Here Come The Quad Cores

[True North]

If they are releasing the chip fairly soon that means that guys like Scott from ADK will have already built or will soon build a quad core machine.

I would love to hear opinions on whether or not it is worth waiting for the AMD Quad chip. It seems as if this is more of a marketing move for Intel rather than a true performance based initiative.

Scott - - give us any performance updates when you get a chance

[jcschild]

LOL,

i already have the quad cores of course.

i can give you N3 numbers, the Sonar tests we ran were very funky so i cant post them as they are not acurate or something is not right in sonar.

also bear in mind the Thonex test is really not heavy hitting enough to allow the quads as in a read quad core or dual duals to shine.

we have only had time for very quick tests so far, even though i have the quads for over a month.
so here you go as posted on the Nuendo forum

N3
thonex test
975 chipset mobo
Quad core 2.66

RME Fireface latest non-beta

48buffer 40% cpu load absolutely clean.

for an idea the Xeon 2.0G did 53% @ 64 buffer and that was with a lynx AES. not a firewire interface.

will maybe get to more later (as in a better test)

bear in mind that the thonex test is not a true indication of the power of these systems.


Scott
ADK

FYI you wont see them for sale (unless very lucky and expsensive) until after Christmas.
i have a total of 10 allowed to me shipping 5 on the 19th and 5 on the 26th. pretty slim pickin's
the channel wont be full of them until end of Jan-mid feb. estimated price $1150-1200.

[swan]

from what i hear, the multiple core thing is just starting to flower...are we going to be seeing a doubling of cores every year?

also, FFTT, do you have a link as far as the ram requirements you were talking about for multiple core 64 bit systems?

[jcschild]

actually i think it will be more than that
but yes the next release will be 8 cores.

i think i was 80 cores in 10 yrs? or was it 5?

[True North]

Hey Scott,

I guess I should hang around the Nuendo forum for really up to date info.

Thanks for sharing the information with us. So it sounds like there are some very significant performance improvements making it more than just window dressing. 40% and a 48 sample buffer is pretty f'n amazing.

What is your opinion on the whole Intel Quad VS the AMD Quads ?

Any plans to build an Dual - Quad Core? Please post here when and if you do, I imagine that will bring redicoulous performance.

Thanks

[FFTT]

It wasn't all that long ago that people really needing a serious workstation were day dreaming about a dual core processor hoping with wild specualtion for a dual/dual core machine one day with PCI-e.
Well we got that and now suddenly it's already old tech geeesh! No respect.

I do not have any specific information on RAM requirements, just mere speculation.

Right now you're just barely getting by running any Pro apps on 2 GB RAM with the current Mac Pro Tower spreading it between 4 cores.

I just figured it might take more RAM if your pushing 8 cores on the new machines.

It's just something to think about with these FB ECC RAM prices being where they are these days.

I guess some people will just have to suffer along when the current Mac Pro Towers go on closeout or become Apple's next entry level workstation. Aw Shucks

[Rufuss Sewell]

Originally Posted by jcschild

actually i think it will be more than that
but yes the next release will be 8 cores.

i think i was 80 cores in 10 yrs? or was it 5?

Huh? Your math is a little whack. If we doubled every year, in five years we'd be at 128 cores and in 10 years it would be 4096 cores. Observe:

2006: 4 cores

2007: 8 cores

2008: 16 cores

2009: 32 cores

2010: 64 cores

2011: 128 cores

2012: 256 cores

2013: 512 cores

2014: 1024 cores

2015: 2048 cores

2016: 4096 cores

[tuRnitUpsuM]

wait for TIGERTONS...



these ones are two dual-cores strapped together....


NO more FSB ....."Tigertons" RAM CPU u name it...linked together directly.... execution time cut down lots...


AMDs too....im sure will garner new tech to match Intel... this is a look see we told you quad-core...



cheers

[beatbed]

Yes, I have that concern as well, I'm no hacker/geek but I were surfing for a good spec. for a new core 2 duo system, but the highest RAM specs. I find only utilize 2GB?

Is that because of the outraged price climb the last months or that more ram wont do you any good? I was thinking of sneaking in with a low level core 2 duo but with a bad a** motherboard that could take on a quad core or 8core or what ever, when the time is right.
But when it comes to RAM I want to buy it all at the same time, place and package (it's a jungle to navigate for a one year old ram spec.)

So my question is,
Can a core 2 duo/quad/8 system utilize say 4GB RAM ?

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

Huh? Your math is a little whack. If we doubled every year, in five years we'd be at 128 cores and in 10 years it would be 4096 cores. Observe:

2006: 4 cores

2007: 8 cores

2008: 16 cores

2009: 32 cores

2010: 64 cores

2011: 128 cores

2012: 256 cores

2013: 512 cores

2014: 1024 cores

2015: 2048 cores

2016: 4096 cores

LOL i didnt bother to do the math it must be 80 cores in 5 yrs.
yup see here http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119...9618&subj=news

Scott
ADK

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by beatbed

Yes, I have that concern as well, I'm no hacker/geek but I were surfing for a good spec. for a new core 2 duo system, but the highest RAM specs. I find only utilize 2GB?

Is that because of the outraged price climb the last months or that more ram wont do you any good? I was thinking of sneaking in with a low level core 2 duo but with a bad a** motherboard that could take on a quad core or 8core or what ever, when the time is right.
But when it comes to RAM I want to buy it all at the same time, place and package (it's a jungle to navigate for a one year old ram spec.)

So my question is,
Can a core 2 duo/quad/8 system utilize say 4GB RAM ?

HI,
most boards for core 2 (975 chipset) will take 8gig of Ram.
win xp can only see 4gig

Scott
ADK

[manning1]

ive a feeling some small studios are going to be a tad disappointed at the entry level price as the computer industry moves to ever more cores.
which is going to be rather annoying.
i feel the model used will be the GM marketing model in cars.
ie...you want a caddy ?? (16 cores ?? its going to be very expensive...)
or a chev ( 2 cores....lots cheaper but maybe wont give you the performance you want.)
i hope i'm wrong on this, but it will be a shame if small studios wont be able to afford extreme performance in a few years.
if a quad for the processor alone is 1k ??
this will make a lot think twice.
we shall see. i smell a milk the market (ie..the poor musician...) round coming which troubles me.

[beatbed]

Originally Posted by jcschild

HI,
most boards for core 2 (975 chipset) will take 8gig of Ram.
win xp can only see 4gig

Scott
ADK

Thanks mate, a bit more clear

[sonnylarsen]

These damn machines are getting so fast someday soon I'm gonna sit down to work to find that my computer already did it. It's the devil's work I say. I have a degree in religion so I can say with confidence that Satan himself invented multiple cores to lead us all on the path to destruction. Our only hope is to go back to recording on wax cylinders! Who's with me?!! Anyone? Anyone? Aw come on guys. . .

[bigbaby987]

2 things... manny, no disrespect, but the computer guys don't care that much about us music guys.. atleast not as much as you're giving them credit... they are in the "business" of selling. period. if you don't buy one, some gamer will. heck most power users are gamers anyways.. the first thing you see outside of some standardized type test on something like extremetech, and tom's hardware are gamer's specs. so please don't think it's soley about us musicians that they are developing this new technology for.. it's for money..



and sonny, not to get into a religious debate, but just my 2 cents worth.. *and by the way, you could have just been sarcastic about your comment*, but new technology is not some evil spawn of satan *note the little "s"*. it is to progress into "the times" referred to of the latter days. this technology that is unfolding now, is clearly discribed in revelations.. now.. i'll stop right there because this board is about gear and not necessarily directed toward the religious/spiritual community... if you want to discuss further, let's do it through private message..



peace and love baby!!!

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by manning1

ive a feeling some small studios are going to be a tad disappointed at the entry level price as the computer industry moves to ever more cores.
which is going to be rather annoying.
i feel the model used will be the GM marketing model in cars.
ie...you want a caddy ?? (16 cores ?? its going to be very expensive...)
or a chev ( 2 cores....lots cheaper but maybe wont give you the performance you want.)
i hope i'm wrong on this, but it will be a shame if small studios wont be able to afford extreme performance in a few years.
if a quad for the processor alone is 1k ??
this will make a lot think twice.
we shall see. i smell a milk the market (ie..the poor musician...) round coming which troubles me.

now thats possibly the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

are you expecting to buy a viper for the price of a neon?

or a dual quad core xeon for the price of an AMD single core?

of course faster computers will cost you more money.

as far as entry level. Hmmm an AMD FX 60 used to sell for $1200
the can be had for under 600 a X2 4800 less than 1/2 that.

as old as you are you of all people should know that prices drop on the 2nd gen stuff very fast.

from what i have seen in the 10 yrs i have been in the biz, computer prices keep dropping whilst power keeps getting faster.

Scott
ADK

[manning1]

scott...
of course i understand about 2nd gen tech. jeesh.
and price drops.
but i can assure you if prices get out of whack ..read too high....
i wont be participating thank you very much.

high prices obviously are fine with vendors however.

i was simply lamenting the possible plight of the poorer small studios out there.
ie..frankly i dont like the elite golf club mentality.
whereby only a few can afford the price of entry.
and i'll leave it at that !

[captain caveman]

Originally Posted by bigbaby987

..... this technology that is unfolding now, is clearly discribed in revelations....

Which bit? Is Vista mentioned?

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by manning1

i was simply lamenting the possible plight of the poorer small studios out there.

smaller studios will not need the power of 8 cores
i am always amazed when someone calls to upgrade and they are still running a box they bought from me 4 yrs ago.

ie..frankly i dont like the elite golf club mentality.
whereby only a few can afford the price of entry.
and i'll leave it at that !

LOl you mean pro fools dont you!

my point is for some a DAW is a hobby as with a hobby you have to watch your budget. (particularly if your married)

others make money part time, you can allow a bigger budget based on income

then there are pro studios, a daw is a tool that is required to get work done in order to make money. the faster things get done the more you make.

you cant expect to afford a pro daw when your in the hobbiest category.
(unless you have a killer day job)

3 yrs ago a dual AMD MP (or Xeon) system cost about $3-4 grand
today the price is the same yet with dual dual cores

when 16 cores come out and they have been out for 6 months it will be the same deal.
i dont forsee an elite club, and even if there where its not power you or i need, nor can justify buying.
i am as poor as you.

Scott
ADK

[manning1]

scott..
i see your point with poor studios and 8 cores.
but it wont stop them lusting after such a system.
re....fools..well i never fell into that expense.

anyway its all water under the bridge ....lol.
its your generation of engineers time to shine and show us old geezers...
(my wife just retd also....thank god...lol) the major breakthroughs in tech.
and how they will overcome the immutable laws of semiconductor physics.
each new generation of engineers thinks its better than the last.
and thats as it should be.
so let the young studs fresh from uni bring it on, ....i'll be the first to applaud if
they can achieve the levels of performance at the right price points ui'm looking for.
as i said before...ive a feeling the sweet spot will be 2 years time.
YOU can tell me i'm an old fool then if you wish...lol.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by sonnylarsen

These damn machines are getting so fast someday soon I'm gonna sit down to work to find that my computer already did it. It's the devil's work I say. I have a degree in religion so I can say with confidence that Satan himself invented multiple cores to lead us all on the path to destruction. Our only hope is to go back to recording on wax cylinders! Who's with me?!! Anyone? Anyone? Aw come on guys. . .

I dig the part about recording on wax cylinders.

And I dig computers.

But I don't think the human race needs quad cores to reach destruction.

Automobiles, guns, bombs, McDonald's and TV are doing fine so far.

[zboy2854]

So, like, when do the machines become self aware, and they turn us into batteries to run them?

[7 Hz]

Originally Posted by captain caveman

Which bit? Is Vista mentioned?

Ooh, BIGTIME!

[FFTT]

Please don't forget about the pitfalls of buying the first Rev "A" product releases.

Sure you're getting an amazing machine along with bragging rights for so boldly jumping head first into the crash test dummy pool before many others follow, but don't say we didn't warn you.

You'll also be the first ones to find any bugs that occur in a real world situation.

From all the reports I've read, the current Mac Pro is holding it's own quite well
given the software situation. RAM prices are terrible but such is life.

The question is what will you do with 8 cores in one desktop?

That's where a new Quad Core machines may help to slow things down a bit allowing the smartest new developers a bit of time to catch up with applications built from scratch with multi-core designs in mind.

With 8 cores and Leopard we'll hopefully be seeing ProTools 8, Logic 8, Live 8 etc. and even more improvements in the expansion chassis and I/O section.

Me thinks there's going to be a whole lot of 8's by 2008.

[swan]

FFTT,

my thoughts exactly, i didn't want to jump on her as soon as the lights go off, you start looking kinda desperate.

as my mixes start getting bigger, i am really starting to look for a 2 to 4 fold increase on my 3.2 P4 HT w/ 2GB. I do want to wait for the initial drool period to die down on the quad cores...6 months, you think?

[FFTT]

The current 2.66 GHz MacPro is an excellent flagship workstation exceeding the needs of most users, so if you NEED a new system, it's a great machine at any price.
At least it will outlast Bush and Cheney

Those of you who can hold off for a Leopard Powered model will benefit from a better educated
purchasing decision once you can compare the Quad upgrades to the current line-up and save considerabley on close-out pricing.

I saved $600.00 buying my G5 2.0 8 DIMM on closeout grabbing it for $1599.00 when it was going for $2299 education, a week earlier before the price adjustment.

That's enough to buy some nice extras like a new display, software, mics, cables, interfaces, preamps etc.

I knew better was coming and even better would follow, so I bought the best proven desktop workhorse Apple had to offer for less than the price of a 12" PowerBook.

If 8 core software was ready to roll, it might be a different story, but for once the machine you're buying is faster than most of the available software.

I would certainly like to know the upgrade roadmap for Digidesign and Logic so we might know how soon we might be able to take advantage of all that multi-core kick.

From what we're all reading it looks like January and April should prove to be interesting.

Will it be Cloverton or Kentfield in the 8 core workstation?

Generally speaking Apple Pro gear gets server grade processors, so it may in fact be Cloverton.

That would leave the Kentfield to iMacs or maybe a mid grade prosumer tower.

[tuRnitUpsuM]

SOFTWARE DESIGN LIMITATIONS


ie. what is THE biggest limitation any software designer has to put into focus after the initial question of WHOM does this piece of software need to "work" for and what is needed to be accomplished???

HARDWARE ... right ? what exactly do "we" have to work with in order to execute the desired results for the software "purchaser".

granted a 32 core custom FPGA subsystem linked to a world-wide optical network might be overkill for a small studio... but its not for the software developers who can utilise this power for the small studio owner... hey who knows right ... instead of the "can the plug sound just like the hardware its modelled after ? " talk... we can move on to... wow never would have gotten that result with xyz.

more cores doesnt necessarily mean higher-track counts... higher sample-rates ... just means more the developers have to work with... should we all sell our vehicles for high-powered computers?? NO ... should we all begin dismissing multi-core systems because they're isn't software yet that can utilise its potential?? HELL NO.

Prices and what not can all be adjustable ...as it has to do with markets... faster systems have to do with potential... we all just need to find which suits us the most....

sorry needed a good ramble...

cheers


p.s the early quad-cores are in a nut shell ... two dual-cores on a single die... nothing special... mentioned before... certain INtel processors will not only have quad-cores but the CPU connected directly to their chipsets ala AMD but with higher caches etc...

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by manning1

i was simply lamenting the possible plight of the poorer small studios out there.
ie..frankly i dont like the elite golf club mentality.
whereby only a few can afford the price of entry.
and i'll leave it at that !

Hey Manning,

The performance levels of the regular Core2Duos will more than suffice for the vast majority of smaller or larger studios for that matter.

The price of entry to the Quadcore club on intial launch is a bit extreme- pun intended- , but realistically it needs to be substantially more than the regular chips to maintain their current pricing. Think about it, if the Quadcores were released at a cheaper price point, Intel would need to adjust the other chips down to compensate. In the current climate, they have absolutely no need to do that, as they currently are smothering AMD on a price performance level, and will be for quite a while by the look of it. In 6 months or so, the price of entry will be far more manageable, and I bet that anyone currently using a Core2Duo can more than weather that amount of time with the power that they have now.

The real question for me is how the Kentsfield chips stand up against equally clocked Woodcrest systems, as that will definitely put the cat amongst the pigeons price wise.

BTW: With the high IPC and execution improvements of the Core2Duo, where there are substantial improvements with even small clock speed ramps, trying to compare a Kentsfield to a Woodcrest system clocked 33% lower is of little use, as there is absolutely no correlation what so ever. I won't even mention trying to use a Dyno Styled CPU stress test that doesn't scale per core....:-)

Peace:

V:

[jcschild]

Hey Vin,
dont start!
and where is your numbers?

u need to get over the fact i dont like your blofeld test.

you post your numbers with your test and i will post mine with mine now back off

Scott