[ASZ993]

What is the GPU requirement on Core Image and Core Video?

According to Apple's website, all it says is "programmable GPU" for Core Image

Go look and read:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/coreimage.html


What about Core Video?

Specifics anyone?

[Kickaha]

They had some up earlier, but then pulled them about the time the mini came out. Speculation that is that they are doing the normal software engineering thang of getting it to work on speedy hardware first (easier), then optimizing it enough to get it work on slower hardware (harder).

Bottom line: nobody but seeded developers knows what the current state is, and that may change.

[Corpus_Callosum]

My guess is that for Core Image / Core Video to run as it was designed to, you will need a CELL processor.

But everyone with any kind of GPU will get some benefit.

JMHO

[Brad]

@ Corpus_Callosum

It looks like we have a new court jester, folks!

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by Brad @ Corpus_Callosum It looks like we have a new court jester, folks!

Jesting about the possibility of Cell. Lets put it this way Apple as a corporation would be foolish not to have Cell under consideration at this moment in time. For a range of things it is currently the best option on the market.

Now we may not be talking about a Cell in the sesnse of what was announced for Sony, rather something more suitable for a desktop computer. The only thing needed to make it more suitable would be an interface to more conventional memory and possibly a hypertransport interface. Since Cell is already designed to be modular this adaptation probally is already done.

The reason I think it is already done, is they markets STI have targetted beyond the games console business. Not all of these markets will adopt a processor with what amounts to being a strange interface to the real world. The other real problem is that Apple still doesn't have a 64 bit solution for th elaptop / low power hardware lines and probally won't get one from the 970 line.

Dave

[Roland]

Agreed wizard.

I am not a hardware buff, but I am sure Apple is looking into the CELL processor, it would be pretty stupid if they didnt.

[Luca]

The Cell is not a desktop processor. Period. I thought we already covered this, but apparently some people still refuse to get it through their head.

[mugwump]

But it could be in a desktop motherboard, period. I thought this was the obvious conclusion from the hundred of Cell topics everywhere.

Maybe it goes back to that old Raycer rumor, but having the Cell sitting there next to the CPU to offload iMovie/iDVD/FCP/Motion/Shake/Compressor rendering load would be fantastic and add tremendous speed to the professional line.

Apple could provide the hooks to software designers to "send code through Cell" to keep the 3rd party programming simple.

[aggiemacster]

I just don't see Apple using the Cell. At least in its current form.

For one thing, Apple has invested quite heavily in altivec, and as some of you may know, the Cell has very, very weak altivec performance.

I, of course, derive all this from second-hand information (probably like the rest of you).

You guys should really read Hannibal's (from arsTechnica) brief intro into the Cell. Some good solid information in there.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2.ars

From that review, it became pretty obvious that the Cell is intended more for multimedia use and less for scientific and desktop use (though it could very well be done- just not as well as the G5 could ).

It's a great archtitecture, just not quite where Apple wants to be right now.

I think it is more likely that we will see some of the Cell's design migrate down into IBM's other chips, rather than Apple jumping ship onto YACA (yet another chip architecture).

Anyhow. Flame on.

[Brad]

Danger! Danger! Veering off-topic, Will Robinson!

Keep the Cell talk to the Cell threads, folks.

[wizard69]

That is postiion that simply can't be justified considering vendor statements and Cells adaptability to other I/O. If Cell is not going to be a desk top processor then all the whispers about Cell based workstations must disinformation form the vendors.

In any event show me how Cell isn't capable of supporting a desktop computer. Further show me how such a processor wouln't be pretty darn impressive in a desk top machine.

Dave

Originally Posted by Luca The Cell is not a desktop processor. Period. I thought we already covered this, but apparently some people still refuse to get it through their head.

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by aggiemacster I just don't see Apple using the Cell. At least in its current form.

It has already been stated that Cell will take many forms.

For one thing, Apple has invested quite heavily in altivec, and as some of you may know, the Cell has very, very weak altivec performance.

Trying to pull this thread back on topic here. That is the requirements for core imaging or "core" in general. What I attempted to do is to point out that, looking in from the outside, Cell was designed to support "core". Obviously it is not a requirement for "core" but may be the ultimatel way to implement a machine to support "vore"

As to the "very very weak altivec performance" where did you hear that from? You do realize that each SPE has similar functionality to VMX. Not the same by any manner but vector processor in their own right.

I, of course, derive all this from second-hand information (probably like the rest of you). You guys should really read Hannibal's (from arsTechnica) brief intro into the Cell. Some good solid information in there.

did that a long time ago.

From that review, it became pretty obvious that the Cell is intended more for multimedia use and less for scientific and desktop use (though it could very well be done- just not as well as the G5 could ). What do you think "core " is intended to enhance? The whole point of "core" is to accelerate functions outside of the main CPU. The thought is that some of this would be done in the GPU, which is very possible for some video enhancements. But that does not take care of things such as audio. Frankly; one of the biggest problems with "core" is that it was made public way to early. It makes things like the iMac and even some of the PowerMacs a big question mark as you have to wonder how well they will be able to exploit "core". Sure I've seen comments that say that the iMac or such n such computer do fine with core, but what does that really mean. Especially with respect to a computer that really supports core well. In a nut shell if you epect ot buy a Mac to exploit software that makes use of "CORE" then you had best wait a little bit until the software is out and you and the rest of us can make a solid evaluation on how well it works with specific hardware. It is sort of like 3D acceleration under Linux, there is a huge gap between the high end and the low end performance wise. The hardware you buy makes a huge difference and it isn't always cost related. It is simply a matter of the drivers abiltiy to exploit the chip. With "core" you will have to worry about such things and probally about how much memory is on board with the GPU. Of course this all depends on ones expectation and usage. What is good "core" performance to one may be crap to another. Dave It's a great archtitecture, just not quite where Apple wants to be right now. I think it is more likely that we will see some of the Cell's design migrate down into IBM's other chips, rather than Apple jumping ship onto YACA (yet another chip architecture). Anyhow. Flame on.

[HHogan]

Can Cell consume other desktop processors and add those abilities to its own ?

[Luca]

Brad already told you to keep Cell discussion in a Cell thread. Regardless of anything involving the Cell, it has nothing to do with CoreImage and CoreVideo.