compatible but I think it's good news that this works so easily. It definately bodes well for future upgrades.

Re:Great!! (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094053)

You know, I thought I would never say this. Your right, this is great. The one MAJOR thing I did not like about Apple is that I can't change the hardware much. Back in high school I swore I would never own a Mac unless I could upgrade the CUP. With OSX and tweekable hardware Mac is looking more and more worthwhile.

Re:Great!! (1)

Danga (307709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094108)

Back in high school I swore I would never own a Mac unless I could upgrade the CUP

Great, now that Apple no longer has complete control over the hardware they are trying to take over the acronyms so the CPU is now CUP, Central Unit of Processing.

Re:Great!! (4, Funny)

mctk (840035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094117)

Sure, we can upgrade the CUP. But Apple has really got to work on that CUPHOLDER. Mine snapped off 2 days out of the box.

Re:Great!! (4, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094150)

Except for the Mac Pro, Macs don't even come with cupholders anymore (cheap bastards)!

Re:Great!! (1)

daspriest (904701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094208)

I think they did a study and found that not enough non-professionals drink coffee to justify installing the cupholders on the non pro Mac.

Here's how to max it out (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093947)

Put This web site [anandtech.com] on one of those babies. It'll be maxed out for the next few hours :)

Re:Here's how to max it out (1)

grozzie2 (698656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093990)

not likely, all that place serves is links to ad servers...

Bash fork bomb (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093951)

Here's a guaranteed way to max out those CPUs:

:(){ :|:& };:

It's the ultimate performance benchmark! How fast does your system halt?

Re:Bash fork bomb (1)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093991)

Can someone explain this to me so I don't have to run it to find out what it does? :D

I imagine it forks processes like crazy, but, not knowing much Bash, I can't see how.

Doesn't that have very little to do with CPU... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093994)

...and everything to do with memory consumption??

Re:Bash fork bomb (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094050)

Actually, on MacOS X, I get 60 or so "-bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable" messages without any huge amounts of CPU usage.

Re:Bash fork bomb (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094054)

ahh so tempting.... it is like you are just making funny faces at the prompt..

till at least --- it starts making funny faces back at you....

Amdahl's Law (2, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094090)

The system is probably far too constrained elsewhere (RAM bandwidth etc) to effectively feed 8 cores.

Amdahl's Law might have been written for Big Iron, but it applies even more so to smaller sytstems.

Re:Bash fork bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094105)

Hmm, I tried that on Linux - works real well. It generates loads of disk activity even - swapping I guess and the console freezes up instantly.

Re:Bash fork bomb (1)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094153)

Your distribution (or you) must not have a reasonable set of ulimits.

Mac OSX kills it (4, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094187)

Trying this on macosx, the bomb dies when the number of forks exceeds a certain depth. So it's harmless. :(){ :|:& };:

$ bash: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable
bash fork Resource temporarily unavailable

  Done

Re:Bash fork bomb (2, Informative)

pod (1103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094365)

Funny, but doubtfull. Standard, off-the-shelf PCs are still plaguaed by relatively crappy bus bandwidth. They can't max them out, because memory can't keep up feeding data to crunch.

Re:Bash fork bomb (1)

zxking (777919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094415)

Bet you can't max my Linux box. You should install this [tripod.com] module that defuses fork bombs

Apple Cores (5, Funny)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093955)

Shouldn't they be calling them "Apple Cores?"

typical.. (-1, Flamebait)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093956)

Anandtech could not release performance numbers for the new monster, but did report they were unable to max out the CPUs.

If they were testing it with the typical Mac-user's workload, that's not surprising.

completely impossible statementt (4, Funny)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093971)

"they were unable to max out the CPUs" that is ridiculous! On PC's in VB it's pretty simple:
dim Processor1Thread as new thread(addressof sub1)
dim Processor2Thread as new thread(addressof sub2)
Processor1Thread.start()
Processor2Thread.start()
dim x as integer
sub sub1()
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
sub sub2()
dim x as integer
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
and repeat for 6 other threads and subs. So they either proved it doesn't really work well at all or programming on a mac is impossibly hard...or they're lying to make it sound more dramatic. So whether they're lying about not maxing it out or they're lying and you just plain can't use all 8 cores at once, it's not as good as it sounds.

Re:completely impossible statementt (0)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093985)

wow, must be night time, I forgot the "next" in each for loop. Other than that, still ridiculous!

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093998)

No, silly. The problem with your nitpick is that the first sub finishes it's loop before the last one starts. That's the problem - one speedy mac ;)

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094286)

it would have to be something like 1000x faster than my computer to finish that in under an hour so no, it wouldn't

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094347)

[Sound of jet engine flying overhead]

Completely missed that one didn't we?

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

ph4rmb0y (711836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094061)

lol vb code on slashdot.

You are new around here aren't you? ;)

Re:completely impossible statementt (0, Flamebait)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094298)

lol a stuck up idiot posting on slashdot.
You are new around here aren't you? ;)
seriously, what the hell is your problem? Just because you can't program in vb, if at all, doesn't mean it's not a great language. I wrote a complicated, skinned overlay utility for a directx9 game in one day, try doing that in C++. Hell, try doing that at all in C++! I picked vb code to make that example because it was the shortest and easiest to understand so go troll somewhere else.

Re:completely impossible statementt (2, Interesting)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094069)

Your sig reads (to me) like you are a (younger) CS student. Assuming you are, here's what you're missing; in the real world, we need to max out those cores doing something productive, or we get in trouble. Very few users have apps that can use even more than one core usefully.

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094141)

Not that it's hard to do that either - ripping 8 movies to XVID at once will certainly do it, and it's definitely "useful". Other options: 16-32 Xen virtual servers, 3D rendering, etc.

There are a lot of tasks that paralellize nicely. There are many that don't.

Re:completely impossible statementt (3, Funny)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094327)

I'm 19, been in college since I was 17 cuz they made me go early since I was so smart. And forget that CS theory bullshit, the department is called IT and that's what's written on the degree. People that go to 4 year colleges for programming are beyond stupid and I've heard many stories of how all that theory and little experience forced them to go to my college for a year before anyone would hire them. But gee, at least they know when C++ was invented and how they decided to name memory addresses. And thank God they got to learn a language that's not used 4 years later when they graduate. Or maybe they got lucky and wasted thousands of dollars on learning about Shakespear, atoms, Africa, grammar, and how to turn on a computer instead and finally got to programming in year 3. I on the other time don't mess around. By the time I have my degree in PC programming/Web Development with a certificate in Web Design, I'll be better at doing my job than any 4 year idiot with a CS degree. Anyway, you sort of missed the entire point of my post which was to show how easy it was to max out the cores. I could have pasted in pages of "usefull" code but then people wouldn't have gotten it as fast.
P.S. My sig says that because the teacher, a 15 year programming veteran, and some other crazy expert with natural skills like me all couldn't design the project we were working on as fast as I could and only one other person's was virtually crash proof. If I knew every command there was, I'd be the best at programming in the world but just give me a few years hehehe

Re:completely impossible statementt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094367)

I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting a job at Symantec!

Re:completely impossible statementt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094373)

...Good luck with that degree and attitude. I have news for you: the theory (and math) learned in a computer science curriculum builds a solid foundation. Languages and frameworks come in and out of favor, but the ideas are rock solid. One that has the foundations will have a much easier time adapting to the latest and the greatest. You, your shitty attitude, and your 1337 degree on the other hand may not fare so well.

Re:completely impossible statementt (1)

BravoZuluM (232200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094207)

If I had moderator right now, I would mod you as funny.

Re:completely impossible statementt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094343)

dim Processor1Thread as new thread(addressof sub1)
dim Processor2Thread as new thread(addressof sub2)
Processor1Thread.start()
Processor2Thread. start()
dim x as integer
sub sub1()
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
sub sub2()
dim x as integer
for x = 0 to 1000000000000000
end sub
I'm no VB *cough* programmer, but didn't you make x a global variable in line 5, and then declare it as a local variable in sub2? And, if written properly, woudn't this *cough* program only saturate 2 processors? Finally, why not do a while(1){} type of operation on each processor rather than just counting up to a finite number (assuming VB has a while() statement)?

Just goes to show that VB *cough* programmers are a little dim...

How does this bode for NT6? (2, Interesting)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093976)

The NeXT architecture of OS X has always been more “at ease” with multiple CPUs than various versions of NT. Not that NT can’t handle them, but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I’ve heard is much more capable once you move past four. That being the case, as multiple CPUs/cores become more commonplace, I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16093996)

Not that NT can't handle them, but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I've heard is much more capable once you move past four.

Do you have any material or general information that compares or shows one doing a "better" job then the other?

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094127)

Windows divides just fine on multiple cores. It just spreads threads around, and can even move things core to core (or CPU to CPU case being) as needed. Remember there ARE 32 processor versions of Windows. I have a friend who works on them, they do large SQL databases on 32-processor Itanium Superdomes (HP) running Windows.

I've never seen any good benchmarking on it, probably because there haven't been higher order Intel Macs until recently, but I'm going to bet you find little difference when running apps that are the same. I'm sure some apps will suck at ti because they won't thread out properly, but those that do shouldn't have any troubles.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094255)

Remember there ARE 32 processor versions of Windows. I have a friend who works on them, they do large SQL databases on 32-processor Itanium Superdomes (HP) running Windows.

I thought that the >4 CPU Windows systems were, in essence, specially tweaked systems to make it all worthwhile and that standard setups couldn’t really make effective use of more than four processors. If so, I stand corrected. *looks around* Err, sit corrected, sorry.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (3, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094290)

I thought that the >4 CPU Windows systems were, in essence, specially tweaked systems to make it all worthwhile and that standard setups couldn't really make effective use of more than four processors. If so, I stand corrected. *looks around* Err, sit corrected, sorry.

Multi-core restrictions on Windows versions are mostly artificial. For example, 8-CPU systems running just fine on Windows 2003 Advanced Server without any special tweaking. The system the grandparent referred to must have been running Windows 2003 Data Center Edition to support more than 8 processors, but should still require no special tweaking.

That said, I'm sure the systems that make it to the top of TPC benchmarks [tpc.org] are highly tweaked.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (2, Informative)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094354)

That was ten years ago. A lot has been done for concurrency since then.

For example, Windows Server 2003 Kernel Scaling Improvements [72.14.203.104] (Google MS Word->HTML version)

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094175)

>I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two.

Maybe, but in TFA they're running XPSP2.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (1, Insightful)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094203)

"...but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I've heard is much more capable once you move past four."

Wonder where you heard that.

"That being the case, as multiple CPUs/cores become more commonplace, I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two."

Reputation maybe, after all OS X has the reputation of being God's gift in certain circles. Somehow I think reality will be different just as it is now. NT's design is vastly newer, was designed from the start as SMP and has supported large CPU counts forever. OS X, on the other hand, has the antique Mach at its core and still has serious locking issues that can seriously impede performance in certain situations. Apple hasn't offering anything beyond quad-core and only recently has it offered that. OS X may be a lot of things but fast isn't one of them. Microsoft has a huge headstart here.

Re:How does this bode for NT6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094405)

The original NT kernel was indeed very elegant, but couldn't deliver acceptable performance. The current state of NT is unfortunately not quite as pristine as you seem to believe. To tell the truth, the kernel of Solaris 10 has the huge head start here thanks to dtrace. As an example, consider that scalable network stacks exist in Solaris. OpenSTEP used to run on Solaris and Tevanian has left Apple so I wouldn't dismiss Apple migrating to a new kernel if they can't get Xnu to scale with the hardware. Apple has long trackrecord of actually embracing fairly radical change when necessary.

Couldn't max out the CPUs? (5, Funny)

brundog (675895) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093986)

..."but did report they were unable to max out the CPUs."


Try installing Vista.

Re:Couldn't max out the CPUs? (1)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16093997)

hehehe that may actually be more resource intensive than my suggestion a couple posts up :)

Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1, Insightful)

spoco2 (322835) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094013)

Yeah, forget the set top box, forget the tinsy, tiny shuffle, forget all of that... what we really wanted to know is whether we could put in 6 more CPUs that we can afford into our Macs... THAT's what we really care about.

Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?

No, I'm not making a '640k will be enough for anyone' comment... I know 8 CPUs WILL be useful one day, and MAY be nice to have now, but generally... it's in no way the BIG news of today.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (5, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094048)

Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?


We do! "News for Nerds", remember?

no kidding. (1)

partisanX (1001690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094094)

I'm not a macuser and I got a kick out of reading about that.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (3, Interesting)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094070)

To be perfectly honest, I can see an immediate application for this where I work.

We're introducting a virtual infrastructure very quickly, using XServe RAIDs as our storage LUNs. That being said, with VMware's soon-to-be Mac OS X offering, this would give our mac-toting engineers the ability to build a virtual machine locally before deploying it into the wider infrastructure. That is a truly valuable tool.

There's three of us at work that heavily rely on our non-mac machines - a pair of us doing some reasonably heavy VM work. I'd love to transition to a straight Mac platform (not Mac OS X + SuSE + XP). It's such a pain in the ass to have to suspend one and start another constantly because my performance starts to block. It's not disk I/O - the I/O never pegs (most of the stuff is resident, anyway). The RAM can be mitigated by adding more RAM (4GB currently). More than once I've watched procmon show me that the vmx process is pegged on the

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094084)

...SuSE machine. It'd be nice to have that not happen.

Whoops. Machine must've gotten away from me there!

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094102)

Those of us that do 3 rendering on windows right now. Going from hours for a cell to minutes would certainly make my girlfriend happier and free up the computer faster.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094180)

Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?

When you try to raytrace a few hundred million polygons with soft shadows, radiosity, and every optical effect switched on, you will have your aqnswer, grasshopper.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

TheVoice900 (467327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094181)

Nobody claimed it was the big news of today. It was simply the buried news.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

spoco2 (322835) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094383)

Erm from the summary :"Apple's Showtime event was all well and good, but the big news today was on Anandtech.com. "

Which was my point really. It's pretty cool and all, and hell, I would like 8 CPUs (although you're talking mucho power drain I imagine.) It's just not the BIG news as the submitter tries to suggest.

The other things were bigger news... this is just cool geekiness.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094189)

Who? Maybe the real target market of this machine? This really isn't a consumer computer. I would think the fact that it uses workstation CPUs should be an indicator right there.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (2, Insightful)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094337)

You mean I can have an 8-station animation render farm in one box for a fraction of the cost? Why is this not big news? As an animator, compositor and editor, I find this big news indeed.

Re:Yeah... really BIG news... bah (1)

stickyc (38756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094421)

Really, who the frig cares from a general computing standpoint? Who needs 8 CPUs?

Where this really pays off right now is with virtualization. For the cost of 1 & 1/2 boxes, you get the value of 8. That may not seem like a "general computing standpoint" to you, but virtualization is getting absolutely huge in the software development and server world. Besides, since when is the Mac Pro dual core a "general computing" machine? My guess is >75% of the buyers are buying them for specific heavy lifting. General folks are getting the plenty-fast dual-core iMacs for running iLife and general home chores.

Summary is wrong. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094026)

From summary:
Anandtech could not release performance numbers for the new monster, but did report they were unable to max out the CPUs.


From TFA:
We definitely had a difficult time stressing 8 cores in the Mac Pro, but if you have a handful of well threaded, CPU intensive tasks then a pair of slower Clovertowns can easily outperform a pair of dual core Woodcrest based Xeons.


There's a big difference between unable to and had a difficult time. When I first read the summary I thought that there must be some problem with the system if they're unable to get all the CPUs under full load.

Re:Summary is wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094284)

While we're being pedantic, there's a big difference between unable to, had a difficult time, and incapable of. "Had a difficult time" tends to imply that something is difficult, but was still achieved, at least transiently. That was probably not what they meant.

have to ask (1)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094029)

will it run windows?

Re:have to ask (4, Funny)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094182)

If you mean Windows Vista, then the answer is no. You'll need 16 cores for that.

XP 64? (3, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094118)

I notice this machine was tested with XPSP2. Are the Macs able to run the 64-bit version of XP?

Re:XP 64? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094256)

Sorta. In theory, you could put Win64 on it, but all Apple's drivers are 32-bit for Windows. So you can do it, but you lose a lot of stuff.

Re:XP 64? (3, Informative)

Kunimodi (1002148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094270)

Yes, and it runs very well (drivers for all major devices). Note that installing XP of any sort on the Mac Pro is a bit of an endeavor currently due to the need to slipstream drivers or you get 1/20th of the SATA performance. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=23190 1 [macrumors.com]

Lightwave on Macs (1)

diablo-d3 (175104) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094123)

Now that Lightwave has a native OSX build, I can imagine all the 3D graphics nuts out there using Lightwave creaming themselves over machines like this. Or hell, anyone using largely multi-threaded apps would cream for a machine like this.

Re:Lightwave on Macs (1)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094176)

People still use LightWave?

There is so much better out there than LightWave and it's clunky interface. Say, Maya or Cinema 4D for starters?

Re:Lightwave on Macs (-1, Offtopic)

Danga (307709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094196)

Or hell, anyone using largely multi-threaded apps would cream for a machine like this.

Is it just me or when I think of someone "creaming" it is a female? Males jizz, females cream.

Re:Lightwave on Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094230)

don't males skeet skeet skeet?

or is that only black guys?

Re:Lightwave on Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16094326)

It's just you. Ever heard of a cream pie?

Oh, wait. This is /. n/m

Re:Lightwave on Macs (1)

highwaytohell (621667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094370)

Is it just me or when I think of someone "creaming" it is a female? Males jizz, females cream.

i dont know what type of female you're seeing, but that sounds like an infection.

Oblig. (1)

Mister Impressive (875697) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094162)

Yes, but can it run Vista/DN Forever?

Don't believe everything you read: (0, Troll)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094220)

NeXT multiprocessed the guts of OS X on 2-4 processors. The result is that the mach kernel doesn't scale the processors linearly. There isn't the straightline performance boost of adding another processor beyond 4 cores with Mac OS X's mach kernel.

Calm down...

Re:Don't believe everything you read: (1)

pastafazou (648001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094264)

yeah, except NeXT multiprocessed the guts over 10 years ago. There's been quite a lot of work done since then. And Xgrid is already available and making good use of processors beyond qty 4.

Re:Don't believe everything you read: (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094334)

You are comparing apples to asphalt. Xgrid is a distributed job scheduler. Its performance has nothing to do with the performance of a single image of OSX running on more then 4 cores/cpus.

can't max out CPUs? uh oh (0, Redundant)

LuxFX (220822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094238)

I wouldn't think that the inability to max out the core is a GOOD thing. Doesn't that just mean that the OS/apps/etc aren't properly optimized?

Re:can't max out CPUs? uh oh (1)

gnuadam (612852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094265)

I agree, prolly not a good thing. But I suspect it's because the cores were bandwidth starved ... AMD still stomps intel in multicore platforms because of hypertransport.

Re:can't max out CPUs? uh oh (4, Funny)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094277)

I think they were running the wrong program. All they had to do was launch Terminal, type in "yes", press enter, and watch as their cores blew up.

Try 9 slices of apple pi (1)

digitalride (767159) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094275)

"they were unable to max out the CPUs."
They've apparently never tried this benchmark:
i=0; while [ $i -lt 9 ]; do time pi 1000000 > /dev/null & let i=i+1; done

Woops. (1)

cralewyth (934970) | more than 7 years ago | (#16094300)

At first, I saw the heading "The Apple News that got bruised"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...