Luis Ortega wrote:
Thanks for the links.
I guess that I am trying to determine whether an 8 core is really worth it
in terms of performance now and in the future.
I read some reports that discuss that there is a memory bandwidth bottleneck
for the 8 core given the rest of the specs of the system and so it might not
be a useful choice over the 4 core. The whole system would need to be
developed further, maybe with faster memory speeds beyond 667, and perhaps
some architecture would need refinements to ever get the real benefits of 8
core, regardless of whether the software is being optimized for multicore
systems.
If this is the case, then maybe 8 cores are a good idea that needs the next
generation of refinements for the rest of the components to catch up to its
potential.
I don't really know the stuff well enough to form a competent opinion, so I
keep reading as much as I can before making a buying decision.
My choices now are whether to stick with a 4 core and improve the ram and
fast drives and video card or go with 8 core in the hopes that it already
has adequate support from the rest of the system architecture so that when
software is optimized for it it can really deliver its full potential. You
can always improve the ram and drives and video cards but you are basically
stuck with the processors and underlying architecture until they redesign
the computer itself.
On a separate question, if you want to also run windows, is it better to
install the 64 bit version so that it can access the full amount of ram in
the system rather than the 32 bit version or does this not apply to a
windows installation on the Mac Pro?
Thanks for any advice.


An 8 core Mac or PC is the current fastest box you can buy for your
money. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a memory bottleneck but it
does not stop the 8 core out performing the 4 core by a considerable
margin. It is up to you to decide if your workflow can make use of the
extra 4 cores and worth the added expense. It wouldn't be worth it if
your render times are trivial as half of trivial is still trivial!

You should install 32 bit Windows if you want to have widest possible
compatibility with drivers and software.

"Spex" wrote in message
...
Luis Ortega wrote:
Thanks for the links.
I guess that I am trying to determine whether an 8 core is really worth
it in terms of performance now and in the future.
I read some reports that discuss that there is a memory bandwidth
bottleneck for the 8 core given the rest of the specs of the system and
so it might not be a useful choice over the 4 core. The whole system
would need to be developed further, maybe with faster memory speeds
beyond 667, and perhaps some architecture would need refinements to ever
get the real benefits of 8 core, regardless of whether the software is
being optimized for multicore systems.
If this is the case, then maybe 8 cores are a good idea that needs the
next generation of refinements for the rest of the components to catch up
to its potential.
I don't really know the stuff well enough to form a competent opinion, so
I keep reading as much as I can before making a buying decision.
My choices now are whether to stick with a 4 core and improve the ram and
fast drives and video card or go with 8 core in the hopes that it already
has adequate support from the rest of the system architecture so that
when software is optimized for it it can really deliver its full
potential. You can always improve the ram and drives and video cards but
you are basically stuck with the processors and underlying architecture
until they redesign the computer itself.
On a separate question, if you want to also run windows, is it better to
install the 64 bit version so that it can access the full amount of ram
in the system rather than the 32 bit version or does this not apply to a
windows installation on the Mac Pro?
Thanks for any advice.


An 8 core Mac or PC is the current fastest box you can buy for your money.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be a memory bottleneck but it does not
stop the 8 core out performing the 4 core by a considerable margin. It is
up to you to decide if your workflow can make use of the extra 4 cores and
worth the added expense. It wouldn't be worth it if your render times are
trivial as half of trivial is still trivial!

You should install 32 bit Windows if you want to have widest possible
compatibility with drivers and software.


yo spex.. does Win2K address all 4 or 8 procs?
Will winXP?
I know XP64 does?

Currently assembling a mad little render farm.

nap

nappy wrote:
"Spex" wrote in message
...
Luis Ortega wrote:
Thanks for the links.
I guess that I am trying to determine whether an 8 core is really worth
it in terms of performance now and in the future.
I read some reports that discuss that there is a memory bandwidth
bottleneck for the 8 core given the rest of the specs of the system and
so it might not be a useful choice over the 4 core. The whole system
would need to be developed further, maybe with faster memory speeds
beyond 667, and perhaps some architecture would need refinements to ever
get the real benefits of 8 core, regardless of whether the software is
being optimized for multicore systems.
If this is the case, then maybe 8 cores are a good idea that needs the
next generation of refinements for the rest of the components to catch up
to its potential.
I don't really know the stuff well enough to form a competent opinion, so
I keep reading as much as I can before making a buying decision.
My choices now are whether to stick with a 4 core and improve the ram and
fast drives and video card or go with 8 core in the hopes that it already
has adequate support from the rest of the system architecture so that
when software is optimized for it it can really deliver its full
potential. You can always improve the ram and drives and video cards but
you are basically stuck with the processors and underlying architecture
until they redesign the computer itself.
On a separate question, if you want to also run windows, is it better to
install the 64 bit version so that it can access the full amount of ram
in the system rather than the 32 bit version or does this not apply to a
windows installation on the Mac Pro?
Thanks for any advice.

An 8 core Mac or PC is the current fastest box you can buy for your money.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be a memory bottleneck but it does not
stop the 8 core out performing the 4 core by a considerable margin. It is
up to you to decide if your workflow can make use of the extra 4 cores and
worth the added expense. It wouldn't be worth it if your render times are
trivial as half of trivial is still trivial!

You should install 32 bit Windows if you want to have widest possible
compatibility with drivers and software.


yo spex.. does Win2K address all 4 or 8 procs?
Will winXP?
I know XP64 does?

Currently assembling a mad little render farm.

nap



From what I remember XP Pro can use 2 processors with any number of
cores. I can't remember what W2k could address I suspect the same as XP
Pro.

I know this won't affect you Nap but XP Home can only address 1 CPU. On
a similar note I'd expect M$ to have limited many of the pointless
versions of Vista in a similar way.

S