#MAX Systems
6 messages in this thread
Sanford,
>Any idea if MAX will be able to take advantage of a 6 processor setup, or is
two the maximum that NT is optimized for?<
I believe 6 is just fine. Any more than this is a waste. With more, there is
alot of time wasted in just delegating the tasks. (dimenising returns, etc.)
I would think that a 4 processor setup with faster processors would be more
advantageous than a 6 system with slightly slower processors. I believe the
boost goes down for each processor. (not sure though) Dual 133's sounds good
enough for me. (just found out last week than my td-30 can run two 133's..
good news to potential Intergraph buyers as well.)
JNJ
John,
<your TD30 can run dual 133 mhz>
Great news. I want to hear about this machine…. is it available as a
motherboard? I am in the market for a new computer and I need lots of info. I
have been getting mixed views on whether more than two is a waste. It would be
cool to decide which program running on NT would be a good bench test (it has
to have multi-threading). Then take that program down to a Dec Alpha dealer
and also an Intergraph dealer. I sure would like to know what the numbers
would say about these two potentially hot machines. Does the pentium really
have a chance against the Alpha? Second question….will any software I now
own run on any of these new machines in NT or do I need to buy all new? I
realize you may not have this information, but maybe somebody is
watching…..who does.
Regards,
Sanford
Sanford,
<info on td-30,dual P133<
No, it's not available in MB only- it has a different layout than a regular MB,
etc.
I haven't run dual 133's yet.. but hope to upgrade my single P100 to a 133
fairly soon. I won't get dual processors until I have something that really
requires it.
I haven't done seen any testing between dual Intergraph vs. other systems, so
I'm not sure how much better (if at all) the intergraph is. That remains to be
seen. Single processor performance is about the same as many of the custom
built (well built, mind you) boxes I've heard about.
Alot of my software isn't NT- and it runs just fine. (except for sound in dos
games, but I won't admit that I use this machine for such foolishness, nor
would I admit that I would use a dual boot to dos for such activity <g>)
Picture Publisher, Photoshop, Painter, Playmation, Elastic Reality, Typestry 2,
and other apps that pertain to 3D, etc. all run just fine- and many run much
better. (ER, Photoshop, T2, etc.) Just make sure you have drivers for every
device you use for NT before you get it. Some drivers (scanner, etc) are
nonexistient. There are PAR drivers on the internet for NT.. if you have a
PAR. (seems like everyone here has one <g>)
Intergraph isn't cheap, but I've been very pleased with it. Once your
pocketbook manages the hit, you'll appreciate the quality and thought put into
designing it. (at least I do) And support for dual 133's are icing on the
cake. It will support at least 256MB onboard, but I'm not sure about 512..
Also, the built in Matrox Millenium smokes everything else I've seen out
there.. I'm impressed. Even really fast Dos performance.
It does lack drive bays though.. (2 internal, with the external being used
<floppy/CD> The second internal covers over 2 (3?) ISA slots.. but it has 3
free PCI slots to make up for it. (this is the pizza box type system, there is
a more expensive tower with tons of bays and PCI slots) I'll end up using the
external scsi port for any extra drives needed. (zip drive, jaz drive, DAT,
etc.)
Intergraph has a WWW site, with alot of specifics, and purty pictures of their
cool TDZ series. (think it's www.intergraph.com, or something similarly
obvious)
Definately check out custom systems, some of them offer upgradability of
processors higher than the 133. (assuming they work as planned, which they
probably will.) Actually, I'm not sure if 133 is a limit for the TD or not.
I'm not that deep into design to know what is required to be so. There are
lots of options, check them out. 🙂 (several custom system designers are in
the forum)
I would say, however, that a solid dual pentium system will do you better today
than an alpha. (assuming you do 3DS work primarily) Many apps don't have
native Alpha support yet, and Intel emulation under NT isn't speedy. (think
486 speed) The Alpha wave is coming, but isn't quite practical today.
Unfortuanately, I think we'll have to wait 6 mo. or so before Alpha power is
realized for 3DS'ers. (assuming the assumable <g>)
Let me know if you have any more specific questions.. I've already talked about
the TD plenty, and don't want to sound like I think I'm Mr. Hardware, nor
boastful. There are many here that could do more with a ragged 486 (or less)
than I could with a quad P6/Alpha.
I hope I've helped-
JNJ
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am now determined to find a DEC
dealer in L.A who can let me play with the machine. After I look at that, I
will continue trying to find out if the multi-processor pentium will be lots
slower or only a little slower, or (?) faster than a dollar for dollar
equivalent Intergraph.
The point about not having Alpha NT type drivers for my accesories is
very important.
I will look into this in depth. Yes, I happen to have a PAR, but I expect to
go to the Perception "fancy" version next month.
Sanford
Sanford,
Good luck on your search. 🙂
JN
PMJI John, but I have just been reading an article concerning multiple
processors, the article itself goes on at some length about the pros and cons
of such systems and can be found in the September 1995 issue of Windows
Magazine.
Essentialy however it says the following, the apparent power gains from
multiple processors are dependant on the number of threads that the software is
using and the efficincy of the scaling factor of the CPU. Basicaly this
translates as the following: a good CPU may have a scaling factor of 0.95 thus
if we have 2 threads running on 2 CPU's with a scaling factor of 0.95 you will
get a percived speed of 2^0.95 or around 1.93 times the speed of 1 CPU, as you
increase the nuber of CPU's the scaling factor quickly becomes noticeable thus
4 CPU's gives 3.73 times the speed and 8 gives 7.2 and so on. Even this is
incorrect because the scaling factor is dependant on the number of threads, as
you run more CPU's the scaling factor decreases rapidly, because it gets harder
to avoid contention for resources between threads, also synchronisation
problems are not limited to software. I have no intention of writing out the
whole article but the above basically somes it up.
This will apply to any CPU, its just that some systems will run more
efficiantly and are better designed for multiple processors i.e. the Alpha and
possibly Intels new P6.
The conclusions I would draw are that its not worth having more than 4 CPU's
per machine, better to have more machines to do the task, It probably is for
the best anyway and is certainly just as economical.
In closing I would like to point out one additional factor multiple processors
were designed for file servers not individual apps bear that in mind before
buying machines with rediculous numbers of processors in !………
David