Array
07-14-2003, 03:46 PM
http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/july/tezro.html
View Full Version : SGI Introduces Superior Desktop Performance and Reliability with new Tezro
|
|
Marc Andreoli
07-14-2003, 04:35 PM
...starting at $20'500... they better be reliable and come in nice cases at that price :)
MadMax
07-15-2003, 03:20 AM
read the article:
support for two streams of high-definition 10-bit 4:4:4:4 RGBA video
that alone is mega expensive.
support for two streams of high-definition 10-bit 4:4:4:4 RGBA video
that alone is mega expensive.
beaker
07-15-2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
read the article:
that alone is mega expensive.
Not these days. Digital Voodoo/Bluefish 444 makes a card for 7k on the mac/pc that does dual stream HD. The Tezro's starting price of 20k probably doesn't include it(Im guessing the default is one of the SD cards listed on the Tezro page). This is still good news for all the turnkey systems like Discreet FFI, Jaleo, etc...
read the article:
that alone is mega expensive.
Not these days. Digital Voodoo/Bluefish 444 makes a card for 7k on the mac/pc that does dual stream HD. The Tezro's starting price of 20k probably doesn't include it(Im guessing the default is one of the SD cards listed on the Tezro page). This is still good news for all the turnkey systems like Discreet FFI, Jaleo, etc...
MadMax
07-15-2003, 06:02 AM
Depends on whats in it.
Bluefish goes from 7k on the low end to as high as 15k.
Then consider a 4 cpu board motherboard. Is there even a 4 cpu Intel board option to compare with? the last one I saw was the AMI Goliath, and it was 7k for the board alone.
Although I guess I could the base price of a 4 CPU Opteron board as a general idea of what this would cost.
When you consider the components, 20k sounds pretty damn reasonable.
Bluefish goes from 7k on the low end to as high as 15k.
Then consider a 4 cpu board motherboard. Is there even a 4 cpu Intel board option to compare with? the last one I saw was the AMI Goliath, and it was 7k for the board alone.
Although I guess I could the base price of a 4 CPU Opteron board as a general idea of what this would cost.
When you consider the components, 20k sounds pretty damn reasonable.
beaker
07-15-2003, 06:15 AM
I thought so at first, but the 20k version is only single processor version. 4 processor version is 40k. Sgi processors are more expensive then Itaniums, usually around 3500-5k each.
MadMax
07-15-2003, 06:20 AM
Sun CPU's are even more expensive.
a 450mhz CPU was 15k.
a 450mhz CPU was 15k.
beaker
07-15-2003, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
Sun CPU's are even more expensive.
a 450mhz CPU was 15k. Alot depends on how much cache the chip has because Sun ships a whole line of machines using Ultrasparks that cost $999 that run faster than 450mhz. The really expensive ones on both sides are the ones that come in the boxes that need to run in more parallel with 4 to 1000 processors. They usually have 8-16 meg of L2 cache.
Sun CPU's are even more expensive.
a 450mhz CPU was 15k. Alot depends on how much cache the chip has because Sun ships a whole line of machines using Ultrasparks that cost $999 that run faster than 450mhz. The really expensive ones on both sides are the ones that come in the boxes that need to run in more parallel with 4 to 1000 processors. They usually have 8-16 meg of L2 cache.
The Cross
07-15-2003, 07:32 AM
Last year when i was in college, we upgraded our computers half way through the semister. We had a choice between compaq and SGI....At the time we were currently using SGI Octains, so it wasn't that exciting when we recieved the SGI Fuel for testing.
So here's the funny thing..
Although i don't remember the entire specs on the compaq, i believe it was a single Tiger i7505 chipset that suported 2 Xeon chips although it had 1 in it that ran at 2.2 Ghz, and it was running with ATI inside ( Again i'm not sure which one...Probably on of the radeons).
The PC roughly came up to 4 or 5 G's at the time, and it literally beat the crap out of the SGI fuel. Also the Fuel wasn't agreeing with Maya 4.0 very well, and the entire performance was ugly even though it was running off the the most stable operating system in the planet (Unix).
SGI's once upon a time were the greatest. But it's come to a point where PC makers seee enough to sell their more advanced machines for alot cheaper than they normally would. And even if SGI were to come up with a more advanced work machine..It wouldn't be long before the purchase really wasn't worth it.
So here's the funny thing..
Although i don't remember the entire specs on the compaq, i believe it was a single Tiger i7505 chipset that suported 2 Xeon chips although it had 1 in it that ran at 2.2 Ghz, and it was running with ATI inside ( Again i'm not sure which one...Probably on of the radeons).
The PC roughly came up to 4 or 5 G's at the time, and it literally beat the crap out of the SGI fuel. Also the Fuel wasn't agreeing with Maya 4.0 very well, and the entire performance was ugly even though it was running off the the most stable operating system in the planet (Unix).
SGI's once upon a time were the greatest. But it's come to a point where PC makers seee enough to sell their more advanced machines for alot cheaper than they normally would. And even if SGI were to come up with a more advanced work machine..It wouldn't be long before the purchase really wasn't worth it.
MCronin
07-15-2003, 08:34 AM
http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/images/tezro_hdr_02.jpg
Thalaxis
07-15-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by The Cross
The PC roughly came up to 4 or 5 G's at the time, and it literally beat the crap out of the SGI fuel. Also the Fuel wasn't agreeing with Maya 4.0 very well, and the entire performance was ugly even though it was running off the the most stable operating system in the planet (Unix).
That's a bit like saying that all parallelograms are rectangles. SGI
has their own version of UNIX (called IRIX), which is actually one
of the better ones... but they've been talking about migrating
their entire operation to Linux for some time now.
In any case, UNIX isn't the most stable OS on the planet.
I'll give you a hint: think BIG.
SGI's once upon a time were the greatest. But it's come to a point where PC makers seee enough to sell their more advanced machines for alot cheaper than they normally would. And even if SGI were to come up with a more advanced work machine..It wouldn't be long before the purchase really wasn't worth it.
SGI shot themselves in the foot. They decided long ago (1998 or
so) that they were going to transition their entire operation to the
IA-64, the first version of which carried the codename Merced. At
that time, they canned the high end MIPS processor projects, and
later spun off MIPS who are now doing quite well in the high-end
32-bit embedded market.
When it became clear that the first member of the Itanium family
would be late and below expectation, SGI tried to make up for it
by resurrecting some of the high end MIPS processors... and it
was basically too little, and too late. They should have followed
HP's lead... HP made the committment to switch to the Itanium
family, but they kept their in-house RISC processor on extended
life-support so that they'd have a competitive offering until IPF
was ready for primetime (i.e. when McKinley launched).
The PC roughly came up to 4 or 5 G's at the time, and it literally beat the crap out of the SGI fuel. Also the Fuel wasn't agreeing with Maya 4.0 very well, and the entire performance was ugly even though it was running off the the most stable operating system in the planet (Unix).
That's a bit like saying that all parallelograms are rectangles. SGI
has their own version of UNIX (called IRIX), which is actually one
of the better ones... but they've been talking about migrating
their entire operation to Linux for some time now.
In any case, UNIX isn't the most stable OS on the planet.
I'll give you a hint: think BIG.
SGI's once upon a time were the greatest. But it's come to a point where PC makers seee enough to sell their more advanced machines for alot cheaper than they normally would. And even if SGI were to come up with a more advanced work machine..It wouldn't be long before the purchase really wasn't worth it.
SGI shot themselves in the foot. They decided long ago (1998 or
so) that they were going to transition their entire operation to the
IA-64, the first version of which carried the codename Merced. At
that time, they canned the high end MIPS processor projects, and
later spun off MIPS who are now doing quite well in the high-end
32-bit embedded market.
When it became clear that the first member of the Itanium family
would be late and below expectation, SGI tried to make up for it
by resurrecting some of the high end MIPS processors... and it
was basically too little, and too late. They should have followed
HP's lead... HP made the committment to switch to the Itanium
family, but they kept their in-house RISC processor on extended
life-support so that they'd have a competitive offering until IPF
was ready for primetime (i.e. when McKinley launched).
MadMax
07-15-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis I'll give you a hint: think BIG.
I sure as hell hope you are not trying to imply M$ here. They are one of the least stable OS's around.
I'd rather use OSX.
SGI shot themselves in the foot. They decided long ago (1998 or
so) that they were going to transition their entire operation to the
IA-64, the first version of which carried the codename Merced. At
that time, they canned the high end MIPS processor projects, and
later spun off MIPS who are now doing quite well in the high-end
32-bit embedded market.
SGI shot themselves in the foot whe they went to Windows NT. They plunged downhill after that.
I sure as hell hope you are not trying to imply M$ here. They are one of the least stable OS's around.
I'd rather use OSX.
SGI shot themselves in the foot. They decided long ago (1998 or
so) that they were going to transition their entire operation to the
IA-64, the first version of which carried the codename Merced. At
that time, they canned the high end MIPS processor projects, and
later spun off MIPS who are now doing quite well in the high-end
32-bit embedded market.
SGI shot themselves in the foot whe they went to Windows NT. They plunged downhill after that.
Thalaxis
07-15-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
I sure as hell hope you are not trying to imply M$ here. They are one of the least stable OS's around.
No, I said BIG. The last time I checked, MS isn't selling OS's for BIG
machines.
SGI shot themselves in the foot whe they went to Windows NT. They plunged downhill after that.
That is also true. So, they shot themselves in the foot twice. :)
I sure as hell hope you are not trying to imply M$ here. They are one of the least stable OS's around.
No, I said BIG. The last time I checked, MS isn't selling OS's for BIG
machines.
SGI shot themselves in the foot whe they went to Windows NT. They plunged downhill after that.
That is also true. So, they shot themselves in the foot twice. :)
MadMax
07-15-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
No, I said BIG. The last time I checked, MS isn't selling OS's for BIG
machines.
phhhhhewwwwwwwwwwww.......
had me worried for a sec..
No, I said BIG. The last time I checked, MS isn't selling OS's for BIG
machines.
phhhhhewwwwwwwwwwww.......
had me worried for a sec..
The Cross
07-16-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
That's a bit like saying that all parallelograms are rectangles. SGI
has their own version of UNIX (called IRIX), which is actually one
of the better ones... but they've been talking about migrating
their entire operation to Linux for some time now.
In any case, UNIX isn't the most stable OS on the planet.
I'll give you a hint: think BIG.
Hey smartie. Just to be honest with you, i had to refresh my memory as to what a parallelogram is, and i don't see how what i said earlier, has any simularity to your scornful choice of response. So do me a favour and please give me a more detailed discription of what exactly you meant by that.
SGI has their own version of Unix, good for them. But when i said that i used Unix on an SGI i wasn't making the implication that SGI's only run off of 1 operating system.
Unix is used for systems that rely on stability. SGI seems to perferr Linx over IRIX. After looking it up, i noticed that IRIX is has free upgrades too...Hey must be quite a steal eh ?
That's a bit like saying that all parallelograms are rectangles. SGI
has their own version of UNIX (called IRIX), which is actually one
of the better ones... but they've been talking about migrating
their entire operation to Linux for some time now.
In any case, UNIX isn't the most stable OS on the planet.
I'll give you a hint: think BIG.
Hey smartie. Just to be honest with you, i had to refresh my memory as to what a parallelogram is, and i don't see how what i said earlier, has any simularity to your scornful choice of response. So do me a favour and please give me a more detailed discription of what exactly you meant by that.
SGI has their own version of Unix, good for them. But when i said that i used Unix on an SGI i wasn't making the implication that SGI's only run off of 1 operating system.
Unix is used for systems that rely on stability. SGI seems to perferr Linx over IRIX. After looking it up, i noticed that IRIX is has free upgrades too...Hey must be quite a steal eh ?
Thalaxis
07-17-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by The Cross
Hey smartie. Just to be honest with you, i had to refresh my memory as to what a parallelogram is, and i don't see how what i said earlier, has any simularity to your scornful choice of response. So do me a favour and please give me a more detailed discription of what exactly you meant by that.
Well, your statement referred to UNIX as if all UNIX OS's were the
same. They're not. There are in fact quite a few variations on
UNIX not even including OSX and the plothora of Linux flavors,
and not all of them are worth much.
Unix is used for systems that rely on stability. SGI seems to perferr Linx over IRIX. After looking it up, i noticed that IRIX is has free upgrades too...Hey must be quite a steal eh ?
If you want reliability, go take a look at MVS.
UNIX started out designed for collaboration, and security was an
afterthought. Add to that the fact that over the years, it's gotten
a LOT more features, and is normally written in the memory leak
prone C or C++ (put memory management in the hands of a
human programmer, and you're guaranteed to get memory leaks
somewhere, and with so much stuff in there, finding them all is
nearly impossible).
Hey smartie. Just to be honest with you, i had to refresh my memory as to what a parallelogram is, and i don't see how what i said earlier, has any simularity to your scornful choice of response. So do me a favour and please give me a more detailed discription of what exactly you meant by that.
Well, your statement referred to UNIX as if all UNIX OS's were the
same. They're not. There are in fact quite a few variations on
UNIX not even including OSX and the plothora of Linux flavors,
and not all of them are worth much.
Unix is used for systems that rely on stability. SGI seems to perferr Linx over IRIX. After looking it up, i noticed that IRIX is has free upgrades too...Hey must be quite a steal eh ?
If you want reliability, go take a look at MVS.
UNIX started out designed for collaboration, and security was an
afterthought. Add to that the fact that over the years, it's gotten
a LOT more features, and is normally written in the memory leak
prone C or C++ (put memory management in the hands of a
human programmer, and you're guaranteed to get memory leaks
somewhere, and with so much stuff in there, finding them all is
nearly impossible).
danb
07-17-2003, 02:23 AM
anybody remember the 320 and 540 nt workstations. the 540 had quad processors. and the 320 had duals. i had the 320. unfortunately memory cost 2$ a mb. i tried my darnedest to save enough money just for the 256 dimm but the friggin thing busted before i got the money. the memory slots fell off the mother board. noone could fix it. f'in sgi's i'll stick to more commercial products. at least for reliablility. i had rhinocerous and 3d max running on it, and it constantly crashed under windows 2000. that's my beef. rrrrrrrrrrrr.....:thumbsdow
peanuckle
07-18-2003, 05:04 AM
Hmmm..whats with the purple design...its kind of lookin like the old Imac a jelly bean style ;)
20k is expensive. but really for an HD editing machine its not so bad (look at the prices of avids) Way out of my league though.
pea~
20k is expensive. but really for an HD editing machine its not so bad (look at the prices of avids) Way out of my league though.
pea~
CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 03:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.