2016 nMP

[Mago]

Another point, GPGPU computing is not the magic bullet few people thinks, a key difference on GPGPU is on Thread/memory Access on massive parallel compute environment every thread can communicate with all other threads and request some data or access their memory registry (as could be running a process distributed along 100 Pcs on a network) GPGPU restricts memory/communication to pools of threads or thread groups outside that you need to wait for this pool or group to read an result or write new data, it's like having a distributed process along 100 pc, but on groups of 10, where only those process inside each group can access the data from the other 9 pc and only at end can relay to the thread master, this is very restrictive on what you can do with an GPU to process some data.

That why there is the Xeon Phi, it's more like a bunch of computers on a network inside a single chip, notwithstanding the best Xeon Phi is slower on TFlop/s than the best GPU, it's more likely you can run an huge process on a Xeon Phi than on an GPU, since you don't have major restrictions on the algorithm than you have on a tipical multi threaded application.

I tried Cuda/OpenCL but finally I ended on Xeon Phi for my projects, so I's unlikely I'll ever use a pu again unless the algorithm enable it, but i prefer to invest on Xeon Phi or high core Xeon than GPGPU.

Of course I follow developments on the GPGPU market since the mentioned restriction it's something that could be eliminated soon or later.

 

[zephonic]

The answer is 3 modern nVidia GPU cards with the cMP . I attempted to connect four cards and failed . I am not certain about AMD products . See my project here :

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...80-ti-connected-to-a-classic-mac-pro.1957919/

I seem to remember the '09 MacPro could be configured with 4 GPU's. Or was it the '08?

[edit:]

Yup, the '09 could take four GT120's: http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-quad-core-2.66-early-2009-nehalem-specs.html

 

[sigmadog]

I remember sitting in a newspaper's composition room in 1987, surrounded by people banging away at $80,000 dedicated typesetting terminals, listening to one of them bitch about having to use that little, toy computer in the corner to make an ad. She then went on to explain why that Mac never be of any use to anyone. Seven years later all those people were out of a job and I was running the pre-press department for a commercial and financial printer using those little, toy computers.

I used to know how to spec type based on character widths, glyphs per line and all that. I'd hand some sheets of paper to the typesetter with the text and my specs, and it would come back the next day if I was lucky, but usually in a couple days. If I had to do that now, I'd lose clients because I've lost that skill.

We like to bitch about what our computers can't do these days, but for those of us whose careers span the last thirty years or more (I got out of college in '84 and have been in graphic design ever since), it has been a time of miracles.

I'm approaching the end of my career, so I'll likely stick with my Mac Pro (4,1 > 5,1) for the next 5 years or so, just for convenience. But if I were a youngster just starting out, I'd make sure to have as much Mac OS / Windows crossover knowledge as possible because you never really know when Apple is going to veer off and leave you behind.

That said, it's hard to adequately describe the paradigm destroying nature of desktop workstations. They utterly destroyed the old way and established something completely new. Eventually, they too will be replaced, and I think that day may not be too not far off. When that day comes, I hope to be happily retired, sipping margarita's on a beach somewhere, waiting for the nurse to come change my diaper.

 

[zephonic]

@dpny: Well said, I could not agree more.

Which is to say, I don't think Apple ever expected big sales from the nMP, simply because the days of big sales from desktops are over. As it stands I will probably never buy another desktop from Apple, simply because for my work (print and digital pre-press/production) the combination of faster CPUs and Adobe's complete lack of interest in making their apps multi-threaded means a fast i7, an SSD and enough RAM is more than enough to handle almost anything.

Looks the same way for me. My cMP is churning along fine and I expect it to suffice for quite a while. If I were to replace it now, I'd probably get a MBP, although I hate that Apple doesn't put quad-cores in the 13".

I don't know if Apple will ever abandon their pro workflow, but I think they will transition it to other form factors which, obviously, will piss off some people. Given the enormous advances Apple is making in the performance of their mobile chips, god only knows what we'll be doing on our phones in ten years.

And, for people who can't see a post about an iPhone/iPad without foaming at the mouth about how they're toys, I remember sitting in a newspaper's composition room in 1987, surrounded by people banging away at $80,000 dedicated typesetting terminals, listening to one of them bitch about having to use that little, toy computer in the corner to make an ad. She then went on to explain why that Mac never be of any use to anyone. Seven years later all those people were out of a job and I was running the pre-press department for a commercial and financial printer using those little, toy computers.

That is one good example of dinosaurs not seeing that meteor coming. It was much the same in pro audio back in the 1990's. Professionals just KNEW this

was never ever going to replace this:

Much the same way many people just KNOW an iPad will never replace a proper workstation.

 

[Machines]

Yup, the '09 could take four GT120's

My statement was three modern nVidia GPUs

Comparing an array of four first generation CUDA cards (total number of cores = 128) with three latest generation CUDA cards (total number of cores = 8448 ) might possibly not be fair .

 

[mattspace]

What's the current support on OS X for multiple GPU - is it limited to a maximum number by model (e.g. 2 for nMP) - or limited by not having more than 2? Could Apple allow for more than 2 GPU?

One limitation is the OS X display system expects all monitors to be driven by the same card, and extra GPUs are for compute - the configuration in the nMP where 1 card only drives all the screens, and the other is for compute applies equally for eGPUs. So if you wanted multiple GPUs to get big screen coverage, say 3x nVidia 970, with a single 5k display on each, that's not the way the display subsystem is designed to work. So the limit for total screen resolution, is what any one single card can drive.

 

[Hank Carter]

While I doubt Apple will drop the nMP soon, we all need to face a simple fact: the market for high-end workstation machines is steadily shrinking, and it will turn into a true niche market sooner than most of us want it to..

The market for your average PC desktop is shrinking, but not workstations.

We've reached a performance plateau for applications like word-processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, email etc. You're average middle of the road PC is perfectly capable of handling such tasks and really doesn't need a lot more power.

But workstation users always need more power. Engineers, scientists, content creators etc are always pushing the limits. I've been at this for more than 20 years and there never seems to be enough power, because the work always gets more complicated. So, every three years I will be looking for a newer and faster workstation.

So, while the market for your run of the mill PC may be shrinking, the demand for faster high powered workstations is without end. it will be a very long time before something like an iPad is as fast as a decked out workstation and even at that it will not be a replacement for reasons of ergonomics and expandability.

 

[Zarniwoop]

One limitation is the OS X display system expects all monitors to be driven by the same card, and extra GPUs are for compute - the configuration in the nMP where 1 card only drives all the screens, and the other is for compute applies equally for eGPUs. So if you wanted multiple GPUs to get big screen coverage, say 3x nVidia 970, with a single 5k display on each, that's not the way the display subsystem is designed to work. So the limit for total screen resolution, is what any one single card can drive.

Yes, this is something what I really, really wish that Metal v2 will fix. Because, if not, Apple will be out of the VR competition. No chance, goodbye. Metal's next revision has to support multi-gpu environment.

 

[dpny]

So, while the market for your run of the mill PC may be shrinking, the demand for faster high powered workstations is without end. it will be a very long time before something like an iPad is as fast as a decked out workstation and even at that it will not be a replacement for reasons of ergonomics and expandability.

Famous last words.

Workstation used to mean a VAX connected to dumb terminals. Then it meant a $50,000 box from DEC or SGI. Then it meant $10,000 worth of server and high-end equipment. Now it means $5,000 of carefully selected commodity parts. Ten years from now who knows what it could mean.

Put another way: I've been using Photoshop since version 1.0. My phone now has more image editing power than that first version of Photoshop.

When your business depends on rapidly changing technology, betting against further change is always a losing hand.
[doublepost=1457674746][/doublepost]

That said, it's hard to adequately describe the paradigm destroying nature of desktop workstations. They utterly destroyed the old way and established something completely new. Eventually, they too will be replaced, and I think that day may not be too not far off. When that day comes, I hope to be happily retired, sipping margarita's on a beach somewhere, waiting for the nurse to come change my diaper.

I found an old proportion wheel while cleaning out some stuff and brought it into work just for nostalgia's sake. One of the younger designers had no idea what it was.

 

[Hank Carter]

Famous last words.

Workstation used to mean a VAX connected to dumb terminals. Then it meant a $50,000 box from DEC or SGI. Then it meant $10,000 worth of server and high-end equipment. Now it means $5,000 of carefully selected commodity parts. Ten years from now who knows what it could mean.

Put another way: I've been using Photoshop since version 1.0. My phone now has more image editing power than that first version of Photoshop.

When your business depends on rapidly changing technology, betting against further change is always a losing hand..

Yeah, I was there for the VAX, APOLLO, SUN, IBM, SGI workstations and the rest of the alphabet soup that has come and gone. And frankly Photoshop is not a particularly heavy weight application compared to the programs we ran and still run.

I used to sit on a FLAME workstation that was $1 million a seat and now costs less than $50,000.

Prices have come down, but the actual need for heavy duty workstations still exists and isn't going anywhere. You're not going to pick up something like a BOXX or HP Z series workstation at your local electronics store like your average PC or Mac. Totally different market. The PC market for consumers may be stalling, but real workstations are in a different world.

An iMac is no substitute for a real workstation and frankly neither is the current nMP.

 

[dpny]

Prices have come down, but the actual need for heavy duty workstations still exists and isn't going anywhere. You're not going to pick up something like a BOXX or HP Z series workstation at your local electronics store like your average PC or Mac. Totally different market. The PC market for consumers may be stalling, but real workstations are in a different world.

For 2014, the last year for which I can find figures, global PC shipments were about 316 million. Workstation shipments were about 3.6 million, or about 1.1%. So, no, the workstation market isn't thriving. It's caught in the same downward trend as the PC market, and each year that 1.% account for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

 

[Hank Carter]

For 2014, the last year for which I can find figures, global PC shipments were about 316 million. Workstation shipments were about 3.6 million, or about 1.1%. So, no, the workstation market isn't thriving. It's caught in the same downward trend as the PC market, and each year that 1.% account for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

You do realize that the world economy tanked in 2008 and it took years to dig out of that hole, don't you?
Capital investment across the board stalled everywhere.

I did not say the workstation market was thriving. I said it was a very different segment than PC's in general that are stalling, but regardless I do not feel that the workstation market was going to disappear. A workstation is a very different kind of beast than even a high powered PC. Nowadays a fast PC can handle the tasks of entry level workstations from a few years ago, but the performance gap between that and something like a dual CPU 20 core XEON workstation with one or more professional CPU cards is enormous and they are used for very different tasks. You're average PC has gotten faster over the years, but so have workstations. In most fields the workload has not remained stationary and any gained processing power has been eagerly consumed.

You may have reached a performance plateau with PS and can nowadays get away with an iMac instead of a full blown and vastly more expensive workstation, but for many others out there that does not apply in the least bit and we will continue to upgrade every 3-4 years.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Nvidia's Pascal based GeForce GTX 1080 is expected to be shipping on 27th May 2016. Full GP104 GPU With 2x Perf Per Watt and 8 GB GDDR5 Memory

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-geforce-gtx-1080-gp104-gpu/

Also mentioned that TSMC is going to Double 16nm FinFET Chip Production during this month.

 

[lowendlinux]

It's WCCF..I'd not bet the farm

 

[koyoot]

GTX1080 - 4096 CUDA cores with around 185W of power, 8 GB of GDDR5. No chances for GDDR5X until Q3.

P.S. It looks like there is quite a lot of background story, that I have not known before, about what is happening in CUDA world, and why it might be open now. I may have retract my words before about OTOY Octane renderer, tho. It has nothing to do with AMD Boltzmann initiative.

P.S.2 There will be huge storm over forums after Polaris and Pascal release, but I cannot give you any specifics why it will happen, at this point.

 

[wallysb01]

For 2014, the last year for which I can find figures, global PC shipments were about 316 million. Workstation shipments were about 3.6 million, or about 1.1%. So, no, the workstation market isn't thriving. It's caught in the same downward trend as the PC market, and each year that 1.% account for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

Hank is right. Workstations sales don't come anywhere close to PC sales in volume, but the market isn't shrinking like with PCs. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases...to-outperform-pcs-in-q415-jon-peddie-research

 

[zephonic]

You do realize that the world economy tanked in 2008 and it took years to dig out of that hole, don't you?
Capital investment across the board stalled everywhere.

I doubt that much affected the 2014 sales numbers. By that time the economy had already bounced back and was in fact doing better than before the crash. At least, that's what I read.

You may have reached a performance plateau with PS and can nowadays get away with an iMac instead of a full blown and vastly more expensive workstation, but for many others out there that does not apply in the least bit and we will continue to upgrade every 3-4 years.

I'm not so sure that will continue to be the case. Desktop CPU performance increase has slowed down to a trickle, and concurrency isn't going to be answer to everything.
I have a notoriously poor track record at predicting the future (I thought the iTunes Store was a dumb idea, come on, who's gonna pay for music you can download for free?), but it seems to me X86 is approaching (or -indeed- has reached) the limits of its design. They'll continue to squeeze out a few points performance gain with every generation, but I doubt there's room left for big leaps forward.

GPU's may be different, I don't know, but when did Apple ever have the best GPU's? Or even the applications that really need them?

 

[Machines]

but when did Apple ever have the best GPU's? Or even the applications that really need them?

2001 . The GeForce3 came to the Mac first . It was used for gaming .
[doublepost=1457716815][/doublepost]

Hank is right. Workstations sales don't come anywhere close to PC sales in volume, but the market isn't shrinking like with PCs. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases...to-outperform-pcs-in-q415-jon-peddie-research

About 3 - 5 years ago , I realized ordinary users basically and forever gave up on buying traditional desktop form factor computers . I then re-focused my efforts to serve media content editors , architects , scientists , statisticians and website development , augmented reality , etc., crowd . I also discovered I still had a job doing this . There will always be a demand for bigger boxes , although the market share will always be smaller compared to the consumer side .

 

[AidenShaw]

.... but it seems to me X86 is approaching (or -indeed- has reached) the limits of its design....

Another prediction that's already been proven wrong a number of times. (Remember all of Apple's "CISC is dead, RISC is king" keynotes?)

Current Intel processors don't run x64 instructions. The x64 code is like Java "byte codes" that are dynamically executed by a "virtual machine" in silicon.

 

[koyoot]

x86 maybe is not approaching limits of its design, but process nodes and problems with them are slowing the progress in that architecture.

 

[dpny]

You may have reached a performance plateau with PS and can nowadays get away with an iMac instead of a full blown and vastly more expensive workstation, but for many others out there that does not apply in the least bit and we will continue to upgrade every 3-4 years.

You kind of made my point: workstations are a very specialized, niche market, which is why I doubt Apple ever intended to sell many nMPs. There just isn't the need for them we've had in the past. And I still think the workstation market will continue to steadily shrink.
[doublepost=1457720877][/doublepost]

Hank is right. Workstations sales don't come anywhere close to PC sales in volume, but the market isn't shrinking like with PCs. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases...to-outperform-pcs-in-q415-jon-peddie-research

. . .the workstation market fell only 0.8% in the fourth quarter of 2015 (year over year), and about the same for 2015 overall. . .

We're celebrating smaller YOY declines as victories?

 

[Hank Carter]

You kind of made my point: workstations are a very specialized, niche market, which is why I doubt Apple ever intended to sell many nMPs. There just isn't the need for them we've had in the past. And I still think the workstation market will continue to steadily shrink.

Apple is barely in the computer business at all these days. They're all about iPhones, iPads and fashion accessories. It's not that there is no need for a very high powered OS X workstation. It's just that Apple is making 70-80% of their revenue from everything but computers and the company is being run by people to whom OS X is essentially irrelevant. It's not a lack of need, it's a lack of interest.

[doublepost=1457720877][/doublepost]

. . .the workstation market fell only 0.8% in the fourth quarter of 2015 (year over year), and about the same for 2015 overall. . .

We're celebrating smaller YOY declines as victories?

You can look at your charts and I'll look at what I am seeing in the industry I work with in the real world. None of them have given up on buying workstations and all of them have plans to continue to upgrade in the future. I myself will buy a new Mac Pro if Apple ever pulls their head out of the sand and ships an update.

In my business nobody is switching to an iMac to do the next summer blockbuster and lets not bring in the Rebel Unit at ILM, because they do not represent the mainstream of that company or the industry.

 

[t0mat0]

You're saying iPads and iPhones aren't computers?

 

[Hank Carter]

You're saying iPads and iPhones aren't computers?

Not in a traditional sense.

 

[dpny]

You can look at your charts and I'll look at what I am seeing in the industry I work with in the real world. None of them have given up on buying workstations and all of them have plans to continue to upgrade in the future. I myself will buy a new Mac Pro if Apple ever pulls their head out of the sand and ships an update.

Ah, yes: never mind the numbers. I have my anecdotes! String enough of them together and it's a data point.

If I look around what I see in the real world, Apple accounts for 50% of computer sales. If you look in the window of any Starbucks you will see more MacBooks than Windows machines, more iPhones than Android phones, and on and on. If I look in my industry, Apple accounts for something like 90% of computer sales. And on an on.

Clearly we disagree. No need to waste any more energy stating the obvious.