#Pentiums and Macs
17 messages in this thread
Not at all. I don't favor cmt. But the statement was made that NT didn't handle
multi cpus…. it does just fine, as far as I can tell. Add a CPU, add
performance as expected.
I dunno about "load balancing"… seems to me if there are threads, it'll work.
If not, not. <shrug>
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Of course a program always has to be written to run several threads to take
advantage of mp (well, that may not be true with super scaler?). But, it is
still the OS's problem to manage it and schedule it.
I 'believe' that NT can only run effectively on two processors? IBM's been
doing 6 for years (with MVS etc.) and I 'believe' I heard that Warp is designed
to run up to something like 6, as well.
MP-effect was not an easy task for IBM to overcome, but they did it along time
ago. I definitely remember in an MS presentation about a year ago that they
were surprised at the mp-effect and that they weren't getting anywhere close to
double the speed when adding a second CPU, but they were working on it.
Robb
No, NT can run with more than two processors – effectively. Our software asks
the OS how many CPUs there are, then breaks up the task into that many threads
and launches them all. We get the expected speedups. We've only tried this up
to four CPU's though, and that wasn't at our place – but the customer gave us
bench times very close (2%) to what we expected. Could have been snowing us, I
guess, but why bother?
WinImages has a "chronometer" function; gives elapsed time broken out from
drawing and so forth, so it's a really good comparitive benchmark. We tested
all the Alphas at the VTU show against each other, for instance, by simply
giving the manufacturer's copies of WinImages and running the same ops on the
same image with the chrono on. 🙂 The results were… interesting. :-))
Anyway, I think there's an awful lot of propaganda out there trying to make NT
look bad. The funny thing is, where there really _are_ shortcomings in the OS,
I've heard almost nothing. Life is strange, eh?
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
'We tested all the Alphas at the VTU show against each other…… The
results were…interesting. :-)'
Uh, Ben, sorry to jump in, but would it be possible for you to expand on
that statement?
As a potential Alpha purchaser, I'd be very curious to know if any
specific design differences (ie: cach size, memory speed, I/O, etc.) were
key to showing improvements in your program? Also, would you guess I
might see similar performance differences when using LightWave?
Thanks for any light you may be able to shed on the subject….
Erik Flom
Yes, I think you'd see similar differences in Lightwave.
However, the differences were slight; those guys all have _very_ serious good
designs. The fastest was the Carrera (probably spelled that wrong, sorry) the
next fastest was the DeskStation (which I particularly like because it has plug
in CPU cards… upgradable, y'see). The deskstation was slower by about 2%, is
all – but it was consistant.
Still, those kinds of differences aren't too much to get excited about. I'd
look for other features (like the plug in cpus), myself.
The funny part – REALLY funny – was one manufacturer who saw the chrono, and
positively _begged_ me to go bench on another manufacturer's machine because
they (the people who wanted me to do this) had what they thought was a really,
really hot design… they were convinced it would kill the other machine…
well, the other machine was faster. 🙂
Life be funny. :-))
One machine was slower, but it _was_ slower… CPU clock-wise. The others were
all 275's.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Great! Thanks for the pertinent info!
I'm glad to hear that all the systems performed similarly – it makes
deciding that much easier!
The Alpha systems are very appealing, but about $4K more than I was
planning on spending. Of course the performance would be 2-3 times better,
also!
While the MIPS systems are more economical, they suffer the same problem
that the Alpha has when compared to the Pentium platform. Neither has the
level of acceptance that the Pentium has received, and there's less
software available.
Then there's always the PowerPC. Certain biased sources continue to tout
the power of its FPU, but since neither LW nor WinNT has been ported, I
don't have a good basis for comparison.
Oh well, thanks again for the useful tips!
Erik Flom
Do you know if Lightwave will be ported to the PowerMac platform soon? I'd
think it would…
Paul (aka Mr. Zombie)
I don't know if NewTek is planning on LW for the PowerPC/Mac.
My (totally unfounded in rumour/fact) opinion is that it'll show up on the
PowerPC as soon as there's a version of WinNT for it.
Now, getting a Mac that will run WinNT…….That's something I've been
promised for awhile now. :^(
Looks like late this year at the earliest. (Though someone else around
here claimed Mid-Feb for WinNT on the PoworPC…….)
Erik Flom
Ah, but WinNT on a PowerPC, or on a -PowerMac-? Very different things. IBM is
selling AIX PowerPC workstations as far as I know, but they don't run much
mainstream software.
Paul (aka Mr. Zombie)
Yeah, I didn't really make that distinction clear.
I'd buy the IBM PPC system if I knew I'd be able to license the MacOS for
it. Having run the EMPLANT and AMAX for so long, I just won't tolerate
moving to a platform that can't handle multiple OS' – at this point in
time, I still need access to all the platforms, and I'd rather have one
box to do it all. (Now, if they'd release the #$%&$# 586 module for the
EMPLANT, I'd be further along in my quest! :^)
Erik Flom
WinNT _has_ been ported to the PowerPC; the beta is the same build as NT 3.5,
which is really a pretty nice release. Now the question is, when will PowerPC
NT _ship_, which is entirely another question, isn't it. 🙂
Keep in mind that the DeskStation people will sell you a machine with a MIPS
CPU (saving you money) and then let you just change the CPU card later to an
Alpha… very tempting deal, that.
As for the rest, you're welcome, of course.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
'WinNT _has_ been ported to the PowerPC;….'
My girlfriend just got her quarterly bundle of CDs from the MicroSoft
developer program. Would I find it in there?
If so, does this run on _any_ PowerPC, or does it have to be
'PREP-compliant'? I've been told that all Mac PowerPC's shipping right now
are not 'Prep' compliant, so they won't configure properly for WinNT?!?
As for immediate solutions:
If Deskstation had not publicly reamed me in the NewTek forum a few months
ago for questioning their claims of '60:1' speed improvement over a stock
4000, I might still consider buying their product.
Earlyl on, at their prompting, I discussed my needs for a complete
workstation solution with Deskstation before they released their original
Raptor. I made it very clear that a 'black box' solution was not something
I considered a fair and viable solution for high-end modeler/animators.
(Given their recent upgrade/resale tactics, I see it was a very profitable
one for them, though……)
Anyway, they polished my knob until it was clear I was a no sale. At that
point, I became 'persona non grata', subject to some of the most petty
slander since the days of Dave Cinege! Beyond treating me like some kind
of slime mold, they made it clear that they didn't think much of this
'little Amiga world' I 'lived in'.
I saw them in operation at the VTU Expo, and it only reaffirmed my opinion
of the company……
Anyway, now that I've vented my spleen. (sheepish grin)
Thanks,
Erik Flom
I don't think you'll find it on the latest CD's – it's a closed program, like
the Chicago (pardon me, windows 2004) program.
As far as I know – and I think I've got this one right – it won't run on a Mac.
I don't know the low level why, though.
vent away. 🙂 It's your spleen, after all.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
It's a moot point anyway, since the only people I know with PowerPCs are
Mac owners.
I don't know why current Macs can't run WinNT, but I've heard that their
PCI system isn't 'PREP' compliant, since they went ahead and implimented
it before the standard was finalized. Oy!
Thanks!
Erik Flom
> I don't know why current Macs can't run WinNT, but I've heard that
> their PCI system isn't 'PREP' compliant, since they went ahead and
> implimented it before the standard was finalized. Oy!
If Apple had waited on PReP PowerMacs would have come out almost a year later
than they did and totaly missed their market chance.
Besides, PReP is _dead_. It has already been superseded by CHRP. Apple was
very upset that IBM invented and promoted a PPC "standard" and informed Apple
of the details after the fact. They were also rather upset that people think
they were the bad guys in not complying. Apple was not consulted in PRePs
design.
The original PReP standard had all standard IBM PC features as required and
most Mac standard features were optional. What was in it for Apple?
Since IBM saw that the sales of PREP machines compared to PowerMacs were going
to vanish into the round off, they decided better to try again. The second
time around things were better done. IBM and Apple worked together and came up
with a standard that will be less expensive and available from both companies.
While NT is not a bad OS, total sales of NT on PReP will be a few thousand in
the first 18 months it's available. Now NT on a PowerMac may sell much better
simply because there will be a thousand times more of those out there.
Oh well…..
—- Andrew
Well, MS themselves did say they were having problems, but that was about a
year ago and they were working hard on it. Maybe it was running multiple Intel
cpus they were talking about?
NT sounds pretty good, but we still don't have it around. Even though it's our
'stated direction' for servers at least.
Robb