I guess if I had $35,000 to spend on a computer I'd set myself up with a nice little cluster of Apples XServes rather than a single work station. Why? It's almost infinitely extensible, has just the right amount of redundancy and a lot of processing power and storage. The beauty of course is that you can just add more in the future.
If you shop around for components I think you could get 7 Xserves for around $35,000. I haven't actually done any research though so please don't take this figure that seriously. At the very least I think you could get 5 XServes.
For 7 XServes that would be 56 cores running at 3Ghz each with 21TB of storage and a combined 224GB of RAM.
For 5 XServes that would be 40 cores running at 3Ghz each with 15TB of storage and a combined 160GB of RAM.
Impressive spec aoes, good work! It doesn't seem like you've learned much since your last video though.
Why do you insist on shopping around for decent priced components for the PC, but then go and pay Apples premium for the Mac. There is no need to spend that much for a Mac Pro with that spec. I have to say this almost disingenuous.
In my honest opinion, it's not a good thing to argue about. Macs are simply just PCs with different software. Macs were never meant to be user-built. There's no difference between a homemade Mac and a homemade PC, other than the software. (OS X is a lot more stable and efficient in my opinion. But then again, all UNIX-based operating systems are).
Apple CAN get their hands on a thing as powerful as this and build it. It's just not profitable. Apple doesn't WANT people to build their computers. They just want to sell them. You can't make homemade Dells, can you? Then it wouldn't be a Dell computer. The only valid point I really see is the fact that you don't build Macs.
the reason why i said its irrelevant is because , its all hypothetical, you didn't prove anything, its pretty obvious that computers like this do exist, i said its pointless, because you posted no video of it running.
What an idiotic explanation. You weren't even part of the issue in question in the first place, and the point was made. A video of it running was unnecessary.
So just piss off, you annoy me. Go play with your widgets and leave the real power-users alone.
Bitch please, i got my a+ net +, mcp, and mcse, and ive put together a quarter millon dollar cluster b4 and i even got to mess with system x which is a million dollar supercomputer at bowie state, and it can't be idiotic because you were the one stating it was hypothetical, and it your on a video website, ,one would expect you to prove something by posting a video.
Sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I'm just really sick of mac fans posting idiotic rebuttals to my video when they have no idea what they're actually talking about. Since you're apparently not one of them, allow me to apologize for my rudeness.
So what OS did you use in that cluster you speak of? I'm currently trying to teach myself more about clusterKNOPPIX, and by the end of the year I hope to have a small Beowulf set up in my warehouse.
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 on an ibm x series xeon, but when i saw the system x ma system at bowie state, thats one of the things that made me want to get into mac os x, alot of mac fans do make all kinds of comments , but so do pc people, and the bad thing is most pc people are more ignorant, because they never even used mac, and some don't even know much about a normal everyday pc, thats why i make some simple mac videos to show people without bias .
the bowie state system is named the Xseed, it was pretty impressive it had like 200 and something duel core g5s and it was in the 166 in the worlds top 500 fastest supercomputers. and cost a million dollars
Wow, not many supercomputers use apple products. Very interesting.
Well, despite the simplicity and bloat factor, wouldn't it be better under some circumstances to just use Unix instead of OS X for a supercomputer? You'd probably get more features from a general Unix distro at a lower cost, not to mention they're basically both the same OS anyway.
Have you seen the work IBM and TerraSoft have been doing with PS3's? Cell blades are the future, man. Now that's some badass architecture.
yea its only a few super computer clusters using apple products but there are among they cheapest to build but yep powerful clusters in the worlds top supercomputers, most unix supercomputers cost more as far as i know.
Well, the cheapest way to go is to build it all from scratch, but that takes a looooooong time! lol
However, the most powerful supercomputers out there are, in fact, built out of generic PC hardware, because PCs are a market, not a product. When buying components, if you get the creme-de-la-creme of each, you end up ordering each part from a different specialized manufacturer. You can't expect top performance from a self-reliant company that's attempting to corner both ends of the market.
Actually, come to think of it, the coolest supercomputer I've ever seen runs linux. Its really a cluster of 22 SGI Altix 350 servers and 2 virtualization systems running big stacks of ATI cards. 4TB total RAM! The whole thing is dedicated to rendering video for a total-immersion active 3D system. I got to play around with it a bit; really cool stuff.
Ah, okay, so you went the rackmount route. Very cool. It's a big space saver. What type of cluster was it, and what did you use for the head node?
I'm currently applying for a job at a bank that uses Novell software. I've only worked with openSUSE, but it's a very nice OS from what I can see. I especially like what they did with the GUI under the KDE interface.
yep, thats why it was used to save space, it was fun to build, but we ran into a couple problems at first, but my buddy is a linux guru we had a intel cluster toolkit. i think they upgraded to something else since we messed around-with it thou.
Haha, this is only hypothetical, man. I didn't actually build it (But I could). The biggest reason I dindn't build on yet is I don't have $35,000 to spend on a computer.
i sure did you said" I decided to design a workstation myself in order to prove my point" i totally understand that, but the point is thats all hypothetical, so it is irrelevant.
That's why I put in in quotation marks, dumbass: "only" $35,000. I was making fun of the high price.
And considering the sheer amount of hardware packed into that little box, $35,000, especially in a B2B (business to business) productivity-based perspective, is not much. Many servers run for less than that and don't pack half the power.
great video except that the mac pro is an oem machine and therefore must be compared to only those similar to it! your home build is NOT an oem machine, therefore, the comparison is not fair, but biased!
Thank you... What about it not being OEM? The point is to prove that available PC hardware, in general, is more advanced and powerful. How does this not being an OEM change that?
Also, remember that I own a business and am, in fact, considered a manufacturer. Technically, your argument is erroneous.
if that's the case then technically i could build a computer as powerful as yours,stick osx in it and be better than any that you can, because of osx!!
Nope, it doesn't support that CPU architecture. You often run into problems with AMD-based processors, and they're the only ones who support more than 2 CPUs per board. :P
Also, you can't just "stick" OS X on it; it takes a lot of work, and since OS X lacks open driver support (which is what makes it stable in the first place - designing it for a narrow range of hardware), you'd really have a hard time getting it to run correctly on any such hardware.
If you really want OS X. But there's no apple computer that comes close to what PCs are capable of hardware-wise, and that can't be denied.
OS X can run okay on some PCs, but mainly intel-based PCs using only certain hardware components that can run decently off of OS X's native drivers. However yes, it's true that OS X will always run better on macs because it's designed specifically for them.
Why not? I'm pointing out possibilities, stating what is available at the forefront of these two computer technologies. Hardware-wise, PC's are more capable and can be built to be far more powerful than any Macintosh on the market. How it's made and who it's made by doesn't enter into it: it's that it can be done, and it IS being done. You can own a PC that leaves even the Mac Pro in its dust, and that's all that matters as far as my point is concerned.
It's a cluster, not a workstation. A workstation is a self-contained unit, as a cluster is a form of network infrastructure that runs as a single supercomputer. BTW, you can cluster several of these, too, and the node density, power efficiency, and speed-to-size ratio would be much, much higher because each individual node is faster to begin with.
Seriously, what an idiotic and erroneous argument! Come on, man, you can do better than that.
No, not even close to a stalemate becauase I just explained that a same-size cluster of these workstations would be much more efficient and faster. Read my entire comment before you post a rebuttal.
yes but you are allowing for yourself a homemade vs. oem(advantage:you)and a cluster(stalemate) so you give yourself all the advantages without allowing the other side a fair shake
But you can't make homemade macs, and that just adds to my point. The great thing about PC components is that you CAN do things like this with them.
Even if you DID cluster, say, 10 Mac Pros together (which I have yet to see being done with OS X), a cluster of 10 of these workstations would beat it hands-down anyway. By mentioning clusters, you're basically saying, "Well, 5 Mac Pros can beat it." Yeah, no shit, sherlock.
And I say you're full of shit and trying desperately to cover your ass for the sake of your own credibility.
Part of the joy of PCs and part of what makes a PC a TRUE PC is the ability to customize. To say that it's not fair to compare a custom machine and a prefab machine is like saying it's pointless to compare a PC and a mac in the first place, which something YOU do constantly.
if i could make a homebuilt mac i would say you could compare that with a home built pc. but that's not happening! so, the thing to compare an oem macintosh with is an oem pc! is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Don't you realize that we're arguing about the same basic thing we argued about last time- about whether the two systems can be compared. However, you now seem to be on the other side of the argument. Interesting.
And why is it hard for YOU to grasp that I'm comparing the maximum capabilities of both technologies here? I'm only stating what is possible.
And part of what makes PCs PCs is the ability to custom build.
no-i am still holding that you must compare like things-the mac pro as a workstation, not compared to a server. the mac pro as an oem computer shall be compared only to other oem computers. why are you avoiding comparing the mac pro to oem pc's?
well lets see some video of it
Bluecarpet001 3 years ago
I guess if I had $35,000 to spend on a computer I'd set myself up with a nice little cluster of Apples XServes rather than a single work station. Why? It's almost infinitely extensible, has just the right amount of redundancy and a lot of processing power and storage. The beauty of course is that you can just add more in the future.
netytan 4 years ago
If you shop around for components I think you could get 7 Xserves for around $35,000. I haven't actually done any research though so please don't take this figure that seriously. At the very least I think you could get 5 XServes.
For 7 XServes that would be 56 cores running at 3Ghz each with 21TB of storage and a combined 224GB of RAM.
For 5 XServes that would be 40 cores running at 3Ghz each with 15TB of storage and a combined 160GB of RAM.
netytan 4 years ago
P.S. I know this thread is about work stations, but why build such an extravagant work station when in 90 odd percent of cases this would be better?
netytan 4 years ago
Impressive spec aoes, good work! It doesn't seem like you've learned much since your last video though.
Why do you insist on shopping around for decent priced components for the PC, but then go and pay Apples premium for the Mac. There is no need to spend that much for a Mac Pro with that spec. I have to say this almost disingenuous.
netytan 4 years ago
If this had a Geforce what do you think the FPS would be on a game with multi-thread support or in PCmark?
Br8ssface 4 years ago
(cont.)
In my honest opinion, it's not a good thing to argue about. Macs are simply just PCs with different software. Macs were never meant to be user-built. There's no difference between a homemade Mac and a homemade PC, other than the software. (OS X is a lot more stable and efficient in my opinion. But then again, all UNIX-based operating systems are).
beautifulmachine 4 years ago
Apple CAN get their hands on a thing as powerful as this and build it. It's just not profitable. Apple doesn't WANT people to build their computers. They just want to sell them. You can't make homemade Dells, can you? Then it wouldn't be a Dell computer. The only valid point I really see is the fact that you don't build Macs.
beautifulmachine 4 years ago
the reason why i said its irrelevant is because , its all hypothetical, you didn't prove anything, its pretty obvious that computers like this do exist, i said its pointless, because you posted no video of it running.
chuck0078 4 years ago
What an idiotic explanation. You weren't even part of the issue in question in the first place, and the point was made. A video of it running was unnecessary.
So just piss off, you annoy me. Go play with your widgets and leave the real power-users alone.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
Bitch please, i got my a+ net +, mcp, and mcse, and ive put together a quarter millon dollar cluster b4 and i even got to mess with system x which is a million dollar supercomputer at bowie state, and it can't be idiotic because you were the one stating it was hypothetical, and it your on a video website, ,one would expect you to prove something by posting a video.
chuck0078 4 years ago
Sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I'm just really sick of mac fans posting idiotic rebuttals to my video when they have no idea what they're actually talking about. Since you're apparently not one of them, allow me to apologize for my rudeness.
So what OS did you use in that cluster you speak of? I'm currently trying to teach myself more about clusterKNOPPIX, and by the end of the year I hope to have a small Beowulf set up in my warehouse.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 on an ibm x series xeon, but when i saw the system x ma system at bowie state, thats one of the things that made me want to get into mac os x, alot of mac fans do make all kinds of comments , but so do pc people, and the bad thing is most pc people are more ignorant, because they never even used mac, and some don't even know much about a normal everyday pc, thats why i make some simple mac videos to show people without bias .
chuck0078 4 years ago
the bowie state system is named the Xseed, it was pretty impressive it had like 200 and something duel core g5s and it was in the 166 in the worlds top 500 fastest supercomputers. and cost a million dollars
chuck0078 4 years ago
Wow, not many supercomputers use apple products. Very interesting.
Well, despite the simplicity and bloat factor, wouldn't it be better under some circumstances to just use Unix instead of OS X for a supercomputer? You'd probably get more features from a general Unix distro at a lower cost, not to mention they're basically both the same OS anyway.
Have you seen the work IBM and TerraSoft have been doing with PS3's? Cell blades are the future, man. Now that's some badass architecture.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
yea its only a few super computer clusters using apple products but there are among they cheapest to build but yep powerful clusters in the worlds top supercomputers, most unix supercomputers cost more as far as i know.
chuck0078 4 years ago
Well, the cheapest way to go is to build it all from scratch, but that takes a looooooong time! lol
However, the most powerful supercomputers out there are, in fact, built out of generic PC hardware, because PCs are a market, not a product. When buying components, if you get the creme-de-la-creme of each, you end up ordering each part from a different specialized manufacturer. You can't expect top performance from a self-reliant company that's attempting to corner both ends of the market.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
Actually, come to think of it, the coolest supercomputer I've ever seen runs linux. Its really a cluster of 22 SGI Altix 350 servers and 2 virtualization systems running big stacks of ATI cards. 4TB total RAM! The whole thing is dedicated to rendering video for a total-immersion active 3D system. I got to play around with it a bit; really cool stuff.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
Ah, okay, so you went the rackmount route. Very cool. It's a big space saver. What type of cluster was it, and what did you use for the head node?
I'm currently applying for a job at a bank that uses Novell software. I've only worked with openSUSE, but it's a very nice OS from what I can see. I especially like what they did with the GUI under the KDE interface.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
yep, thats why it was used to save space, it was fun to build, but we ran into a couple problems at first, but my buddy is a linux guru we had a intel cluster toolkit. i think they upgraded to something else since we messed around-with it thou.
chuck0078 4 years ago
Ah, so you had a specific software package to use, eh? So I suppose you didn't have to do too much work in the command line, eh?
Man, that root terminal gives you lots of control over the system, but it's a bitch to learn to use!
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
yea tell me about it
chuck0078 4 years ago
why No video of it running?
chuck0078 4 years ago
Haha, this is only hypothetical, man. I didn't actually build it (But I could). The biggest reason I dindn't build on yet is I don't have $35,000 to spend on a computer.
aoes 4 years ago
pointless
chuck0078 4 years ago
Didn't you read the first few frames? It was to prove a point, not to advertize.
aoes 4 years ago
i sure did you said" I decided to design a workstation myself in order to prove my point" i totally understand that, but the point is thats all hypothetical, so it is irrelevant.
chuck0078 4 years ago
Why is it irrelevant if I proved it can be done? PCs like this DO exist, you know. This is just a breakdown of one.
EricsTechTalk 4 years ago
Sorry gas28. I meant "more," not "less" when I compared the price to servers. Sorry for the typo.
aoes 4 years ago
Yep, $35,000 isn't much. :/
God, you sir are an idiot.
gas28 4 years ago
That's why I put in in quotation marks, dumbass: "only" $35,000. I was making fun of the high price.
And considering the sheer amount of hardware packed into that little box, $35,000, especially in a B2B (business to business) productivity-based perspective, is not much. Many servers run for less than that and don't pack half the power.
aoes 4 years ago
great video except that the mac pro is an oem machine and therefore must be compared to only those similar to it! your home build is NOT an oem machine, therefore, the comparison is not fair, but biased!
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
Thank you... What about it not being OEM? The point is to prove that available PC hardware, in general, is more advanced and powerful. How does this not being an OEM change that?
Also, remember that I own a business and am, in fact, considered a manufacturer. Technically, your argument is erroneous.
aoes 4 years ago
if that's the case then technically i could build a computer as powerful as yours,stick osx in it and be better than any that you can, because of osx!!
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
Nope, it doesn't support that CPU architecture. You often run into problems with AMD-based processors, and they're the only ones who support more than 2 CPUs per board. :P
Also, you can't just "stick" OS X on it; it takes a lot of work, and since OS X lacks open driver support (which is what makes it stable in the first place - designing it for a narrow range of hardware), you'd really have a hard time getting it to run correctly on any such hardware.
aoes 4 years ago
so therefore that best option is to run osx on an apple computer-i agree wholeheartedly!!!!
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
If you really want OS X. But there's no apple computer that comes close to what PCs are capable of hardware-wise, and that can't be denied.
OS X can run okay on some PCs, but mainly intel-based PCs using only certain hardware components that can run decently off of OS X's native drivers. However yes, it's true that OS X will always run better on macs because it's designed specifically for them.
aoes 4 years ago
yup-apple's the best choice=all the way, around!!
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
What the hell, man? I never even hinted that apple was the best choice. It is only if you are intent on running OS X.
It cannot be denied that hardware-wise, on the premise of sheer top-end power availability, Macs can't even TOUCH PCs.
Like I've said many times, it's all about what you use your computer for.
aoes 4 years ago
Or... perhaps you can't! lol
aoes 4 years ago
Or... perhaps you can't! lol
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
actually if we are comparing like things-you would have to be a mass producer of computers-like apple. and, sadly, you are not.
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
Why not? I'm pointing out possibilities, stating what is available at the forefront of these two computer technologies. Hardware-wise, PC's are more capable and can be built to be far more powerful than any Macintosh on the market. How it's made and who it's made by doesn't enter into it: it's that it can be done, and it IS being done. You can own a PC that leaves even the Mac Pro in its dust, and that's all that matters as far as my point is concerned.
aoes 4 years ago
then if you are allowing building-we can build a mac cluster like the other guy told you that would blow this out of the water!!!
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
It's a cluster, not a workstation. A workstation is a self-contained unit, as a cluster is a form of network infrastructure that runs as a single supercomputer. BTW, you can cluster several of these, too, and the node density, power efficiency, and speed-to-size ratio would be much, much higher because each individual node is faster to begin with.
Seriously, what an idiotic and erroneous argument! Come on, man, you can do better than that.
aoes 4 years ago
hey-if you are allowing comparison between oem and homemade, then i am allowed a cluster, i'd say stalemate, at best
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
No, not even close to a stalemate becauase I just explained that a same-size cluster of these workstations would be much more efficient and faster. Read my entire comment before you post a rebuttal.
aoes 4 years ago
yes but you are allowing for yourself a homemade vs. oem(advantage:you)and a cluster(stalemate) so you give yourself all the advantages without allowing the other side a fair shake
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
But you can't make homemade macs, and that just adds to my point. The great thing about PC components is that you CAN do things like this with them.
Even if you DID cluster, say, 10 Mac Pros together (which I have yet to see being done with OS X), a cluster of 10 of these workstations would beat it hands-down anyway. By mentioning clusters, you're basically saying, "Well, 5 Mac Pros can beat it." Yeah, no shit, sherlock.
aoes 4 years ago
the main point is you are trying to compare two similar, but ultimately,unlike, items.
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
And I say you're full of shit and trying desperately to cover your ass for the sake of your own credibility.
Part of the joy of PCs and part of what makes a PC a TRUE PC is the ability to customize. To say that it's not fair to compare a custom machine and a prefab machine is like saying it's pointless to compare a PC and a mac in the first place, which something YOU do constantly.
aoes 4 years ago
if i could make a homebuilt mac i would say you could compare that with a home built pc. but that's not happening! so, the thing to compare an oem macintosh with is an oem pc! is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
Don't you realize that we're arguing about the same basic thing we argued about last time- about whether the two systems can be compared. However, you now seem to be on the other side of the argument. Interesting.
And why is it hard for YOU to grasp that I'm comparing the maximum capabilities of both technologies here? I'm only stating what is possible.
And part of what makes PCs PCs is the ability to custom build.
aoes 4 years ago
no-i am still holding that you must compare like things-the mac pro as a workstation, not compared to a server. the mac pro as an oem computer shall be compared only to other oem computers. why are you avoiding comparing the mac pro to oem pc's?
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago