Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)
From: Tristram Scott (tristram.scott_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 03/20/05
- Previous message: Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- In reply to: arie van schutterhoef: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- Next in thread: mapesdhs_at_yahoo.com: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:12:55 GMT
In comp.sys.sgi.apps arie van schutterhoef <arsche@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> You can read Ian's CPU performance tables for examples showing how the FP
>> performance especially is completely neutered in the R10k O2 compared to the
>> exact same CPU in the Octane or even the Indigo2:
>> <http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/r10kcomp.html>
>> <http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/r10k250comp.html>
> -I've read them some time ago and they give a general
> indication, but I'm not so sure to what extent they relate
> to audio processing. They all seem to graphics -oriented.
> Though maybe it's better to speak in general signal processing
> terms.
>
Signal processing will likely involve FFTs, and these benefit greatly from
a decent sized cache. The Octanes will cope much more easily than the
O2. They also have the digital audio as a standard rather than an extra.
If you are reading or writing to disk I have always found the Octanes to
be better are shoving large amounts of data across the system, so that
would be another advantage.
Either one has good quality audio hardware.
>> If you don't use the UMA features in the O2 then you're *much* better off
>> with an Octane.
> -I presume with UMA's strengths, you talk of the I/O benefits?
> As far as being better of: the o2 is going to be used for
> concerts and an Octane is far too noisy with all these fans.
> The o2 is much quieter, so otherwise the Octane would be the favorite.
>
> AvS
If you are worried about the noise, you could always put it in a
(ventilated) box. The Octane is not too bad, really. Not silent, but not
unbearable. They do weigh quite a bit more than the O2. Never fun to shift
them about.
-- Dr Tristram J. Scott Energy Consultant
- Previous message: Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- In reply to: arie van schutterhoef: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- Next in thread: mapesdhs_at_yahoo.com: "Re: R10000-150mHz_vs_R12000-300mHz...(?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|