4 cores v's 8

Printable View

11-12-2007, 10:02 AM
FinnRoss

4 cores v's 8

4 cores or 8, which is better for cat? Any thoughts appreciated.
11-12-2007, 04:48 PM
emilianomorgia

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinnRoss

4 cores or 8, which is better for cat? Any thoughts appreciated.

quality/prices , 4 core , I'll spend more money on HD's ( IMO )

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsc

The MTRON SATA 32GB SSD -

http://www.dvnation.com/nand-flash-ssd.html

can do 11 dv movies at 25 fps with random access playback mode on every layer - not just play loop fwd

max 3147 can only do half this-

Machine tested is 8 core intel 3.0GHz.
Do 8 cores make any difference- NO- 4 reducing 8 core machine to only use 4 CPU's does not change performance.

dv codec is the fastest - performance characteristics are different with photojpeg - photojpeg is cpu limited - not disc.
Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonrudolph

Does changing the number of cpu's then affect performance of photo-jpeg?

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsc

i dont think so.
tests i did with a quad g5 and an 8 core intel using a ram disk ( not ssd ) showed very similar jpeg performance.
11-12-2007, 11:28 PM
Mr_P

I read somewhere that tiger doesnt make full use of 8core and that enhancments in leopard do... havent tested this theory though.
12-12-2007, 11:32 AM
SourceChild

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_P

I read somewhere that tiger doesn't make full use of 8core and that enhancements in leopard do... haven't tested this theory though.

I'm excited but I don't believe it yet. If you find results, post them. I'm curious now but can't imagine how this would be true since it's the OpenGl engine that would have to be redesigned before there would be a better processor utilization.

I suspect the article is referring to apps like Maya or Photoshop.
Photoshop still works somewhat faster on a G5 than an Mac Pro because of the transition in processors and architecture.

There were upgrades and changes in CS3 but overall a G5 runs faster than an Intel for Photoshop.

Perhaps this is what the changes in Leopard helped.

I don't know so don't quote me.
04-01-2008, 07:13 PM
Peter

I'm with emiliano on that. The difference in playback are according to richard 8x 1024x768 25fps in 2.66 and 10x 1024x768 25fps in 8core. So the cost would better be spend on SSD 64 Gb.

For more info look for : 7x 1080p layers in m147 - using apple intermediate codec link
05-01-2008, 03:19 AM
SourceChild

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter

"according to richard...
...8x 1024x768 25fps in 2.66...
...10x 1024x768 25fps in 8core.

A very simple and fundamental point to consider.

If a user wants to run 4 projectors from a single catalyst:
This means as user would need at least 8 layers to A-B switch between content. In this scenario, the extra two layers gained by an 8-Core wouldn't be much use.

If a user wants to run 3 outputs from a single Catalyst:
Having 10 layers from an 8-core would yield 3 layers per output with one spare. Essentially only using 9 layers would mean a little extra overhead gained from not using layer 10. If we're stuck with only 8 layers, it means one output can only A-B.

Please note that doing 3 or 4 outputs from a Catalyst at 1024x768 can only be achieved using an additional hardware device such as a TripleHead2Go or DualHead2Go from Matrox.