Re: G5's the real deal

[Bob Cain]

Scott Reams wrote:
>
> To be fair... Intel has no 64bit chips in the consumer pipeline, and there
> are none on their roadmaps. The only 64bit chip Intel offers is the
> ultra-expensive Itanium for servers.

Scott, how do you see 64 bit chips benefiting audio? From
having worked in CPU architecture many years ago all I see
is a potential for requiring a higher data and instruction
bandwidth to accomplish the same work.

If and when there is a nonvolatile ram technology of
sufficient capacity I can see a gain but I feel it can only
benefit us now by forcing device scaling which may improve
the performance of the 32 bit subset of the architecture by
default and then only if that subset can operate without the
overhead penalty of supporting 64.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Cain > wrote:
>Scott Reams wrote:
>>
>> To be fair... Intel has no 64bit chips in the consumer pipeline, and there
>> are none on their roadmaps. The only 64bit chip Intel offers is the
>> ultra-expensive Itanium for servers.
>
>Scott, how do you see 64 bit chips benefiting audio? From
>having worked in CPU architecture many years ago all I see
>is a potential for requiring a higher data and instruction
>bandwidth to accomplish the same work.

I can see 64 bit coefficients being a handy thing for some kinds of processing.
Then again, if you don't care about running realtime, there is no reason you
can't do 64 bit arithmetic with an 8-bit machine.

The other thing I see is that some of the machine with a 64 bit architecture
might have faster 32 bit floating point operations if stuff is put into the
ALUs to do simultaneous halfword operations. The SPARC 3 did this and it was
a slight win.

>If and when there is a nonvolatile ram technology of
>sufficient capacity I can see a gain but I feel it can only
>benefit us now by forcing device scaling which may improve
>the performance of the 32 bit subset of the architecture by
>default and then only if that subset can operate without the
>overhead penalty of supporting 64.

Again, address space and word length are independant.... you can get all
the address space you want with the expense of nastiness like segmentation.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bob Cain]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Again, address space and word length are independant.... you can get all
> the address space you want with the expense of nastiness like segmentation.

To what, then, do attribute the move to 64 bits?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[scott spelbring]

>And my Dell Optiplex GX150 running Windows XP Professional hasn't crashed
>ONCE in over 2 years I've been using it, day to day.

thats great! my dell inspiron crashes daily...blue screen. this has happened
since it came out of the box. my hp crashes once daily.... locks up. atleast i
can count on its regularity. my mac crashes, on start up, once every couple of
weeks, usually when i am clearing out specific extensions. nothings perfect,
but damn would i love to get my $'s back from hell dell.
scott spelbring | recording + interactive | dragonflyeast.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Cain > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Again, address space and word length are independant.... you can get all
>> the address space you want with the expense of nastiness like segmentation.
>
>To what, then, do attribute the move to 64 bits?

The fact that being able to move data in 64 bit chunks is an enormous win
if you are doing 64 bit arithmetic, and that can be a big deal for some
stuff. Code that ran in double precision mode now runs in single, with
a considerable speed improvement.

But the 32->64 jump isn't going to be anywhere near as big as the 16->32
jump was, just because there is less of a need to do that for typical
applications.

The wider data word also allows a big improvement in the speed of block
operations, where you're moving arrays from place to place in memory,
since you can now do it in 64 bit chunks.

And if you are really good, or your compiler is really good, you can do
things like store adjacent 32 bit values into a single 64 bit word and
then use 64 bit operations to load and store them both at the same time.
This is less of a win than it might seem at first.

But address space is the least of your worries.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bob Cain]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> But address space is the least of your worries.

On the contrary, from my time in architecture years ago I'm
pretty certain that the movement to 64 bit addressing and
the attendant enhancements to storage management and access
is the sine qua non for the next level of performance in
database management and transaction processing applications
which is where the bulk of business and the bulk of computer
profit is still entrenched. The direct addressability of
huge amounts of RAM is almost entirely what's driving it.
See:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=40723,00.asp

For audio it offers almost no perceivable benefit. For
calculation we just don't need it and wider busses for the
more rapid movement of blocks of data don't require 64 bit
integer architectures. Busses wider than 32 bits have been
around for a very long time for the purposes of higher
memory bandwidth.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[BananaHead]

(a b) wrote in message >...

> intel and amd have several 64bit chips in the consumer pipeline. in
> all liklihood, they will be more powerful and cheaper than the apple
> offerings. and once again apple will be priced out of the mass market.


Right, but if they started making poop so as not to be priced out of
the MASS market...ALL computers would suck as opposed to just 95% of
them.

Or API could always start making Behringer quality preamps and get
into the bigtime!

-BH

[Roger W. Norman]

Not on your respective machines apparently. That's OK. My Win2k system
doesn't crash either, but then again neither did my Win98 system, nor my
Win95 system, nor even my old Windows 3.11 system. Properly configured
machines really shouldn't crash.

But I'll be totally honest. I simply don't remember any crashes on Win 3.11
or 95. Could be that they did, but it apparently didn't register so they
weren't catastrophic and I was even doing beta testing on both of them.
However, Win2k has been on this system for a few years now and it runs day
in and day out unless we have local thunderstorms.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"flint" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > just to point out.
> > My G4 with OSX hasn't crashed ONCE in over 1 year I've been using it,
day
> > to day!
> >
> > When i think about it, I get all warm inside. :)))))
> >
> >
>
> And my Dell Optiplex GX150 running Windows XP Professional hasn't crashed
> ONCE in over 2 years I've been using it, day to day.
>
> Can we assume by my experience that Windows XP is stable and not prone to
> crashes?
>
> Can we assume by your experience that OSX never crashes?
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

Don't feel bad. For years my older son couldn't touch a computer without
killing it. I mean, I'd build a computer, burn it in for days doing stress
tests and such, give it to him, and within two days it would be dead.

So recoverable crashes are MUCH better than that! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"scott spelbring" > wrote in message
...
> >And my Dell Optiplex GX150 running Windows XP Professional hasn't crashed
> >ONCE in over 2 years I've been using it, day to day.
>
> thats great! my dell inspiron crashes daily...blue screen. this has
happened
> since it came out of the box. my hp crashes once daily.... locks up.
atleast i
> can count on its regularity. my mac crashes, on start up, once every
couple of
> weeks, usually when i am clearing out specific extensions. nothings
perfect,
> but damn would i love to get my $'s back from hell dell.
> scott spelbring | recording + interactive | dragonflyeast.com

[Roger W. Norman]

Personally I don't know what all the "fear" is in a Mac user contemplating a
PC or vice versa. It's just a tool, and like any tool the use is mostly
dependant upon the application. Obviously anyone looking to buy a new
computer today should look at the application they wish to run and buy the
appropriate platform, and buy the best damned one they can afford. I'd
rather opt for stability and reliability over a period of 18+ months (almost
getting to be an unrealistic requirement anymore) than upgradability.

This system is on it's last 6 months at the Athlon 1600+ level and already
there are now 3200+ CPUs. But with multiple SCSI cards (2940 and a
fibrechannel), 180 gigs, dual head, etc., I won't necessarily be upgrading
until I really find it necessary.

At least the new G5 looks to be a solid machine. Were I inclined to move to
Pro Tools it wouldn't concern me the least in making the move to a Mac.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Scott Reams" > wrote in message
m...
> > Ahh, but I want OS-X, so it´s irrelevant.
> > I think this is part of the argument that get´s lost.
>
> It doesn't get lost. It's just one of several factors.
>
> What OS someone prefers is up to them. Some might choose Apple... some MS.
> The performance and price relationships are still important to those not
> absolutely determined to use one OS or the other (as in... Nuendo or
> CubaseSX users, where OS has little impact on how the app functions).
>
> -S
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

The obvious speed advantage comes from addressable memory. Unless a quatum
leap in hd speeds hits inexpensively, the current bottleneck of hard disk
access is going to play an even more significant part. And I don't mean
faster bussing, although that plays a part. I mean pure raw writing and
reading speed. So by virtue of having huge improvement in addressable
space, memory becomes the arena whereby any reasonable improvements in
system speed will be seen initially. With something like Samplitude, and
it's ability to do full multitrack recordings in memory, I could easily see
having 10s of gigs of memory and a system with the responsiveness the likes
of which have yet to be seen.

The new Opteron that Scott Reams keeps talking about has up to 19.2 GB/s of
bus speed, which means a lot of memory would be an ideal condition to use
for recording. Couple it with a VERY IMPORTANT UPS and one could have a
tremendous system, not unlike AT&T's ridiculously expensive DISC system.

Now if IBM could just get that holographic memory down pat and put out an
inexpensive blue laser setup, we could afford the terabytes of memory we are
all going to need to have! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Cain > wrote:
> >Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, address space and word length are independant.... you can get
all
> >> the address space you want with the expense of nastiness like
segmentation.
> >
> >To what, then, do attribute the move to 64 bits?
>
> The fact that being able to move data in 64 bit chunks is an enormous win
> if you are doing 64 bit arithmetic, and that can be a big deal for some
> stuff. Code that ran in double precision mode now runs in single, with
> a considerable speed improvement.
>
> But the 32->64 jump isn't going to be anywhere near as big as the 16->32
> jump was, just because there is less of a need to do that for typical
> applications.
>
> The wider data word also allows a big improvement in the speed of block
> operations, where you're moving arrays from place to place in memory,
> since you can now do it in 64 bit chunks.
>
> And if you are really good, or your compiler is really good, you can do
> things like store adjacent 32 bit values into a single 64 bit word and
> then use 64 bit operations to load and store them both at the same time.
> This is less of a win than it might seem at first.
>
> But address space is the least of your worries.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, there would be speed advantages by offering huge amounts of
addressable memory space. Instant track bouncing, no pre-loaded caching,
instantiations of plugins that simply sit there waiting without crapping out
a cpu. Little things like that! <g>

Isn't it ridiculous that what was perceived as a major advantage just a
couple of years ago is now a time waster! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> > But address space is the least of your worries.
>
> On the contrary, from my time in architecture years ago I'm
> pretty certain that the movement to 64 bit addressing and
> the attendant enhancements to storage management and access
> is the sine qua non for the next level of performance in
> database management and transaction processing applications
> which is where the bulk of business and the bulk of computer
> profit is still entrenched. The direct addressability of
> huge amounts of RAM is almost entirely what's driving it.
> See:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=40723,00.asp
>
> For audio it offers almost no perceivable benefit. For
> calculation we just don't need it and wider busses for the
> more rapid movement of blocks of data don't require 64 bit
> integer architectures. Busses wider than 32 bits have been
> around for a very long time for the purposes of higher
> memory bandwidth.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

[Roger W. Norman]

That's 98% of them, if you don't mind.

But hey, as a tool, perhaps my PC is only a Craftsmen rather than a
Milwaukee, but it still gets the job done.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"BananaHead" > wrote in message
om...
> (a b) wrote in message
>...
>
> > intel and amd have several 64bit chips in the consumer pipeline. in
> > all liklihood, they will be more powerful and cheaper than the apple
> > offerings. and once again apple will be priced out of the mass market.
>
>
> Right, but if they started making poop so as not to be priced out of
> the MASS market...ALL computers would suck as opposed to just 95% of
> them.
>
> Or API could always start making Behringer quality preamps and get
> into the bigtime!
>
> -BH

[Bob Cain]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> Well, there would be speed advantages by offering huge amounts of
> addressable memory space. Instant track bouncing, no pre-loaded caching,
> instantiations of plugins that simply sit there waiting without crapping out
> a cpu. Little things like that! <g>
>
> Isn't it ridiculous that what was perceived as a major advantage just a
> couple of years ago is now a time waster! <g>

Your memory is volatile. :-)

In my first post on the subject I said:

> If and when there is a nonvolatile ram technology of
> sufficient capacity I can see a gain but I feel it can only
> benefit us now by forcing device scaling which may improve
> the performance of the 32 bit subset of the architecture by
> default and then only if that subset can operate without the
> overhead penalty of supporting 64.

So I concur on the benefit that will occur _when_ abundant
ram is available to capitalize on the large address space.
I add the qualification that it be non-volatile, and I guess
some would take issue with that, but I just wouldn't count
on its presence when it can so easily be lost.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Kurt Albershardt > wrote:

> david wrote:

> > It looks like Apple has done the same thing with iChat - free, good
> > quality 2 way video over broadband. I think it's gonna be huge and
> > become a very commonplace function of a net connected computer.

> > It works in a small or full screen and can go up to 30 fps. And the
> > only thing you pay extra for is the $149 camera.

> Which would cost $39 from anyone other than Apple.

But might it then need something more than just plugging it in and
starting to chat with one's buddies? Not that this will happen from here
over a dialup, but hey, people are obviously willing to pay for
"convenience", or there'd be way fewer freezers in the grocery stores.

--
hank

[david]

In article >, LeBaron &
Alrich > wrote:

> Kurt Albershardt > wrote:
>
> > david wrote:
>
> > > It looks like Apple has done the same thing with iChat - free, good
> > > quality 2 way video over broadband. I think it's gonna be huge and
> > > become a very commonplace function of a net connected computer.
>
> > > It works in a small or full screen and can go up to 30 fps. And the
> > > only thing you pay extra for is the $149 camera.
>
> > Which would cost $39 from anyone other than Apple.
>
> But might it then need something more than just plugging it in and
> starting to chat with one's buddies? Not that this will happen from here
> over a dialup, but hey, people are obviously willing to pay for
> "convenience", or there'd be way fewer freezers in the grocery stores.
>
> --
> hank



Hank, you can talk (but no video obviously) with a dial up connection,
which ain't bad.

One thing to note about the new Apple camera, the iChat software it
uses take the video and audio and auto enhances it. Which is damn cool.


Jobs a/b 'ed it with the best current Mac videocam, the iBot which btw
doesn't cost $39, its $99 and it comes with no mic, and the Apple
product killed it. Which, unfortunately for developers of cheap
videocams, is really bad news.

Remember, Jobs bought Pixar 15 years ago and has been very successful
running it. Think he knows a little about using video and computers?




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Scott Reams]

> But might it then need something more than just plugging it in and
> starting to chat with one's buddies?

Yes.

-S

[david]

In article >, Scott Reams
> wrote:

> > Jobs a/b 'ed it with the best current Mac videocam, the iBot which btw
> > doesn't cost $39, its $99 and it comes with no mic, and the Apple
> > product killed it.
>
> The Apple product may have been better... but lets look at who's doing the
> a/b-ing.



A guy who is also CEO of Pixar. Think he knows anything about using
computers for video? Naa. He's from Apple. Apple = Bad.

One of the reasons it looks better is the Apple software autocorrects
the camera for the best picture. Really smart. And simple.

Jobs is head and shoulders above the entire computer industry today
when it comes to new stuff. The recent string of products and those to
arrive this year practically embarrass the rest of the industry. Is
anyone else putting out the cool stuff that is coming out of Apple
these days? Michael Dell? Carly Fiorina? Ted Waitt? Craig Barrett?

Heck, Bill Gates is spending a good bit of his energy creating a
special watch to stay connected. Just what I want to do, look at a tiny
thing like a watch for a user interface. You know anyone besides Gates
clamoring for a Dick Tracy watch to stay in touch with their messages
or the internet?

Despite the Bill's many billions, his zipcode is still Nerdland. And he
still has that billg hairdo. Think he'll ever notice his head has hair?
;>




David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Scott Reams]

> A guy who is also CEO of Pixar. Think he knows anything about using
> computers for video? Naa. He's from Apple. Apple = Bad.

Sigh...

I'm sure Jobs is quite capable of assessing the quality of a video camera.
That isn't the point.

It has nothing to do with "Apple=bad", and everything to do with the fact
that you never, ever trust comparisons made by the company selling the
product. Period. I never consider benchmark results posted at Intel, AMD,
Dell, etc. when forming opinions on their products, as I hope others do not
as well.

-S

[R Krizman]

<< you never, ever trust comparisons made by the company selling the
product. >><BR><BR>

Aren't you selling a product?

-R

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman > wrote:

> << you never, ever trust comparisons made by the company selling the
> product. >><BR><BR>

> Aren't you selling a product?

It's best not to trust anybody about anything ever; that way you always
get screwed, but at least it's screwed by yourself.

--
ha

[R Krizman]

<< R Krizman > wrote:

> << you never, ever trust comparisons made by the company selling the
> product. >>


> Aren't you selling a product?

It's best not to trust anybody about anything ever; that way you always
get screwed, but at least it's screwed by yourself.
>>


For once I don't agree with you, Hank. I tend to not have anything to do with
people I don't trust....

oops, you're kidding, right? Just got back from a week in the Bighorn
Mountains without cell phone, newspaper, or internet. My sense of irony isn't
back up to speed yet.

-Rick