Watch, and laugh and laugh and laugh, then taunt mac users

[Durandal]

Rendering houses probably would use more G5 systems if Apple would offer a quad processor box along with a high speed interconnect for them. I think most of them are getting a little sick of SGI having a stranglehold on the memory intensive rendering apps as they are about the only company to offer a truly stellar ccNUMA architecture.

Nah, rendering houses are starting to move toward Beowulf clusters of Linux machines. Though a smaller cluster of quad-processor G5 would certainly be appealing, especially given the 970's stellar floating-point performance.

[Praxis]

Rendering houses probably would use more G5 systems if Apple would offer a quad processor box along with a high speed interconnect for them. I think most of them are getting a little sick of SGI having a stranglehold on the memory intensive rendering apps as they are about the only company to offer a truly stellar ccNUMA architecture.

Nah, rendering houses are starting to move toward Beowulf clusters of Linux machines. Though a smaller cluster of quad-processor G5 would certainly be appealing, especially given the 970's stellar floating-point performance.

Kernel has a good point... if Apple offered a Quad processor machine, IN ADDITION TO XGrid...It'd be a nice alternative.

[Durandal]

Isn't that what I just said?

[The Kernel]

Well, I *thought* most DP PC's started at around $3000- that's how it was last time I shopped, though that was a while back. Guess I was wrong.

Anyway:

You are mistaken. Price an Apple you want to compete with a PC and I will match it component for component at the same price and it will still outperform the G5 on most fronts.

I'll give it a shot. I'll probably lose, now that you've pointed out how out of date my knowledge of dual processor prices are.

Take this:
Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
• 256MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x128
• 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• ATI Radeon 9600 XT w/128MB DDR SDRAM
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $2,149.00

And throw in a 512 stick for $70. Total price:
$2,230 normally, $2,030 for students and schools, $1,830 for developers.

$200 discount off Final Cut Express, additionally, if needed.

Alright, let's have a look at this GamePC system:

2x Opteron 246
Tyan Tiger K8W
2x Samsung PC3200 Registered and ECC PC3200 512MB
Seagate 120GB Serial ATA
Sony DW-D18AB Dual Layer DVD
Asus GeForce 5200FX

Total: $2187

Here's a dual Opteron system with more memory (slightly smaller HD though) but otherwise identical components aside from the CPU's. And this system will wipe the floor with the G5 on most benchmarks.

EDIT: BTW, the developer price is largely irrelevent. Intel is practically GIVING away Itanium systems to developers but that doesn't mean I'd consider them a good price/performance buy.

EDIT2: Ahhh, I just noticed that you upgraded the standard 5200FX to a 9600. Fair enough, but it wouldn't alter the price of the PC significantly to do the same (about $20). In any case, neither system should really have either of these cards if they were 3D workstations; Quadro or Wildcat cards make more sense in these applications.

[The Kernel]

Rendering houses probably would use more G5 systems if Apple would offer a quad processor box along with a high speed interconnect for them. I think most of them are getting a little sick of SGI having a stranglehold on the memory intensive rendering apps as they are about the only company to offer a truly stellar ccNUMA architecture.

Nah, rendering houses are starting to move toward Beowulf clusters of Linux machines. Though a smaller cluster of quad-processor G5 would certainly be appealing, especially given the 970's stellar floating-point performance.

It depends, Beowulf clusters are great for some rendering applications but when you are dealing with things that require a large amount of memory and interconnect bandwidth, you will need a more closely coupled ccNUMA system. I've seen rendering applications that swing both ways really so the Mac would have a good shot at hitting a price/performance spot for the HPC applications if they had the right interconnect between the nodes. I doubt they will do much in Beowulf systems though, the dual Athlon MP systems are still the favorite there for now.

[Praxis]

Isn't that what I just said?

I thought you just said that most will go with Beowulf clusters?

[Praxis]

Well, I *thought* most DP PC's started at around $3000- that's how it was last time I shopped, though that was a while back. Guess I was wrong.

Anyway:

You are mistaken. Price an Apple you want to compete with a PC and I will match it component for component at the same price and it will still outperform the G5 on most fronts.

I'll give it a shot. I'll probably lose, now that you've pointed out how out of date my knowledge of dual processor prices are.

Take this:
Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
• 256MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x128
• 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• ATI Radeon 9600 XT w/128MB DDR SDRAM
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $2,149.00

And throw in a 512 stick for $70. Total price:
$2,230 normally, $2,030 for students and schools, $1,830 for developers.

$200 discount off Final Cut Express, additionally, if needed.

Alright, let's have a look at this GamePC system:

2x Opteron 246
Tyan Tiger K8W
2x Samsung PC3200 Registered and ECC PC3200 512MB
Seagate 120GB Serial ATA
Sony DW-D18AB Dual Layer DVD
Asus GeForce 5200FX

Total: $2187

Here's a dual Opteron system with more memory (slightly smaller HD though) but otherwise identical components aside from the CPU's. And this system will wipe the floor with the G5 on most benchmarks.

EDIT: BTW, the developer price is largely irrelevent. Intel is practically GIVING away Itanium systems to developers but that doesn't mean I'd consider them a good price/performance buy.

EDIT2: Ahhh, I just noticed that you upgraded the standard 5200FX to a 9600. Fair enough, but it wouldn't alter the price of the PC significantly to do the same (about $20). In any case, neither system should really have either of these cards if they were 3D workstations; Quadro or Wildcat cards make more sense in these applications.

Alright- going back down to an FX 5200 Ultra is -$50. That puts the system back down to $2,180. That's $7 cheaper, and it has a slightly faster graphics card (5200 Ultra vs 5200) and more RAM (I added 512 to the base 256, getting 768 for the G5, while your Opteron has 512. Not a big deal- 256 MB of memory costs about $45).

However, it's still pretty dang close. I see your point. The G5 is within $100 difference easily.

When I said my initial point, I was thinking of those $3000 Alienware systems with single processors...*takes a quick glance* WOW, even they dropped their prices a ton! Man, am I outta date on pricing This summer Alienware was still selling basic systems for $3000!

Alright, well, my point goes down the drain, since the two are evenly priced

[The Kernel]

Alright- going back down to an FX 5200 Ultra is -$50. That puts the system back down to $2,180. That's $7 cheaper, and it has a slightly faster graphics card (5200 Ultra vs 5200) and more RAM (I added 512 to the base 256, getting 768 for the G5, while your Opteron has 512. Not a big deal- 256 MB of memory costs about $45).

Actually, the Opteron has 1GB. 2x 512MB sticks.

Alright, well, my point goes down the drain, since the two are evenly priced

Workstation caliber machines still push $3k for base configurations. Apples aren't true workstations but desktop/workstation hybrids with the processing power of a workstation, but with the rest of the workstation components (SCSI, RAID, ECC/Registered memory, Pro-level OpenGL graphics) taken out.

[Praxis]

Ah, missed the 2x. Okay, so slightly slower graphics card vs slighty more RAM. About the same.

Although this DOES prove that the high-end Macs aren't way overpriced as some people may say, since it was the same price as the one you found out Though the eMac is way overpriced for the components (then again, some Dells are worse...)

But yeah, you win on the price comparisons for workstations.

[The Kernel]

Although this DOES prove that the high-end Macs aren't way overpriced as some people may say, since it was the same price as the one you found out Though the eMac is way overpriced for the components (then again, some Dells are worse...)

I'd still say they are simply because Apple chooses to skimp on the rest of the components just to meet certain artificial price points. 256MB of memory do not belong in a $2000 machine, nor does a Radeon 9600 belong in a $3000 machine. The fact that Apple chooses to charge enormous sums of money for factory RAM upgrades (a practice NOT seen by Dell, IBM, HP, etc) is particularly heinous.

I might also add that as long as Macs do not possess a factory option for workstation class 3D cards, their use as a 3D Workstation at all seems dubious at best. Durandal or Phongn, do either of you guys know if nVidia or 3DLabs offer a workstation solution for the Mac?

EDIT: BTW Praxis, the reason more PC's don't have dual processors in them is a simple matter of cost/benefit for the majority of PC users. The average user doesn't need dual CPU's since very few mainstream applications are SMP aware, and even a gamer would be far better off channeling the cost of a second CPU into a better graphics card (something the Mac crowd doesn't care all that much about).

This IS going to change with the introduction of dual core CPU's next year, but only because clock frequencies have hit a wall and Intel/AMD are trying to find new ways to up performance without having to increase the clock rate.

[phongn]

I might also add that as long as Macs do not possess a factory option for workstation class 3D cards, their use as a 3D Workstation at all seems dubious at best. Durandal or Phongn, do either of you guys know if nVidia or 3DLabs offer a workstation solution for the Mac?

Not AFAIK, they're all consumer solutions. However, some guys on Ars found out that the "professional" ATI and nVidia cards were almost identical to their consumer counterparts and were merely priced higher (plus they had ISV certification). 3DLabs cards are custom, of course, but are being ground down by the consumer-hardware speed war (sound familiar? )

I thought you just said that most will go with Beowulf clusters?

He said that many houses are moving to Linux Beowulf clusters but that a cluster of quad-processor (4x1 or 2x2 core configurations) would be appealing.

It depends, Beowulf clusters are great for some rendering applications but when you are dealing with things that require a large amount of memory and interconnect bandwidth, you will need a more closely coupled ccNUMA system. I've seen rendering applications that swing both ways really so the Mac would have a good shot at hitting a price/performance spot for the HPC applications if they had the right interconnect between the nodes. I doubt they will do much in Beowulf systems though, the dual Athlon MP systems are still the favorite there for now.

Maybe Apple can purchase SGI's crossbar switch technology for their computers, but I somehow doubt that they'll do that. For Beowulf systems, though, if Intel comes out with an SMP P-M design feasable for blades, they might just start wresting market share away from AMD.

[The Dude]

Dude, people are defecting off Adobe Premiere in DROVES to Final Cut Pro 4.

Mac users, maybe, seeing as how Premiere is now PC-only. But get real, no one is switching platforms just to get to FCP from Premiere.

[phongn]

Mac users, maybe, seeing as how Premiere is now PC-only. But get real, no one is switching platforms just to get to FCP from Premiere.

Actually, a lot of PC Premiere users were defecting, IIRC. Yes, FCP costs more than Premiere and there's the whole cost of a platform change but it is a lot more capable.

[The Dude]

Actually, a lot of PC Premiere users were defecting, IIRC. Yes, FCP costs more than Premiere and there's the whole cost of a platform change but it is a lot more capable.

Are there any data to support this? The most recent I've seen predate the withdrawal of Premiere from the Mac (and upgrade to Pro), and even those showed a net migration to PCs (except in network broadcast, where no one uses Premiere anyhow).

[Praxis]

Although this DOES prove that the high-end Macs aren't way overpriced as some people may say, since it was the same price as the one you found out Though the eMac is way overpriced for the components (then again, some Dells are worse...)

I'd still say they are simply because Apple chooses to skimp on the rest of the components just to meet certain artificial price points. 256MB of memory do not belong in a $2000 machine, nor does a Radeon 9600 belong in a $3000 machine. The fact that Apple chooses to charge enormous sums of money for factory RAM upgrades (a practice NOT seen by Dell, IBM, HP, etc) is particularly heinous.

Well, there is still the upgrading options. I upgraded the memory to 768 using dealram.com, and hard drive to 160 and graphics card to Radeon 9600XT on that G5, and you notice, it had similar specs AND pricing to the workstation you found. Granted, I think it's utterly silly to included a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra by default, but it's only a $50 upgrade.

EDIT: BTW Praxis, the reason more PC's don't have dual processors in them is a simple matter of cost/benefit for the majority of PC users. The average user doesn't need dual CPU's since very few mainstream applications are SMP aware, and even a gamer would be far better off channeling the cost of a second CPU into a better graphics card (something the Mac crowd doesn't care all that much about).

Very true- most Mac programs are multithreaded, while few Windows programs are. It's probably a lot more beneficial for a Mac user to have dual processors, since the only programs that take advantage of it for windows are high end programs, while there are a lot of everyday apps and games that use it for Mac.

[Praxis]

He said that many houses are moving to Linux Beowulf clusters but that a cluster of quad-processor (4x1 or 2x2 core configurations) would be appealing.

whoops

[phongn]

Are there any data to support this? The most recent I've seen predate the withdrawal of Premiere from the Mac (and upgrade to Pro), and even those showed a net migration to PCs (except in network broadcast, where no one uses Premiere anyhow).

Only anecdotal reports, really, no hard numbers. I could easily be wrong but IIRC, FCP was getting a bunch of users who needed to step up to something more powerful.

[phongn]

Very true- most Mac programs are multithreaded, while few Windows programs are. It's probably a lot more beneficial for a Mac user to have dual processors, since the only programs that take advantage of it for windows are high end programs, while there are a lot of everyday apps and games that use it for Mac.

Not that many games on the Mac are multithreaded, nor are too many applications, IIRC. Apple has embraced it so much precisely because they need it as a crutch.

[Praxis]

Very true- most Mac programs are multithreaded, while few Windows programs are. It's probably a lot more beneficial for a Mac user to have dual processors, since the only programs that take advantage of it for windows are high end programs, while there are a lot of everyday apps and games that use it for Mac.

Not that many games on the Mac are multithreaded, nor are too many applications, IIRC. Apple has embraced it so much precisely because they need it as a crutch.

Well, there are a a few multithreaded (at least to a degree) games for Mac than there are for Windows. UT, for example, offloads sound to the second processor. I'm pretty sure there are at least one or two other major games that did this as well. As for other programs, well, we've got the entire iLife '04 package that is multithreaded, along with many others, probably because dual processor Macs are fairly common with users with extra money, while dual processor windows systems are generally only for workstations.

[The Kernel]

Not AFAIK, they're all consumer solutions. However, some guys on Ars found out that the "professional" ATI and nVidia cards were almost identical to their consumer counterparts and were merely priced higher (plus they had ISV certification). 3DLabs cards are custom, of course, but are being ground down by the consumer-hardware speed war (sound familiar? )

Actually, the nVidia Quadro cards also use a different driver which is developed purely for professional OpenGL with lots of the goodies (like line AA) that the pro market wants. If you look at benchmarks you will see that these drivers can provide as much as 4x more performance on certain pro OpenGL tasks compared to the desktop equivalents. And of course there is the ISV certification.

Maybe Apple can purchase SGI's crossbar switch technology for their computers, but I somehow doubt that they'll do that. For Beowulf systems, though, if Intel comes out with an SMP P-M design feasable for blades, they might just start wresting market share away from AMD.

I believe they are already selling the uniprocessor mini-ITX board and that certain OEM's already have access to an SMP model. Interest has been somewhat tepid so far due to high cost and questional platforms.

[The Kernel]

Are there any data to support this? The most recent I've seen predate the withdrawal of Premiere from the Mac (and upgrade to Pro), and even those showed a net migration to PCs (except in network broadcast, where no one uses Premiere anyhow).

Only anecdotal reports, really, no hard numbers. I could easily be wrong but IIRC, FCP was getting a bunch of users who needed to step up to something more powerful.

If they needed to step to something more powerful, it makes more sense to switch to a different software package (Avid or Pinnacle) then transition to a new platform. FCP is nice, but it sits square between Premiere at the low end of the pro software NLE's and Avid and Pinnacle on the high end.

[phongn]

If they needed to step to something more powerful, it makes more sense to switch to a different software package (Avid or Pinnacle) then transition to a new platform. FCP is nice, but it sits square between Premiere at the low end of the pro software NLE's and Avid and Pinnacle on the high end.

Fair enough. I used Xpress DV 1.0 and 1.5 (and before that Premiere 5) and it was quite excellent. Avid and Apple are in a virtual war with Xpress family and FCP.

Actually, the nVidia Quadro cards also use a different driver which is developed purely for professional OpenGL with lots of the goodies (like line AA) that the pro market wants. If you look at benchmarks you will see that these drivers can provide as much as 4x more performance on certain pro OpenGL tasks compared to the desktop equivalents. And of course there is the ISV certification.

I know the drivers are different on the FireGL and Quadro cards, but I was really referring to the hardware. It seems a bit dirty to do that, though.

I believe they are already selling the uniprocessor mini-ITX board and that certain OEM's already have access to an SMP model. Interest has been somewhat tepid so far due to high cost and questional platforms.

Perhaps a dual-core desktop P-M will help, though by that point there may be a lower-power AMD64 solution good for renderfarms and blades.

[The Kernel]

Fair enough. I used Xpress DV 1.0 and 1.5 (and before that Premiere 5) and it was quite excellent. Avid and Apple are in a virtual war with Xpress family and FCP.

Apple is still the underdog and they aren't really making a dent at the high end. As good as FCP is, the broadcast/film markets have largely ignored it in favor of more inclusive and proven solutions.

I know the drivers are different on the FireGL and Quadro cards, but I was really referring to the hardware. It seems a bit dirty to do that, though.

Not at all, those drivers cost a lot of money to develop, it is only fair that nVidia get paid for them. Besides, by using their desktop GPU chips, they were able to both increase performance AND lower costs over the old 3DLabs and E&S solutions.

Perhaps a dual-core desktop P-M will help, though by that point there may be a lower-power AMD64 solution good for renderfarms and blades.

P-M will still have the edge on heat. Hell, Dothan has an average power draw of only 10W or so @ 2Ghz compared to ~75W for the Opteron.

[phongn]

Apple is still the underdog and they aren't really making a dent at the high end. As good as FCP is, the broadcast/film markets have largely ignored it in favor of more inclusive and proven solutions.

Apple doesn't even seem to be trying to penetrate the high-end market. They have made good inroads into the professional midrange market but FCP will need a serious overhaul before it can play with the big boys. Plus, Apple needs much more I/O brawn to play up there.

As for professional compositing, well, they bought out one of the best professional applications for it and dropped its price so much that its cheaper to buy a new Mac and Shake on OS X than it was to buy Shake on Windows

Not at all, those drivers cost a lot of money to develop, it is only fair that nVidia get paid for them. Besides, by using their desktop GPU chips, they were able to both increase performance AND lower costs over the old 3DLabs and E&S solutions.

Does that warrant such a huge price increase, though? I could see a premium, but Quadro/FireGL are a lot more expensive than their consumer brethren.

P-M will still have the edge on heat. Hell, Dothan has an average power draw of only 10W or so @ 2Ghz compared to ~75W for the Opteron.

Yes, though OTOH the Opteron has one heck of an FPU so you might be able to use fewer of them instead. When all is said and done, the P-M still has P6's FPU core, abliet nicely improved.

[The Kernel]

Does that warrant such a huge price increase, though? I could see a premium, but Quadro/FireGL are a lot more expensive than their consumer brethren.

It's the right price for the market, so I don't see it as a problem no matter what the desktop chips cost. I don't bash AMD for charging hundreds more for their 8xx series of Opterons either even though they are essential the same as their 1xx bretheren

Yes, though OTOH the Opteron has one heck of an FPU so you might be able to use fewer of them instead. When all is said and done, the P-M still has P6's FPU core, abliet nicely improved.

True, but because of the low power draw of P-M CPU's, Intel could make a quad core P-M and it would still draw less power than a dual core A64/Opteron.