8-Core Nehalem-EX

Can any of the uber-geeks or system vendors postulate as to when the new 8-Core parts will be in systems that are actually for sale to mere mortals (i.e. not the builders of server farms)?

if you mean dual xeon 2 x 4 core they have been available for 16-18 months or so

if you mean single 6 core not released yet, (March/april) 8 core in down the road still

not to mention they are way more system than 95% of people need

yeah the EX still not showing up on any price lists where the 6 core are...
my guess June before you can actually buy them.

again WHY?

just checked with Intel.
releasing March 30th, which means probably wont be readily available for at least 30-60 days.


6 core i7 is most likely all you need. (more like 4 core and over clock it)
the idea of "future proofing" is difficult.
a good example is todays single i7 outperforms last gen Xeon.
so the thought of buying the most power and $ today means its going to last you that much longer is not true.
a $5k Xeon system is now outperformed by a 2K Single.

spend $2k twice rather than 5k once....

no i meant 95% of audio (video is a different story for sure with real HD workflow)
you every hit 90% cpu load with that Xeon? with a real project?

guys doing film score with full Cube of Vienna or MIR,
or mad tracks 96k with lots of native effects and needs low latency punch in as using samples
past that complete waste of money (FYI i make more on a Xeon, but talk people out of them every day)

jcschild


no i meant 95% of audio (video is a different story for sure with real HD workflow)
you every hit 90% cpu load with that Xeon? with a real project?

guys doing film score with full Cube of Vienna or MIR,
or mad tracks 96k with lots of native effects and needs low latency punch in as using samples
past that complete waste of money (FYI i make more on a Xeon, but talk people out of them every day)

Yeah I guess I still question the 95% part, but it's really unquantifiable and we could just settle on a majority perhaps. I'm not saying one needs a Xeon at this point in time or that it is even cost effective. I agree about spending the 2k twice.

All I'm saying is that we hear this all the time and we've been hearing it for years "Oh we don't need more power than we already have". The fact is that devs always eventually find a way to use it. Once that kind of power is more common place, synths and effects will be written to utilize it.

I have maxed my 4 core i7 on a number of occasions, although it is arguably much harder than it used to be and some projects don't make it work hard at all. It really depends of course on what you're doing and what you're using in your productions.

Plugin devs are always trying to make compromises in their algorithms in order to make the model (or what have you) run efficiently on currently available computer technology. But given the kind of power that is coming, they will arguably be able to make more of what they really want to do a reality.

So as processor technology moves forward, so do the tools that utilize them.

Well one day and i hope soon once they turn everything to GPU power then we don't have to worry about GHz anymore. Put on Nvidia FERMI with 412 cores at 2Ghz each you got yourself a super computer.

Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk
]

I will be using a 6-core Gulftown at Game Developer's Conference this week ... muuuuaaahahahahaha

Showoff!  Thanks for making my Q6600 look really old and worn out, Seth.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

jcschild


no i meant 95% of audio (video is a different story for sure with real HD workflow)
you every hit 90% cpu load with that Xeon? with a real project?

guys doing film score with full Cube of Vienna or MIR,
or mad tracks 96k with lots of native effects and needs low latency punch in as using samples
past that complete waste of money (FYI i make more on a Xeon, but talk people out of them every day)

Yeah I guess I still question the 95% part, but it's really unquantifiable and we could just settle on a majority perhaps. I'm not saying one needs a Xeon at this point in time or that it is even cost effective. I agree about spending the 2k twice.

All I'm saying is that we hear this all the time and we've been hearing it for years "Oh we don't need more power than we already have". The fact is that devs always eventually find a way to use it. Once that kind of power is more common place, synths and effects will be written to utilize it.

I have maxed my 4 core i7 on a number of occasions, although it is arguably much harder than it used to be and some projects don't make it work hard at all. It really depends of course on what you're doing and what you're using in your productions.

Plugin devs are always trying to make compromises in their algorithms in order to make the model (or what have you) run efficiently on currently available computer technology. But given the kind of power that is coming, they will arguably be able to make more of what they really want to do a reality.

So as processor technology moves forward, so do the tools that utilize them. 
  (QUOTE/)

  
  
  +1.. There are several plugin developers that i know of that are still waiting for computers to become even more powerfull then they are now because those developers are unable to realize all their ideas with todays computers. Wave Arts being one of the companies, their doing some sophisticated modeling. The tube saturator they released recently eats up 10% cpu on a i7 at 96khz for one instance only and that is only the beginning for them, they are capable of using waay more power then that. I've also read posts and email of several high-end reverb developers who stated the current cpu power and ram is'nt suitable for their types of reverbs wich are just too demmanding for todays computers (Bricasti and Yardstick), these algorithms exist right now. Similar algorithms i'm sure will exist ITB when computers are more powerful and keep the need for more power ongoing. I don't believe there ever will be enough power out here.
 
Processing power is deceptive meaning it can give false security when in large amount, even if a i7 is more power then most need ATM many people needs can grow greater to a very large extent overtime and still may find themselves needing to upgrade computers sooner then they like. That's the problem. There are many things driving the need for more power. Same people who screamed their Q6600 was high and mighty look at it as pretty weak now.  When i first got my i7 i immediately went to more of a no-compromise workflow, now i work more at low latencies aswell and have bought several EXTREMELY hungry plugins. I don't max out my power but needs have increased greatly over a short period of time. You put alot of power on the market and developers and users will use it, some right now others eventually.
 
    If the processor is at a good price it is safe to buy far more power then one needs imo. This may not be true for everyone but i believe it true for many (definitely myself for many reasons). Alot of people don't like upgrading too soon.

But..... Does adding more RAM and SSD's to a system do more for audio ATM then going with DUAL QUAD or 6 or 8 cores on one dye?

I mean, if I can choose between a DUAL QUAD with 6 GB and SATA disks or A single QUAD with SSD and 16GB memory I think I would go for the second machine...

I worked on a Mac with dual Quad and 6 GB. And it was not that much faster (latency) or booted faster then what I use (x2 AMD). So I guess when a system boots faster and can do lower latency that a single quad core could be put to better use then a DUAL QUAD wich in itself has a higher system latency and thus is not more powerfull in providing processed realltime audiostreams?

Allthough atm reliability of SSD's is not yet truely known wich holds me back....

Muziekschuur at home


I worked on a Mac with dual Quad and 6 GB. And it was not that much faster (latency) or booted faster then what I use (x2 AMD). So I guess when a system boots faster and can do lower latency that a single quad core could be put to better use then a DUAL QUAD wich in itself has a higher system latency and thus is not more powerfull in providing processed realltime audiostreams?
 

Would you care to share with us how you come to the conclusion you do in that last statement? I'm talking about the system latency claim specifically.

depends on which mac the older 54xx series or the new X55xx series
also depends on what processors.
and it greatly depends on work flow and the project.

a small project would not matter both would do 32-128 buffer
a large project with heavy effects would fall down on the AMD
a large project of samples would be far better on a New Dual Xeon (with apple being less than a PC but not by a good deal)
the same on last gen Apple would really suck as the FBDimms were far less memory bandwidth than an AMD Opteron.


MUZ,
again depends on workflow if you are using older disk streaming samples (like still using giga and why?)
the SSDs will help.
yes with memory loading samples the project loads up faster on SSD but once loaded the performance diff is not the big.
spreading your samples acrross a few drives will give pretty much the same performance.

if using enough samples to actually use the 16G (wrong configuration for an i7, its either 6,12 or 24) then obvioulsy you need that system over the 6gig system.
but comparing like that is silly.

also if the speed of the Xeons are slow and the speed of the single is very fast GHZ still reigns supreme for sampling (assuming the memory bandwidth is there as well)

a single i7 memory bandwidth is 28 GB/s
Xeon (with 6.4QPI processors) is 38 GB/s
thus why Vienna recommends Xeon.

bearing in mind that a dual system (assuming equal GHz)
only adds like 30-35% over a single (its no where near double or 100%)
and with say a dual Xeon 2.26GHz vs an overclocked (or real) 3.4GHz single, now at that point
processing power is pretty much equal from an effects POV and for sampling again GHz is king.

so all this to say.... when considering a Dual Xeon there is much to consider.
and personally a Xeon with less than 2.66GHz is pointless.

now all this is for Audio. Video will vary greatly based on formats/codecs and software used.
Final Cut on Apple really sucks right now vs say Adobe on Apple (or PC) but thats another story :-)

Jim and Scott,

Thanks for nuancing me. That's exactly what I meant. Lately I am creative again. I love to boot my system, plug in a guitar and record. Low latency (64samples) is now achieveable and is a benefit now available with the current Quadcores. I can do low latency on my X2 but for like 8 channels or so...

Now the interesting part.... I do have owned an Dual Athlon MP wich was slower then my X2. Especially on BOOT and on internall latency. So when a internall proc is on one socket things allways seem faster then with 2 sockets or more. (Up to this point and within my experience as I am no expert on hardware).

The Dual quad Mac was on Leopard. It might be different on a Snow Leopard OS. But I had to configure a Tascam DM3200 with firewirecard. (wich does not have Snow leopard drivers just yet).

Boottime was not faster then my x2 (though I have not compared both tete a tete. )
I did configure Final Cut Pro on the Mac. And it was running nicely on that system. Though content was only SD. I believe (as the system was having only two internal disks) that it would be different with HD content. But I could not test this.
 
The system was responsive, though I feel it did not add to my workflow, wich is what I did expect. I assume my dualcore laptop with two internal disks and my x2 are enough for me at the moment. Untill boottime and low latency are significant better... Other purchases will be more important...
Right now loads of Dye shrinking is taking place and today I saw Intel launched a Hexacore (6) on 32nm. I wonder what that would do to boottime and low latency. I assume DDR3 and all things new like SSD brings to the table will give us a working invironment wich can do low latency (64samples or 32 samples) up to 32 channels of recording so it will be fast enough for the audio homestudio in order to stay creative...

Yes, but isn't that a 45nm product (and thus more than a year old). Isn't the new Hexacore the thing to wait for (if you want/have time for).



Intel Core i7 980X hexacore pricing revealed [color=#646464 size=1 font=verdana itxtvisited="1"] By Hilbert Hagedoorn, December 15, 2009 - 10:05 PM
[color=#646464 itxtvisited="1"] [size=2 font=verdana itxtvisited="1"]   [size=2 font=verdana itxtvisited="1"] I know a lot of you guys have been wondering about this. The upcoming 6-core / hexacore Intel Core i7 980X (known under codename Gulftown) popped up in yet another slidedeck. Many expected the product to cost like 1200 USD.
Well, it's still very expensive, but not as bad as you think. The six core / twelve threads encounting processor is going to cost 999 USD which would boil down to roughly 800 EUR with VAT included. The new roadmap also revealed something else. Initially we expected the processor to run at 3 GHz, but as it now seems, this little monster might get a base frequency of 3.33 GHz.

I assume that's why they are experimenting with other material than silicon. So better conduction (I'm not sure if that's the right word in englisch (I'm native dutch.... ) is available and thus speed can go up?

At this point, when latency of 64 or 32 is realised my wet dream has come true and my search for an optimum DAW will probably be over.... Untill the moment when the developers reinvent my dreams offcourse.....