Posted by Spex on 05/03/07 01:32

nappy wrote:
> "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
>


From what I remember XP Pro can use 2 processors with any number of
cores. I can't remember what W2k could address I suspect the same as XP
Pro.

I know this won't affect you Nap but XP Home can only address 1 CPU. On
a similar note I'd expect M$ to have limited many of the pointless
versions of Vista in a similar way.

S

[Back to original message]