http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html

Is thare any PC board that do this?

AMD and Intel both offer 2CPU's on a single motherboard, mostly used in servers though.
(Tyan is a popular manufacturer)

Just this year however, they have started putting 2 CPU's on a single die called the AMD X-2 and the Intel Pentium D.

They make that Apple look like a Turnup!

Don't think so necro they have Quads due for next year and the G6 arriveing which I will be waiting for my G5 is getting slow

Quote: Originally Posted by rapty Don't think so necro they have Quads due for next year and the G6 arriveing which I will be waiting for my G5 is getting slow

Your post makes no sense. "Don't think so necro". What part of Necro's post don't you agree with. "they have Quads due for next year". Yes they do. Since Mac's are switching to Intel I'm sure they will have Quads. "and the G6 arriveing which I will be waiting for my G5 is getting slow." Unless the G6 is a new Mac cpu from Intel you should wait. Their switching to Intel for a reason.

Quote: Originally Posted by rapty Don't think so necro they have Quads due for next year and the G6 arriveing which I will be waiting for my G5 is getting slow

Hmm, last I heard....

"News of Apple's decision to use Intel's chips quickly spread round the globe."

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23768

Guess you missed it

EDIT: Thanks Slaymate, your post wasn't up when I started my reply,

Quote: Originally Posted by Slaymate Your post makes no sense. "Don't think so necro". What part of Necro's post don't you agree with. "they have Quads due for next year". Yes they do. Since Mac's are switching to Intel I'm sure they will have Quads. "and the G6 arriveing which I will be waiting for my G5 is getting slow." Unless the G6 is a new Mac cpu from Intel you should wait. Their switching to Intel for a reason.

Why is Apple switching to Intel?

Answer: Cost. The development cost for the Motorola specific POWER series processors are significantly higher than that of Intel. And while I don't have specific numbers to support that, I believe that the cost factor is actually in product development time. If I will try to obtain some numbers for you, but there are no promises on that. (It is my understanding that by relative comparison, the difference in development costs between using PowerPC 970 vs. Intel is anywhere between 70-90%.)

It is also the primary reason why Apple costs so much compared to their x86 counterparts. It's also getting to the point where the performance of x86 systems are gaining enough ground to making such a move would help. Of course, personally, I would have liked to have seen them go with AMD instead, but I think that there might have been licensing issues behind that. (i.e. AMD's collaboration with IBM would have meant that Apple's pushing POWER out in favor for AMD, and then IBM would have probably slapped them for that, and then charge them with the implementation of POWER technologies in AMD's processors - so either way, Apple gets screwed. - My thoughts/speculation only though. i.e. it can be wrong.)

While the desktop side of things are going with dual-core (in just about everything), the mainframe are already prototyping both quad and 8-core processors. IBM already has working prototypes of 8-core POWER5 (which if you google it for a picture, it's about the size of your palm.)

From what I know, dual-core dual Opterons are supported by Supermicro, Iwill, and Tyan (as well as probably some others, I can't remember.) I am actually not certain about Supermicro, but I am pretty sure that both Iwill and Tyan support dual-core dual Opterons. (I do know for a fact that Tyan does cuz I had a board that did that.)

IBM also have dual-core dual POWER5 systems that are available as well that function as workstations and/or servers.

Sun does have a dual-core dual Opteron (they also have a dual-core quad Opteron) server available as well. Not too shabby for a little over $7,000. (vs. the standard ~$30,000 for dual-core dual POWER5). I'm not even going to bother throwing in PA-RISC into the mix.

*sidenote*
G6 is slated to be PowerPC 980, based scheduled to be based on the POWER5 architecture, while the current G5/PowerPC 970 are based on the POWER4 architecture. Also hints at the time it takes to develop the systems because the processors are one generation behind each other. I supposed that being able to handle 200 vector operations, 16 stage pipeline, getting approx. 4 FLOPS/cycle while consuming less power all makes up for it in the end.

Why is everything sexual with macs? 4 Some? Comon! We know macs are for pervs but this is too much!

lol

Apple is also switching to Intel because they were paid big bucks to use it Duh. So really all your getting is the equalivanelt of a dell but with a different name, case and OS.

Oh alpha, heres an article you might like:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardwar...id=102&tid=137

Sun microsystems have come out with a new server chip.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz Why is everything sexual with macs? 4 Some? Comon! We know macs are for pervs but this is too much! lol Apple is also switching to Intel because they were paid big bucks to use it Duh. So really all your getting is the equalivanelt of a dell but with a different name, case and OS. Oh alpha, heres an article you might like: http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardwar...id=102&tid=137 Sun microsystems have come out with a new server chip.

*sidenote*

Actually, yes I do know about that. Information got posted this morning on Sun's website. Pretty spiffy if you ask me. I was also going to start another thread on here about it, but I guess that I don't have to. (Also figured that I was going to get the usual "this is only good for a select few people here - namely, you." response, so...)

8 Cpus, each can take 4 tasks each.

How much do their CPUs cost appr?

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz 8 Cpus, each can take 4 tasks each. How much do their CPUs cost appr?

It's not quite 8 CPUs per se, it's more like 8 cores, on one die (one physical CPU "module").

Don't know about the UltraSPARC T1, but for example, the UltraSPARC IV+, 1.5 GHz, 2 MB L2, for the Sun Fire V490 and V890 works out to be about $9,000 per processor.

By contrast, the same processor for the Sun Fire E4900, E6900, E20K, and E25K works out to be about $33,750 each.

So my guess is that it's probably going to be priced around that range, if not slightly higher because of the multicore architecture.

........9 grand...god dam. And suns website says over 1 million people own them....those must be some rich people...

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz ........9 grand...god dam. And suns website says over 1 million people own them....those must be some rich people...

Well, I don't know that there are millions of people using the UltraSPARC IV/IV+ processors, but there's a lot - yes.

Note that $9,000 is processor ONLY (as a replacement/service part).

If the "millions of users"/owners are referring to people/companies that have Sun systems deployed for web/inter/intranet infrastructures (in various configurations, arrangements, levels, implementation), then, yes I would agree with that.

It also seems that with each successive generation of processor that their top-of-the-line is priced around there and everything else is "scaled" down from there.

And while that may also seem like a lot, you also buy a service contract that basically says that "if it fails fix it with in x amount of time" (usually probably no more than 48 hours). That's something that AMD and Intel can't do, unless whoever is it that you bought the system from has the ability to support that kind of no-downtime requirement by having parts on hand and available.

Another thing that Sun does that AMD and Intel doesn't (being primarily chip manufacturers rather than system manufacturers) is test the living crap out of their systems to ensure highest degree of availability, lowest power consumption possible, and it's all about system stability, stability, stability, with the occasional support (more so now than ever before) for hotswapping of components, including processors.

It's a whole 'nother world with people from Sun, and the mainframe guys from IBM. (While HP is still used, I typically don't really consider them in the same 'A' class/carrier-class of servers anymore because they're starting to really fall behind, hence why usually leave them out of the picture. Yes, they have servers, and their own processors (HP Superdome and PA-RISC for example), but there's nothing really "there" to speak of.)

*sidenote* If I were to build a server room, and cost only makes up half of the equation (with performance and stability being the other half), I would have Sun systems do all of the network and communications management (i.e. everything from passing data, routing, IP, DHCP, firewall, etc... - effectively their credo: They ARE the network.) and IBMs to do all of the brute force calculation stuff (the brunt of the work). If there's visualization involved, then I and only then would I bring SGI into the picture.

While IBM has AMD products, they aren't pushing their stuff as hard as Sun is. In some ways, that's surprising, in others, not really. The entire AMD x64 line is developed by guys that were originally from API, and in collaboration with IBM (SOI, multicore, etc.) The location of the components resemble more of a EV6/EV7 by design along with the features set, and IBM provided the manufacturing processes that made it all possible.

And now with the Sun-AMD partnership, I think that it's becoming more and more apparent with the results. (i.e. read the details on the UltraSPARC T1 and it almost practically SCREAMS "Opteron"). As a result, you have a Sun-AMD-IBM type relationship, which is basically going to set them up to completely take-over the server market away from Itanium(2).

And from what I've heard, it's working.

While I appreciate your knowledge and enthusiam alpha754293. I just don't agree with your "maunfacturing cost" explanation. While I'm sure your fact's are probably Apple's explanation it doesn't mean it's true. I've seen way to many independent reviews done that proved the G5 wasn't all Apple claimed. So much in fact, they had to quit making outragous claims. As for the G6 it was already in the final stages of development so it would be a tremendous lost to Apple not to release it. They are in fact moving to Intel for the performance boost they need to stay in business.

Quote: Originally Posted by Slaymate While I appreciate your knowledge and enthusiam alpha754293. I just don't agree with your "maunfacturing cost" explanation. While I'm sure your fact's are probably Apple's explanation it doesn't mean it's true. I've seen way to many independent reviews done that proved the G5 wasn't all Apple claimed. So much in fact, they had to quit making outragous claims. As for the G6 it was already in the final stages of development so it would be a tremendous lost to Apple not to release it. They are in fact moving to Intel for the performance boost they need to stay in business.

Apple doesn't "make" anything. They're an assembling entity. IBM develops the POWER architecture. Motorola licenses it (Power PC 970) from IBM to make the G5 (which was eventually cancelled by Motorola, so Apple ended up using the Power PC 970 AS the G5.) My guess is that IF they "make" anything, they would design the hardware (mechanical CAD done in Unigraphics IIRC, electronics in Inventor, or Solidworks, or Pro/E.) and then outsource the manufacturing. (i.e. I don't recall Apple owning any actual "fabrication" plants.) Conversely, they could just be using IBM's stuff since it's already developed, and then concentrate on software development (esp. with Adobe).

The G5s are a very tricky thing. It depends on what you do with it to get the performance that you're looking for. If you open most DTP, and DCC manuals, and books, you will find that most of them are written with screencaps from Apple systems. Why is that? Because for THAT application, they are probably the best at it.

Another example where development costs are pushing companies away is the case of Alias and its parent company - SGI. Historically, Maya has ALWAYS been available on IRIX, even when it's Windows and Linux counterparts weren't. As of the latest release (and possibly before that) Maya 6.5 is the last version to be supported on IRIX.

A lot of companies (including education and government institutions) are willing to sacrifice absolute top-of-the-line performance with a significant reduction in acquisition cost. Not to mention the operating costs.

I do know of one company at least, where they switched to x86, and ended up switching back (by acquiring an AIX workstation) because that was the only thing that could handle the workload. From what I've been told by the person who uses that system, it completely blows anything x86 (64 bit or not) has to offer.

Think about it this way - of all of the reviews that I've read about CAD/DCC systems, I have not read a single one where the reviewer had any clue about how to use the systems effectively. You want to find out whether it's "good" or not, give it to someone who uses either the system, a specific set of programs, or a general set of programs on a daily basis to review it for you.

Then will I actually believe what the original reviewer has to say.

I will also say that while benchmarks are "nice", they are, in no way, the absolute "Bible".

Case in point - one of my friend's is a CAD designer for a tooling company, and works with CATIA all day long (in various aspects). His system originally had a ATi Fore GL (I forget the exact model, but it's one of the newer ones) and he had such a hard time with it. Thing with crash, he couldn't get the visual quality he wanted - and ended up swapping what was probably at least a $300 video card (his system's less than a year old I think) with a $65 Wildcat III off eBay just to be able to work at the speed that he works at.

While the benchmarks would have all said that the FireGL was a "better" card, in practice, it wasn't. You can give the "best" system (according to the benchmarks) to a veteran user and they will tell you what it really is - not what they say. I only know of ONE person (thus far) that can crash an AIX system (dual POWER5+ 1.9 GHz, 32 GB DDR2 RAM) in 11 minutes by loading in 6 vehicles in their entire assembly into the system simultaneously and the only reason why it even TOOK that long was because it was limited by the network speed.

Quote: Originally Posted by alpha754293 Apple doesn't "make" anything. They're an assembling entity. IBM develops the POWER architecture. Motorola licenses it (Power PC 970) from IBM to make the G5 (which was eventually cancelled by Motorola, so Apple ended up using the Power PC 970 AS the G5.) My guess is that IF they "make" anything, they would design the hardware (mechanical CAD done in Unigraphics IIRC, electronics in Inventor, or Solidworks, or Pro/E.) and then outsource the manufacturing. (i.e. I don't recall Apple owning any actual "fabrication" plants.) Conversely, they could just be using IBM's stuff since it's already developed, and then concentrate on software development (esp. with Adobe). The G5s are a very tricky thing. It depends on what you do with it to get the performance that you're looking for. If you open most DTP, and DCC manuals, and books, you will find that most of them are written with screencaps from Apple systems. Why is that? Because for THAT application, they are probably the best at it. Another example where development costs are pushing companies away is the case of Alias and its parent company - SGI. Historically, Maya has ALWAYS been available on IRIX, even when it's Windows and Linux counterparts weren't. As of the latest release (and possibly before that) Maya 6.5 is the last version to be supported on IRIX. A lot of companies (including education and government institutions) are willing to sacrifice absolute top-of-the-line performance with a significant reduction in acquisition cost. Not to mention the operating costs. I do know of one company at least, where they switched to x86, and ended up switching back (by acquiring an AIX workstation) because that was the only thing that could handle the workload. From what I've been told by the person who uses that system, it completely blows anything x86 (64 bit or not) has to offer. Think about it this way - of all of the reviews that I've read about CAD/DCC systems, I have not read a single one where the reviewer had any clue about how to use the systems effectively. You want to find out whether it's "good" or not, give it to someone who uses either the system, a specific set of programs, or a general set of programs on a daily basis to review it for you. Then will I actually believe what the original reviewer has to say. I will also say that while benchmarks are "nice", they are, in no way, the absolute "Bible". Case in point - one of my friend's is a CAD designer for a tooling company, and works with CATIA all day long (in various aspects). His system originally had a ATi Fore GL (I forget the exact model, but it's one of the newer ones) and he had such a hard time with it. Thing with crash, he couldn't get the visual quality he wanted - and ended up swapping what was probably at least a $300 video card (his system's less than a year old I think) with a $65 Wildcat III off eBay just to be able to work at the speed that he works at. While the benchmarks would have all said that the FireGL was a "better" card, in practice, it wasn't. You can give the "best" system (according to the benchmarks) to a veteran user and they will tell you what it really is - not what they say. I only know of ONE person (thus far) that can crash an AIX system (dual POWER5+ 1.9 GHz, 32 GB DDR2 RAM) in 11 minutes by loading in 6 vehicles in their entire assembly into the system simultaneously and the only reason why it even TOOK that long was because it was limited by the network speed.

Well your persistance. And there's not doubt in my mind that your an extremely smart individual because your way up on your Mac tech. I've already gave out 3 rep points today but I'll give you one tomorrow just because your total commint deserves one. If I was a Mac user I'm sure you'd be my man to look for. As for your Cad man I think it's a Mac problem again. I'm a Residential Architect and I use AutoCad everyday (ATi FireGL T2-128, it's cheap but all I need). I pretty much only use 2D because it's cost efficient but I know that using a Mac for line drawings or 3D rendering in a CAD architecture is crazy. Only a Apple fanboy would do that. I live just outside a big city, Jacksonville, Florida and your friend is the only person I know that uses a Mac for any kind of Cad application. If you had said Pre-Press or speciality graphic's work I would find it a reliable source. And then again I've also worked for a print and sign shop and all the fastest computers were PC's not Mac's.

(edit: I worked for the print shop and sign shop, different companies, while in school close to 10 years ago).

Quote: Originally Posted by HemiCuda1970 http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html Is thare any PC board that do this?

Since it seems like everyone else ignored the initial question.

Yes, I know of at least 1 motherboard from ASUS that will support 2 seperate Dual-Core Opterons as well as support 16x PCI-Express graphics. Basically a high-end graphics workstation motherboard, not a server motherboard. Even uses the nForce 4 chipset. http://usa.asus.com/products4.aspx?l...71&modelmenu=1 if you want to see it in person, just go to your local Fry's Electronics :-P

Quote: Originally Posted by Slaymate Well your persistance. And there's not doubt in my mind that your an extremely smart individual because your way up on your Mac tech. I've already gave out 3 rep points today but I'll give you one tomorrow just because your total commint deserves one. If I was a Mac user I'm sure you'd be my man to look for. As for your Cad man I think it's a Mac problem again. I'm a Residential Architect and I use AutoCad everyday (ATi FireGL T2-128, it's cheap but all I need). I pretty much only use 2D because it's cost efficient but I know that using a Mac for line drawings or 3D rendering in a CAD architecture is crazy. Only a Apple fanboy would do that. I live just outside a big city, Jacksonville, Florida and your friend is the only person I know that uses a Mac for any kind of Cad application. If you had said Pre-Press or speciality graphic's work I would find it a reliable source. And then again I've also worked for a print and sign shop and all the fastest computers were PC's not Mac's. (edit: I worked for the print shop and sign shop, different companies, while in school close to 10 years ago).

*edit/clarification*

my friend does NOT use a Mac for CAD. AIX is IBM (UNIX, runs on RS/6000, on POWER and Power PC architectures).

The Mac reference is to point out that you want to test a system, ANY system, you give it to someone who uses it on a daily basis. While they won't be able to tell you what the frame rates are or what the benchmark scores are empirically, but if one "feels" faster and that difference is noticeable in the way that person is able to work (or play), then I think that counts for a lot more than empirical benchmarking.

One of my other friends, also another tooling designer, but in a different company, he has a Dell workstation, I think with dual Xeons and a nVidia Quadro FX 3400 and he is also having video performance issues. (Course, these are guys that literally FLY through CAD that its enough to make MY head spin.) He also wanted to switch to the Wildcat III ($65 vs. $550 on ebay) to give his system a bump in performance. (Unfortunately for him though, his company didn't approve his proposal, so he's stuck with a crappy card that all the benchmarks say its good. - Lots of OpenGL hardware and driver issues with it. POS)

My buddy that had the AIX system HAVE done 3D plant layouts for one of the OEMs, (3D architecture) and it was crashing the Realizm 800.

I know of (and been to) a couple of print shops both in Windsor and in Toronto that uses Macs as their primary systems for digital imaging, even for standard sized pictures. I think that they were using dual G4s and I THINK that it was Canon that made the scanner, but don't quote me on that. And those guys could really do magic with photoshop - let me tell ya.

Quote: Originally Posted by YohanSpritz Quote: Originally Posted by HemiCuda1970 http://www.apple.com/powermac/dualcore.html Is thare any PC board that do this? Since it seems like everyone else ignored the initial question. Yes, I know of at least 1 motherboard from ASUS that will support 2 seperate Dual-Core Opterons as well as support 16x PCI-Express graphics. Basically a high-end graphics workstation motherboard, not a server motherboard. Even uses the nForce 4 chipset. http://usa.asus.com/products4.aspx?...671&modelmenu=1 if you want to see it in person, just go to your local Fry's Electronics :-P

read:

Quote: Originally Posted by self From what I know, dual-core dual Opterons are supported by Supermicro, Iwill, and Tyan (as well as probably some others, I can't remember.) I am actually not certain about Supermicro, but I am pretty sure that both Iwill and Tyan support dual-core dual Opterons. (I do know for a fact that Tyan does cuz I had a board that did that.) *snip* Sun does have a dual-core dual Opteron (they also have a dual-core quad Opteron) server available as well.

I hate having to quote myself, but you leave me no choice.

source: http://forums.pcapex.com/showpost.ph...86&postcount=6

For more information: visit Iwill's website at http://www.iwill.com.tw or Tyan's website at http://www.tyan.com

Iwill models that support dual-core dual Opterons:
DK88
DK8-HTX
DK8EW
DK8ES

Tyan models that support dual-core dual Opterons:
Thunder K8WE (S2895)
Thunder K8SE (S2892)
Thunder K8SRE (S2891)
Thunder K8W (S2885)
Thunder K8SD Pro (S2882-D)
Thunder K8SR (S2881)

*note/edit/errata* Apparently Supermicro DOESN'T have anything for Opterons in any flavor, so so much for that.

Quote: Originally Posted by alpha754293 I was also going to start another thread on here about it, but I guess that I don't have to. (Also figured that I was going to get the usual "this is only good for a select few people here - namely, you." response, so...)

"No respect I tell ya, no respect!"

Rodney Dangerfeild would have understood your PC's "CAD" situation!