Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Hmmmm.....socket 939 Opteron 165 1.8GHz x 2........should I...........
|
|
|
|
| Re: Hmmmm.....socket 939 Opteron 165 1.8GHz x 2........should I........... [message #61739 is a reply to message #61738] |
Thu, 22 December 2005 00:28   |
![Deej [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [1] is currently offline")
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;
>>>>>>>rick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>i guess you could run a cpu usage check and see what happens but
i
>>>>>>>>would assume that the audio streaming would stop when the file stops
>>>>>>>>playing. as far as the mutes go, i would think that it would be
>>>>>>>>likened to a midi on/off command in that data is sent only during
the
>>>>>>>>onset of either command.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:21 -0500, John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Does an object that has been trimmed still stream the entire object?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Like if I take a 5 minute object and trim it to 5 seconds will it
>>>
>>>>>>>>>still be streaming from hard drive the whole time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also, do automated mutes continue streaming from disk? I'm betting
>>>
>>>>>>>>>they both stream and need to be rendered to fix it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is there a way to verify this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh, I tried compact and as reported, it did nothing. Oh well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>This is a bit cryptic to me, but if Debian/Gnome is bad sex and man'n'cheese
then OS X is erectile dysfunction and cold noodle soup.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spambillgates.org> wrote:
>
>Sheesh, yeah, you can get used to bad sex and mac n' cheese for
>dinner too...
>
>heh
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Why on earth anyone would want a proprietary, bloated *nix on X86 processors
>>i
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Hmmmm.....socket 939 Opteron 165 1.8GHz x 2........should I........... [message #61799 is a reply to message #61746] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 02:40 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
4;animas.net" target="_blank">animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:43ab734d$1@linux...
>> I've got a couple of Distressors and I can get something very similar out
> of
>> a Voxengo plugin I have around here called squashfish or something like
>> that.
>>
>> "Brandon" <lwire98@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:43ab61ac$1@linux...
>> >
>> > Some of you guys use a popular distressor (hardware)
>> > what is a comparible software alternative?
>> > Thanks
>>
>>
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>TCB wrote:
>> So, Jamie, you think I just make this stuff up? I'm some platform hater
with
>> no numbers or knowledge to back up what I say?
>
>As I mentioned, I was curious to see the evidence you referred to.
>Thanks for posting some links.
>
>And yes, you are a platform hater but I understand. :^)
>
>Looking at the links, Tiger 10.4.1 on a G5 dual 2.5 or 2.7 is shown to
>be OK for workstation apps when altivec is used. Holds its own (their
>example, LightWave - more examples would be appreciated but that's not
>their focus). I use LW so it's pertinent to me.
That's not what I read. What I read is that OS X is disastrous at managing
mutliple threads. Most, but not all, workstation apps use relatively few
threads. Something like LW or AfterEffects will usually be only a few threads
and the penalty for bad multi-threading will be minimal. Audio apps are usually
more thread heavy than almost anything else that is "workstation" level work,
so the consistently reported miserable performance with DP might make some
sense.
The other thing this article points out is that the FPU units on G5 chips
are pedestrian while the vector processor is truly staggering. So if one
is going to hand tune for vector processing (most compilers seem only so
so at doing that) that's another mark majorly in the G5 favor. This says
nothing about OS X performance, of course.
So it's good for "workstation" as long as workstation means minimal threading.
>They give thumbs down on server apps using open source software
>(apparently not optimized for OSX?), and point out that specific choices
>in the kernel are shown to be slower than Linux. It would be interesting
>to see if the several OSX updates since then have done anything to
>address that. For my use as a workstation, their limited examples make
>it look like OSX on G5 is not a bad choice when software is optimized
>for altivec. Actually it looked pretty good. And we're not talking quad
>mac here which conceivably would be some amount better yet.
Well, unless Apple changed the kernel and, oh, most of the OS I can't imagine
the situation is a lot better.
So then, let's get back to the original post. Morgan says Pete Leoni has
had OS X running on pretty junky X86 hardware and that it's benchmarking
the daylights out of G5 boxes. A Mac enthusia
|
|
|
|
| Re: Hmmmm.....socket 939 Opteron 165 1.8GHz x 2........should I........... [message #61800 is a reply to message #61799] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 02:51 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
st says BS on that, and I chime
in that Morgan may be right because OS X is extremely inefficient in some
areas that are crucial for high performance computing (threading, kernel
access, etc.). I'm told that I'm passing around "urban myths" and demands
for proof are made. After the proof is given I'm told that they just reflecty
my "bias" as someone who likes Debian.
OK, that's one way to explain things, and a way that I would guess is very
appealing to someone in for a few grand worth of G5 hardware that is leaning
into the headwind of kernel design that looked great on the chalkboard in
Comp Sci 310: Mach Kernel Development but Linus saw and said, "Wow, what
a great way to destroy my database queries!" However, let's look at another
explanation. Apple is plannning on moving to Intel hardware. The developer
versions for Intel hardware seem distressingly fast in comparison to supposedly
superior chip design from IBM. Everyone who owned an early G4 with OS 9 on
it remembers installing OS X and thinking, "Well it sure is pretty but it
sure is slower too." At the time it was attributed to the new GUI but now
that there's more evidence out there maybe that should be re-thought. The
user space and kernel space on *nix machines is usually quite distinct, so
do you think maybe Apple made some kernel changes in Intel OS X? I don't
have access to the software, so I can't say for sure if they've actually
gone monolithic but from the benchmarks that would be a *highly* logical
guess. If they haven't gone fully monolithic I would expect that they lifted
some more code from a BSD licensed *nix to vastly improve the current kernel
space. I'd still be on monolithic but it almost has to be one or the other.
Or maybe I'm just peddling urban myths . . .
TCB
>OTOH, the Opteron looked pretty good, too. It will be very interesting
>to look at the upcoming Intel dual Yonah processor with OSX, in
>(rumored) another couple of weeks, and see how that combination does.
>This is all a moving target.
>
>In the other link, the main bias is the same as yours: OSX is not open
>source from top to bottom. True. Beyond that complaint, with his
>specific statistical software he finds better performance under Linux
>when testing on a couple of older G5 boxes. Not sure if this says much
>about the music/graphics/video/animation apps that I use (other than his
>complaint about accessing his PVR files, in which case maybe he should
>consider the ElGato digital video boxes which work fine - although they
> may not have been out when he wrote his review - the HD one rocks).
>But I can see why he made the choices he did for his application.
>
>It's good to have choices. Go Linux! Some of the software I use for
>browsing, email, word processing, spreadsheet and software development
>also run on Linux and I like that. BTW, I'm happy to see Linux
>animation, audio, video, and graphics software moving ahead, step by
>step. If you're involved in any of that, kudos to you!
>
>For now, OSX and the available software for OSX offers a very capable
>platform for the media production I do, and the dual 2.5GHZ box I use
>is, for the most part, amazing. The kernel may have drawbacks for server
>use, but it has some very nice features that support audio, video and
>graphics system-wide.
>
>It's not perfect, mind you. That's still out there waiting to happen.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>Remember, in addition to what
>> I do with audio apps I work 50-80 hour weeks as a network admin and developer.
>> And I hate M$oft just as much as I hate Apple. So then, about this urban
>> legend nonsense, I give you Anandtech, wherein he proves a) the G5 is
a fabulous
>> RISC processor a
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jan 28 04:33:24 PST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02671 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
