Posted by nappy on 05/02/07 17:06

"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:4638be1c$0$8732$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Luis Ortega wrote:
>> Thanks for the links.
>> I guess that I am trying to determine whether an 8 core is really worth
>> it in terms of performance now and in the future.
>> I read some reports that discuss that there is a memory bandwidth
>> bottleneck for the 8 core given the rest of the specs of the system and
>> so it might not be a useful choice over the 4 core. The whole system
>> would need to be developed further, maybe with faster memory speeds
>> beyond 667, and perhaps some architecture would need refinements to ever
>> get the real benefits of 8 core, regardless of whether the software is
>> being optimized for multicore systems.
>> If this is the case, then maybe 8 cores are a good idea that needs the
>> next generation of refinements for the rest of the components to catch up
>> to its potential.
>> I don't really know the stuff well enough to form a competent opinion, so
>> I keep reading as much as I can before making a buying decision.
>> My choices now are whether to stick with a 4 core and improve the ram and
>> fast drives and video card or go with 8 core in the hopes that it already
>> has adequate support from the rest of the system architecture so that
>> when software is optimized for it it can really deliver its full
>> potential. You can always improve the ram and drives and video cards but
>> you are basically stuck with the processors and underlying architecture
>> until they redesign the computer itself.
>> On a separate question, if you want to also run windows, is it better to
>> install the 64 bit version so that it can access the full amount of ram
>> in the system rather than the 32 bit version or does this not apply to a
>> windows installation on the Mac Pro?
>> Thanks for any advice.
>>
>
> An 8 core Mac or PC is the current fastest box you can buy for your money.
> In an ideal world there wouldn't be a memory bottleneck but it does not
> stop the 8 core out performing the 4 core by a considerable margin. It is
> up to you to decide if your workflow can make use of the extra 4 cores and
> worth the added expense. It wouldn't be worth it if your render times are
> trivial as half of trivial is still trivial!
>
> You should install 32 bit Windows if you want to have widest possible
> compatibility with drivers and software.


yo spex.. does Win2K address all 4 or 8 procs?
Will winXP?
I know XP64 does?

Currently assembling a mad little render farm.

nap

[Back to original message]