Will Intel Macs be Dual Processor??

[JasonGough]

I was wondering, cos the current line of G5s go up to Dual 2.7, and the current 'developer test intel mac system' is a single Intel 3.6.

surely 2.7 x 2, giving 5.4ghz of proccessing will own a 3.6 intel?

Does anyone know if Apple have plans to release the first set of Intel Macs as dual proccessors once development on a single has reached a stable ground?

Any info or ideas about this would be great.

thanx! :)

[liketom]

I was wondering, cos the current line of G5s go up to Dual 2.7, and the current 'developer test intel mac system' is a single Intel 3.6.

surely 2.7 x 2, giving 5.4ghz of proccessing will own a 3.6 intel?

Does anyone know if Apple have plans to release the first set of Intel Macs as dual proccessors once development on a single has reached a stable ground?

Any info or ideas about this would be great.

thanx! :)
apple has always liked to make a Pro line and a consumer line ie consumer line having single CPU and Pro line having dual CPU's
so yes i think they will have dual CPU's

[Wes]

surely 2.7 x 2, giving 5.4ghz of proccessing will own a 3.6 intel?

Dual 2.7 does not equal 5.4. It just doesn't work like that. Two processors working together don't work as efficiently as a single one of double the speed.

[iDM]

Dual 2.7 does not equal 5.4. It just doesn't work like that. Two processors working together don't work as efficiently as a single one of double the speed.

Is that because of information sharing or task splitting? Like does the single processor just have more power to handle a task? (i.e. could you explain, i'm interested)

[uaaerospace]

This is a very untechnical post. :p Just some personal observations.

When hefty programs such as Final Cut or PS are processing large amounts of information (ie, applying filters or rendering), activitiy viewer shows the program using about 160% of my CPU. Assuming 200% would be perfectly 2 times as powerful as 1 processor, you can see performance-wise it's only a little better than 1 and a half processors. However, what I love about dual systems is the system responsiveness. I have never seen a single program use near 200% of the CPU. However, even when PS or FCP is processing, the system remains just as responsive as when idle. I'm not sure if this is due to Mac OS X or the dual processors (I think some of both). I just know the system responsiveness of XP on a single 2.8 will crawl when it is processing something intense. I've never used a multiprocessor XP system, so I can't comment on that. :confused:

Hope this helps a little :rolleyes:

[Macmaniac]

Most likely the new Intel Powermacs will be Dual Core machines, they use less power and give off less heat then just two processors by themselves. With the Dual Core option you could see 4 processor Powermacs depending on how much the chips cost. It really comes down to economics whether a dual core or dual proc MacIntel will be made.

[Josh]

As posted above, dual proccessors does not increase the proccessing power, it just increases the number of processes that can be processed at that given power.

Having dual procs. is an effect similar to adding more RAM, as it allows you to run more at the same time.

[uspcommuter]

Well given that dual core intels are out already, I would say there is a good possiblity that a dual dual core Power mactel. However, with that much stuff and redesign I must have to say it depends mostly on the bottom line. If it does make it to see the light of day we are looking at a $3500 system baseline easily.

[cube]

Most likely the new Intel Powermacs will be Dual Core machines, they use less power and give off less heat then just two processors by themselves. With the Dual Core option you could see 4 processor Powermacs depending on how much the chips cost. It really comes down to economics whether a dual core or dual proc MacIntel will be made.

Dual processor machines will have to be Xeon. Expensive.

[strider42]

Dual processor machines will have to be Xeon. Expensive.

Why. We don't have any idea what chip Apple will use, and there's nothing to say it will be a current chip. PLus, intel is obviously working on dual core technology (I think they sort of already ahve a pentium 4 using this). It really comes down to this: we have absolutely no idea what configuration or chipset apple will be using.

[mduser63]

As posted above, dual proccessors does not increase the proccessing power, it just increases the number of processes that can be processed at that given power.

Having dual procs. is an effect similar to adding more RAM, as it allows you to run more at the same time.

I have to disagree with this. Single processes are able to use both processors at the same time, effectively doubling the number of computations that can be performed per unit time. Of course they almost never use 100% of both CPUs at the same time in real life, but the principle still applies. That's really the same thing that happens when you have one faster processor. Of course there's also the added benefit of being able to run one task on one processor and another on the other processor so that the CPU isn't tied up by one intensive task. If you don't believe me, fire up something pretty intensive like Compressor or a Final Cut Pro render and then open Activity monitor and observe that a single process is using more than 100% of the CPU. In dual processor Macs, more than 100% CPU use indicates performance of more computations per second than a single CPU can perform alone.

[Wes]

I have to disagree with this. Single processes are able to use both processors at the same time, effectively doubling the number of computations that can be performed per unit time. Of course they almost never use 100% of both CPUs at the same time in real life, but the principle still applies. That's really the same thing that happens when you have one faster processor. Of course there's also the added benefit of being able to run one task on one processor and another on the other processor so that the CPU isn't tied up by one intensive task. If you don't believe me, fire up something pretty intensive like Compressor or a Final Cut Pro render and then open Activity monitor and observe that a single process is using more than 100% of the CPU. In dual processor Macs, more than 100% CPU use indicates performance of more computations per second than a single CPU can perform alone.


This is true and is more apparent because these programs have been coded to be multiprocessing aware.

[JasonGough]

cool. some interesting ideas going around here.

i know that 2 processors is not as good as 1 doubly fast processor, but it would obviusly be better if the new MacTels have dual processors, rather than one. or of course, 1 dual core processor.

i have a friend with a Dual 2 G5, when he runs Pro Tools on it, he says OSX uses one proccessor to handle plugin effects (signal processing) and it uses the other processor to load and play the audio files in sequence, run the program and run OSX. seems pretty cool way of splitting tasks, and seems to me better than having one processor having a bash at doing everything at one time.

it seems abit disapointing tho that the new MacIntel developer machine only has 1 single core processor, seems like any programing developed on that will then have to be re-programmed if and when apple decide to add extra processors to the game.

[skubish]

I think it is very likely the Mactels will have dual core processors. For the PM line anyway.

[jiggie2g]

The Dual CPU days will die with the G5 , There is no need for it anymore. here are the reasons why.

1. Dual core is out, making dual sockets redundant. Unless you are running a highend server.

2. No intel cpu supports dual cpu configuration save for the Xenon and they cost an arm & leg.

3. A dual socket mobo runs over $200 , the system will run too hot.

4. Cost , Dual core seem to cost about 1/3 rd more then thier single core counterparts , with DP you have to pay double the price as you are buying a seperate CPU.

That being said Dual core/multi core is the way of the future. by late 2007-2008 quad cores will be coming. Do we really still need dual sockets
then? This is just winey Mac Geeks wanting a better toy. DP never made it to
mainstream windows for good reason. because it wasn't necessary and it costs too damn much. Apple only adopted it in the 1st place because it was getting killed in the G4 days when it was stuck at 450mhz. now that Apple will be on par with the rest of the industry , it's no longer needed. no one of sound mind is going to pay $3000 for a DP Pentium Mac. That's just stupid.

[andiwm2003]

the question is will they go dual core for the imacs? i don't thing so. at least not in the near future because only few programs take advantage of it and it makes the imac more hot and a lot more expensive

will they use dual "dual core" systems. that would be like 4 processors. for all the video/graphic people that could be interesting. but such a powermac would be $5000. maybe a flagship model or so.

but i guess we will se the usual single cpu imac line and the dual cpu or dual core cpu powermac for the next three years. after that who knows.

it also means that the current line will have an acceptable speed range (more than 50% performance) compared to the new intels for the next two years.

[cube]

Why. We don't have any idea what chip Apple will use, and there's nothing to say it will be a current chip. PLus, intel is obviously working on dual core technology (I think they sort of already ahve a pentium 4 using this). It really comes down to this: we have absolutely no idea what configuration or chipset apple will be using.

I am talking about dual processor, not dual core. Effectively meaning that the only interesting configuration would be dual dual-core for dual processor.

[Mord]

yes, dual cpu's are here to stay, they are required to increase performance as die shrinking is not working how it used to

as to the original poster 2x 2.7GHz != 5.4GHz even a single 2.7GHz G5 would own a single 3.6GHz P4 at most things, p4's suck and apple is not switching for them they were just the only suitable cpu for the dev box i'd bet anyone here £50 that no netburst (p4 or current xeon) will ever go into any shipping mac.

now as for dual cpu's the transition is going to take a while well into late 2007 because thats when the xeons which will go in the powermac will transition to the pentium m architecture and these will be true SMP multicore 64-bit parts.

as steve said it's going to go up the line from the bottom, and thats exactly how intel is going to transition from the P4 to the PM.

[strider42]

I am talking about dual processor, not dual core. Effectively meaning that the only interesting configuration would be dual dual-core for dual processor.


you said " Dual processor machines will have to be Xeon. Expensive." and I'm saying that's not necessarily true because we don't have any clue what intela nd apple will use in these machines. It could be a totally different processor than what they have out now, so its possible apple could use dual core, dual processors, or dual dual core processors (two dual core processors) we have no idea what they are going to be using. So the fact that the Xeon is the only current dual processor configurable processor now doen't necessarily preclude there from being a dual processor mac. I'm not talking about likelihood here, I'm just saying we don't know anything about the processor that will be used really, so we can't talk in absolutes..

[csubear]

We just don't know, I think that the new intel powermac will have at least one dual proc model.

For those who keep talking about a dual intel powermac using Xeon's, I don't believe this to be true. P4 are crippled Xeon's. Xeon is just a marketing term. Add in cache coherency protocol, and a few tweeks, and you have a Xeon.

[AP_piano295]

As posted above, dual proccessors does not increase the proccessing power, it just increases the number of processes that can be processed at that given power.

Having dual procs. is an effect similar to adding more RAM, as it allows you to run more at the same time.

But I dont understand adding ram also increases the preformance of single operations :confused:

[cube]

you said " Dual processor machines will have to be Xeon. Expensive." and I'm saying that's not necessarily true because we don't have any clue what intela nd apple will use in these machines. It could be a totally different processor than what they have out now, so its possible apple could use dual core, dual processors, or dual dual core processors (two dual core processors) we have no idea what they are going to be using. So the fact that the Xeon is the only current dual processor configurable processor now doen't necessarily preclude there from being a dual processor mac. I'm not talking about likelihood here, I'm just saying we don't know anything about the processor that will be used really, so we can't talk in absolutes..

Dream on that Intel is going to make cheap dual processor capable chips. With the move to dual core, this is even less likely.

[tikibangout]

As long as the future of PC gaming doesn't require expensive dual processors and etc., I don't mind. Having to upgrade a video card is enough as it is.

[andiwm2003]

what timeframe are all of you guys discussing. if we talk about the future powermacs and what chips will be in there it makes a huge difference if we talk one year, two years or more than two years from now.

i personally am only concerned what happens in the next 18 month. after that my mac will be standard speed anyway, after 2 years it may be lower standard, after three+ years i buy a new one.

[jiggie2g]

what makes any of you think apple will put a dual processor system in in an Intel mac.

Alienware , Falcon Northwest , Dell XPS or any upper end brand has never produced a Dual Processor system for non business use. they are too freaken expensive. they cost more then G5's.

Try and build a DP Dell server see how much you will end up spending. Don't even mention Opterons.

Dual core is a godsend because of this simple face . you can have better then DP preformance at a fraction of the cost.

I have seen Gateway Pentium D systems sell for $1100 , try that with a DP Power Mac. No one is gonna buy an Intel mac when they see that $3000+ price tag next to the "Intel Inside" sticker on it. you know that same Intel Sticker that will be on that Gateway system thats 1/2 the price right next too it.

I can build an Athlon X2 system for $1400 that will destroy that Dual 2.7ghz G5 in any benchmark. Heck my Athlon 64 system will kill any G5 in any non-multi treaded app. Face the Future DP is dead as far as u and me go . maybe xserve only.

[briand05]

what makes any of you think apple will put a dual processor system in in an Intel mac.

Alienware , Falcon Northwest , Dell XPS or any upper end brand has never produced a Dual Processor system for non business use. they are too freaken expensive. they cost more then G5's.

Try and build a DP Dell server see how much you will end up spending. Don't even mention Opterons.

Dual core is a godsend because of this simple face . you can have better then DP preformance at a fraction of the cost.

I have seen Gateway Pentium D systems sell for $1100 , try that with a DP Power Mac. No one is gonna buy an Intel mac when they see that $3000+ price tag next to the "Intel Inside" sticker on it. you know that same Intel Sticker that will be on that Gateway system thats 1/2 the price right next too it.

I can build an Athlon X2 system for $1400 that will destroy that Dual 2.7ghz G5 in any benchmark. Heck my Athlon 64 system will kill any G5 in any non-multi treaded app. Face the Future DP is dead as far as u and me go . maybe xserve only.

My gateway Pentium D was only $1,029 with 17" lcd and printer out the door. That's $29.00 more than the top end eMac, and this machine will stomp all over the eMac for anything. If you compare the specs, it's just laughable. Dual-core makes a huge difference in many areas. Comes with Media Center which is basically XP Pro, except for the ability to join a Domain, which I have no use for anyway. It also uses a BTX form factor, so it's very quiet and stays cool. Moving to Intel won't help Apple unless they price competitively, it may make things worse. People will look at the Apple and compare it to a PC with the exact same processor and they will see that the Apple will probably be overpriced and will go with the PC. I like some things about Apple, OS X is a pretty solid OS and is more secure than XP, they have some good designs with the PowerMac and PowerBook especially. Apple needs a low-end tower machine that you can upgrade, the mini is an example of all form no function (They are selling Athlon 64 PCs for around $500 nowadays). I bought my mini to try Apple again, it's nice just to mess with OS X and all, but the slow laptop HD and crap video chip really end up slowing it down. Ya cheap PCs come with integrated video, but they also come with a PCI-e slot so you can easily stick a card in there, whereas the only Mac with upgradeable video is the PowerMac G5 which starts at $1,999. I will buy an intel mac only if they come out with a decent low-mid range upgradeable tower.

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says...of course, as with any of the countless intel/mac threads, we just do not know at this point - anything that anyone says in here is just pure speculation based on no inside knowledge at all. So, having said that....it is of my *opinion* that there will be *some* Macs at the high end that do use dual processors, of course in the "Powermac" line of Apple offerings..but it is still way too early to be looking for any kind of definitive information...oh yeah!

[pubwvj]

what I love about dual systems is the system responsiveness. I have never seen a single program use near 200% of the CPU. However, even when PS or FCP is processing, the system remains just as responsive as when idle. I'm not sure if this is due to Mac OS X or the dual processors

I think it is due to the dual processor rather than OSX. On our single processor machines (G3, G4, G5) they can get bogged down and all are using OSX.

[jiggie2g]

My gateway Pentium D was only $1,029 with 17" lcd and printer out the door. That's $29.00 more than the top end eMac, and this machine will stomp all over the eMac for anything. If you compare the specs, it's just laughable. Dual-core makes a huge difference in many areas. Comes with Media Center which is basically XP Pro, except for the ability to join a Domain, which I have no use for anyway. It also uses a BTX form factor, so it's very quiet and stays cool. Moving to Apple won't help Apple unless they price competitively, it may make things worse. People will look at the Apple and compare it to a PC with the exact same processor and they will see that the Apple will probably be overpriced and will go with the PC. I like some things about Apple, OS X is a pretty solid OS and is more secure than XP, they have some good designs with the PowerMac and PowerBook especially. Apple needs a low-end tower machine that you can upgrade, the mini is an example of all form no function (They are selling Athlon 64 PCs for around $500 nowadays). I bought my mini to try Apple again, it's nice just to mess with OS X and all, but the slow laptop HD and crap video chip really end up slowing it down. Ya cheap PCs come with integrated video, but they also come with a PCI-e slot so you can easily stick a card in there, whereas the only Mac with upgradeable video is the PowerMac G5 which starts at $1,999. I will buy an intel mac only if they come out with a decent low-mid range upgradeable tower.


Hahaha....$1,029 for all that is just freakin nuts. :D ...Congrats on a great deal. Hey briand05 did u get the 835GM(DC 2.8ghz) or 840GM(DC 3.0ghz).

Freakin steal ...I think Apple is in a world of crap when they make the switch. plus Athlon X2's are getting cheaper and cheaper with the X2 3800+.

how are they supposed to compete with a system with better specs at 1/2 the price.

The Gateway 840GM vs a Dual G5 2.0ghz.

Gateway 840GM

# Includes: premium multimedia keyboard, USB Optical wheel mouse, amplified Stereo speakers, media center remote control, Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, Works 8.0, Office 2003 Trial, Money 2005, Norton Internet Security 2005 (90-day complimentary trial), & more. Gateway 840GM Desktop Computer - This Desktop computer has been designed to act as the Hub to your Digital entertainment experience. Featuring the Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 operating system, you have the ability to watch and Record live television via an easy-to-use graphical Interface and remote control! Monitor Is Not Included
# Intel Pentium D Processor 830 (Dual Core 3.0 GHz)
# 2MB L2 Cache
# 800 MHz FSB
# 1GB of 533 MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM (expandable to 4GB)
# Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 224MB of shared Video Memory (memory taken from the main system's RAM)
# ATI Theater 550 Pro (with FM Antenna)
# Intel High Definition 6.1 Surround Audio
# 250GB 7200RPM SATA HDD with an 8MB Cache
# Double Layer DVD Writer (write speeds) - up to 4x Double Layer DVD+R, 16x DVD-/+R, 6x DVD-RW, 8x DVD+RW, 40x CD-R, & 24x CD-RW
# Double Layer DVD Writer (read speeds) - up to 40x CD-ROM & 16x DVD-ROM
# DVD-ROM Drive - up to 16x
# 8-in-1 Digital Media Manager - supports Secure Digital (SD), Smart Media, Micro Drive, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, Compact Flash, Multimedia Card, & USB 2.0 port
# 56K V.92 Fax Modem
# Ports - 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet, 7 USB 2.0 (2 front / 4 back / 1 on media manager), 3 FireWire (2 front / 1 back), 1 VGA, 1 Serial, 1 Parallel, & 2 PS/2
# Slots - 3 PCI (1 available) / 1 PCI-E x16 (available) / 1 PCI-E x1 (available)
# Bays - 5 3.5" (3 available) / 2 5.25" (0 available)
# BTX Case

Total Cost $1,049

Apple G5 2.0ghz

Dual 2.0ghz G5
1ghz FSB
1GB(512x2) DDR3200
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB DDR
250GB HD SATA

Total cost $2,174

now I love OSX as much as the next mac freak but not at a premium of $1,125 for just the OS.

again Apple is screwed , they should just sell iPods at this rate.

[briand05]

Hahaha....$1,029 for all that is just freakin nuts. :D ...Congrats on a great deal. Hey briand05 did u get the 835GM(DC 2.8ghz) or 840GM(DC 3.0ghz).

Freakin steal ...I think Apple is in a world of crap when they make the switch. plus Athlon X2's are getting cheaper and cheaper with the X2 3800+.

how are they supposed to compete with a system with better specs at 1/2 the price.

The Gateway 840GM vs a Dual G5 2.0ghz.

Gateway 840GM

# Includes: premium multimedia keyboard, USB Optical wheel mouse, amplified Stereo speakers, media center remote control, Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, Works 8.0, Office 2003 Trial, Money 2005, Norton Internet Security 2005 (90-day complimentary trial), & more. Gateway 840GM Desktop Computer - This Desktop computer has been designed to act as the Hub to your Digital entertainment experience. Featuring the Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 operating system, you have the ability to watch and Record live television via an easy-to-use graphical Interface and remote control! Monitor Is Not Included
# Intel Pentium D Processor 830 (Dual Core 3.0 GHz)
# 2MB L2 Cache
# 800 MHz FSB
# 1GB of 533 MHz Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM (expandable to 4GB)
# Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 224MB of shared Video Memory (memory taken from the main system's RAM)
# ATI Theater 550 Pro (with FM Antenna)
# Intel High Definition 6.1 Surround Audio
# 250GB 7200RPM SATA HDD with an 8MB Cache
# Double Layer DVD Writer (write speeds) - up to 4x Double Layer DVD+R, 16x DVD-/+R, 6x DVD-RW, 8x DVD+RW, 40x CD-R, & 24x CD-RW
# Double Layer DVD Writer (read speeds) - up to 40x CD-ROM & 16x DVD-ROM
# DVD-ROM Drive - up to 16x
# 8-in-1 Digital Media Manager - supports Secure Digital (SD), Smart Media, Micro Drive, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, Compact Flash, Multimedia Card, & USB 2.0 port
# 56K V.92 Fax Modem
# Ports - 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet, 7 USB 2.0 (2 front / 4 back / 1 on media manager), 3 FireWire (2 front / 1 back), 1 VGA, 1 Serial, 1 Parallel, & 2 PS/2
# Slots - 3 PCI (1 available) / 1 PCI-E x16 (available) / 1 PCI-E x1 (available)
# Bays - 5 3.5" (3 available) / 2 5.25" (0 available)
# BTX Case

Total Cost $1,049

Apple G5 2.0ghz

Dual 2.0ghz G5
1ghz FSB
1GB(512x2) DDR3200
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB DDR
250GB HD SATA

Total cost $2,174

now I love OSX as much as the next mac freak but not at a premium of $1,125 for just the OS.

again Apple is screwed , they should just sell iPods at this rate.

I got the 835 GM. This thing is sooo quiet it's unbelieveable. On the photoshop posted test posted on here it had about the same time as the dual 2.0 G5, which costs twice as much just for the computer. I love OS X as well, but I'm looking for a modern comptuer system, not just a great OS installed on out of date hardware. Why aren't PCI-e and DDR2 available on the powermacs when they are on $600 pcs?

[Mord]

what makes any of you think apple will put a dual processor system in in an Intel mac.

Alienware , Falcon Northwest , Dell XPS or any upper end brand has never produced a Dual Processor system for non business use. they are too freaken expensive. they cost more then G5's.

Try and build a DP Dell server see how much you will end up spending. Don't even mention Opterons.

Dual core is a godsend because of this simple face . you can have better then DP preformance at a fraction of the cost.

I have seen Gateway Pentium D systems sell for $1100 , try that with a DP Power Mac. No one is gonna buy an Intel mac when they see that $3000+ price tag next to the "Intel Inside" sticker on it. you know that same Intel Sticker that will be on that Gateway system thats 1/2 the price right next too it.

I can build an Athlon X2 system for $1400 that will destroy that Dual 2.7ghz G5 in any benchmark. Heck my Athlon 64 system will kill any G5 in any non-multi treaded app. Face the Future DP is dead as far as u and me go . maybe xserve only.

because the SMP workstation is a market apple has played to for years, and i'd challenge the X2, the dual 2.7GHz G5 gets a higher cinebench score than the 4800+ the only thing the 4800+ will win at is games for obvious reasons. now that dual core cpu's are apon us dual workstations will now be dual dual workstations, so nothing has changed in the performance gap.

idiots dont buy powermacs, professionals and mac enthusiasts do. :rolleyes:

[jiggie2g]

because the SMP workstation is a market apple has played to for years, and i'd challenge the X2, the dual 2.7GHz G5 gets a higher cinebench score than the 4800+ the only thing the 4800+ will win at is games for obvious reasons. now that dual core cpu's are apon us dual workstations will now be dual dual workstations, so nothing has changed in the performance gap.

idiots dont buy powermacs, professionals and mac enthusiasts do. :rolleyes:

I'm gonna nip this one in the bud for you Hector. Last time I checked DC CPUs cost more then thier single core brothers by atleast 1/3 or more. so what u are saying you want not 1 but 2 pricey cpus in an already over priced Mac , so i guess you will be buying one of those $3500 Powermacs ..? with no PCI-e , no real Raid support and crappy $70 Video card..LMAO :rolleyes:


Oh sure the dual 2.7ghz G5 will beat the Athlon X2 4800+(2.4ghz) in Cinebench being that the G5 is clocked 300mhz higher to do it. however lets see what happens when we are on level ground and in a fair clock 4 clock test the G5 gets raped, don't believe me here look.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=14

http://barefeats.com/macvpc.html

Mind you this is the new Athlon X2 3800+($354 CPU) that was tested so at 512x2 L2 cache (same at the G5) no more excuses Hector.

Cinebench CPU render results

Athlon X2 3800+@2.5ghz = 664

Apple G5 @2.5ghz = 649

Athlon 64 3000+@2.6ghz, for the record my CPU scored 361 in single CPU test. this is with cheap'o Corsair Value memory. OCZ sticks coming soon I will hit 2.8-2.9ghz.. :eek:

I have no doubt that at at 2.7ghz and beyond the results will stay the same in Cinebench. Actually look at the Photoshop render tread in this forum all the best scores come from Athlon X2's and Xenons.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593&highlight=photoshop+test

Page 6 post # 128, 144 ,146

Post #128 Dual 2.7ghz G5 = 36sec

Post #144 Athlon X2 4400+@2.6ghz = 31.25sec

Post #146 Athlon X2 4400+@2.7ghz = 28sec

Lastly I don't care if the CPU is OC'd , It has to be fair clock 4 clock, anyone who buys an Athlon X2 will do even the slightest OC just to get the most out of thier money and that X2 4800+ you so easily blew off has been known to hit 3.0ghz quite fequently with good Air cooling. AMD's whole line is now at 90nm can IBM say that. so what if at stock the X2 is slower , IBM won't even have it's much hyped PPC 970MP available anytime soon. by that time the Athlon X2 5000+/5200+ will most likely be out.

Wanna compare stock 4 stock Athlon X2 3800+(2.0ghz) vs. Dual G5 2.0ghz

Cinebench

Athlon X2 3800+(DC 2.0ghz) = 536

Dual PM G5 2.0ghz = 525

Guess you lost again Hector , The performance gap didn't change after all ...advantage ...AMD ..lol

P.S. I expect to have my Athlon X2 3800+ by early Sept. right after I purchace some OCZ sticks , Then every week i will post earth shattering/G5 Humiliating bench scores.

[Mord]

I'm gonna nip this one in the bud for you Hector. Last time I checked DC CPUs cost more then thier single core brothers by atleast 1/3 or more. so what u are saying you want not 1 but 2 pricey cpus in an already over priced Mac , so i guess you will be buying one of those $3500 Powermacs ..? with no PCI-e , no real Raid support and crappy $70 Video card..LMAO :rolleyes:


Oh sure the dual 2.7ghz G5 will beat the Athlon X2 4800+(2.4ghz) in Cinebench being that the G5 is clocked 300mhz higher to do it. however lets see what happens when we are on level ground and in a fair clock 4 clock test the G5 gets raped, don't believe me here look.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=14

http://barefeats.com/macvpc.html

Mind you this is the new Athlon X2 3800+($354 CPU) that was tested so at 512x2 L2 cache (same at the G5) no more excuses Hector.

Cinebench CPU render results

Athlon X2 3800+@2.5ghz = 664

Apple G5 @2.5ghz = 649

Athlon 64 3000+@2.6ghz, for the record my CPU scored 361 in single CPU test. this is with cheap'o Corsair Value memory. OCZ sticks coming soon I will hit 2.8-2.9ghz.. :eek:

I have no doubt that at at 2.7ghz and beyond the results will stay the same in Cinebench. Actually look at the Photoshop render tread in this forum all the best scores come from Athlon X2's and Xenons.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593&highlight=photoshop+test

Page 6 post # 128, 144 ,146

Post #128 Dual 2.7ghz G5 = 36sec

Post #144 Athlon X2 4400+@2.6ghz = 31.25sec

Post #146 Athlon X2 4400+@2.7ghz = 28sec

Lastly I don't care if the CPU is OC'd , It has to be fair clock 4 clock, anyone who buys an Athlon X2 will do even the slightest OC just to get the most out of thier money and that X2 4800+ you so easily blew off has been known to hit 3.0ghz quite fequently with good Air cooling. AMD's whole line is now at 90nm can IBM say that. so what if at stock the X2 is slower , IBM won't even have it's much hyped PPC 970MP available anytime soon. by that time the Athlon X2 5000+/5200+ will most likely be out.

Wanna compare stock 4 stock Athlon X2 3800+(2.0ghz) vs. Dual G5 2.0ghz

Cinebench

Athlon X2 3800+(DC 2.0ghz) = 536

Dual PM G5 2.0ghz = 525

Guess you lost again Hector , The performance game will just increase.lol

you basically prove my point, there is little difference clock for clock between K8's and G5's and shock horror most people dont overclock there systems compare what it is rated at the differences you quote in minute and frankly no one really cares about a difference of less than .5% and according to you it gets raped, i'm just pointing out that what you say is obviously false, show me a retail 3800+ with the EXACT same specs as the dual 2GHz G5 is every area (no that x300se is not the same as a 9600) and it will come to to around the same price as the G5 i never said AMD suck and i'm an AMD fan myself just there is no giant difference in performance like most of you AMD fanboys say, i myself own a 3000+ venice myself that runs quite happily at 2.8GHz on watercooling (2.6GHz on air) if you compare whats fair aka a dual 2.6GHz opteron to a dual 2.7GHz G5 they are pretty equal sure a X2 will do just as well as a dual 2.6GHz opteron if it's clocked that high but guess what? it's not. you are compareing the pc gameing market to the professional workstation market, apple dose not do a consumer tower and they may never because there is no need unless you game and the mac is not a gameing platform.

SMP is here to stay and will be more so with dual core cpu's as more and more apps will be multithreaded so a quad cpu rig will be more desirable when dual core cpu's are common place than a dual is over single cpu rigs are now.

[psycho bob]

what makes any of you think apple will put a dual processor system in in an Intel mac.

Alienware , Falcon Northwest , Dell XPS or any upper end brand has never produced a Dual Processor system for non business use. they are too freaken expensive. they cost more then G5's.

Try and build a DP Dell server see how much you will end up spending. Don't even mention Opterons.

Dual core is a godsend because of this simple face . you can have better then DP preformance at a fraction of the cost.

I have seen Gateway Pentium D systems sell for $1100 , try that with a DP Power Mac. No one is gonna buy an Intel mac when they see that $3000+ price tag next to the "Intel Inside" sticker on it. you know that same Intel Sticker that will be on that Gateway system thats 1/2 the price right next too it.

I can build an Athlon X2 system for $1400 that will destroy that Dual 2.7ghz G5 in any benchmark. Heck my Athlon 64 system will kill any G5 in any non-multi treaded app. Face the Future DP is dead as far as u and me go . maybe xserve only.

When the 17 and 20in G4 imacs were launched many folks said they wouldn't sell because the technology was outdated and the price too high. They did sell because of the design, software, OS and to be perfectly honest as a package it was just right. We are not going to be discussing Intel's current CPU's by the time the next generation macs appear and I see no reason why apple will not continue to use dual CPU setup in the pro machines all it will mean is they will get 4 cores so essentially 4 cpu's.

Currently PC dual core CPU's are ridiculously expensive (UK price for the top Athlon X2 is around £700) and whilst the performance is good it does not justify that price when the software used is not optimised for it. Windows XP is appalling with the way it handles SMP tasks. Apple were knocked by critics for going down the dual CPU route but the fact is for well written software it is a godsend and the fact the whole industry is now going down that route with dual core processors (albeit for different reasons) points to the fact they were on the right track. If the performance is there people will pay $3000 dollars for an Intel mac because those buyers couldn't give a toss about a Gateway or Dell they buy for the complete package. By moving to Intel Apple have simply levelled the playing field, no more PPC versus x86 benchmarks, they can now compete every step of the way with the rest of the industry and thanks to there greater experience writing software for multiple CPU machines combined with the fact they write the best OS and Pro software available they are in a very good possition. The only debate will be how future Intel chips stack up against AMD but I cannot see a company that large screwing up they will always offer Apple something fast. If the Pentium M is anything to go by Apple will be able to put the best chips in the best looking and most user friendly computers onto which a user can place the best software. In the pro market which is what the $3000 G5's everyone quotes are aimed at, the machines produced using x86 cost at least as much if not more. They are specialist machines.

I was, and indeed am, a sceptic when the Intel move was announced but the decision has been made so we just get on with it and wait to see what happens.

The vast majority of threads we see are 'my PC is faster than this mac' or 'how does the mac compare to the PC speed wise' and it is clear this has been an issue for the techie nerds but not so much for the consumers who still buy. If the Intel move also heralds the ability to run even more cutting edge technologies with better support for newer GPU's etc then future macs will be the best computers on the planet fullstop.

[jiggie2g]

you basically prove my point, there is little difference clock for clock between K8's and G5's and shock horror most people dont overclock there systems compare what it is rated at the differences you quote in minute and frankly no one really cares about a difference of less than .5% and according to you it gets raped, i'm just pointing out that what you say is obviously false, show me a retail 3800+ with the EXACT same specs as the dual 2GHz G5 is every area (no that x300se is not the same as a 9600) and it will come to to around the same price as the G5 i never said AMD suck and i'm an AMD fan myself just there is no giant difference in performance like most of you AMD fanboys say, i myself own a 3000+ venice myself that runs quite happily at 2.8GHz on watercooling (2.6GHz on air) if you compare whats fair aka a dual 2.6GHz opteron to a dual 2.7GHz G5 they are pretty equal sure a X2 will do just as well as a dual 2.6GHz opteron if it's clocked that high but guess what? it's not. you are compareing the pc gameing market to the professional workstation market, apple dose not do a consumer tower and they may never because there is no need unless you game and the mac is not a gameing platform.

SMP is here to stay and will be more so with dual core cpu's as more and more apps will be multithreaded so a quad cpu rig will be more desirable when dual core cpu's are common place than a dual is over single cpu rigs are now.

You know funny you say no one cares about .5% because when I started the tread about the 4800+ cinebench scores back in May , you wouln't shut up about how the 2.5ghz G5 was faster even though it was like 643 vs. 649 for the G5 even though it(the G5) was clocked 100mhz faster then the 4800+.

what my remarks did prove is that without question the Athlon 64 is faster Albiet slighty clock per clock than the PPC970. So AMD not only has the performance advantage but Speed as well. 2.8ghz for the FX-57. The 4800+ is approaching the middle of it's life cycle soon and will be replaced be the 5000+ before years end. IBM on the other hand has no PPC970MP for apple anytime soon at best Feb-March 2006 when u can actually go into an Apple store and purchase one. I don't count paper launches. PentiumD's and X2's were on sale in store's in June just like Intel and AMD said they would be.

X2 3800+'s are like a week old hector they won't be in mainstream retail for few weeks. actually only a handful of Companies make X2 retail machines. it still hasn't made mainstream. Hopefully by holiday season when prices have stablized you will begin to see more and more of these CPU's in stores.

as for your comparison.

HP Pavillion D4100e

Athlon X2 4200+(2.2ghz)
1GB(512x2) DDR 3200
Geforce 6600 256MB DDR
250GB SATA HD
16x DVD-+RW
8 in 1 Card reader + 3.5in Floppy
SoundBlaster Audigity 2 ZS
Wireless Keyboard + Optical Mouse

MS Works Suite w/ MS Word
Quicken Deluxe
Norton Internet Security 2005
Picasa 2 free
Itunes Free

Total $1928

Apple PM G5 2.0ghz
1GB(512x2) DDR3200
Radeon 9600
250GB SATA HD
BT Module + BT Mouse/Keyboard

Total $2,323.00

[macer1]

I will say this, when IBM lets the duel core G5 loose and apple put it in POWERMACS even duel opterons will be hard paced to keep up.

also please note that duel 2.0 g5 is over 2 years old

SO yea new teck from AMD will walk all over it, but you will be hard pressed to find a amd athlon XP3200 that can even walk next to a 2.0 G5.

gosh ppl you need to realize IBM doesnt care about Apple, they are just an annoyance. they make more money off making gaming processors.

[TheMonarch]

What about BUS speeds? Don't Dual cores share the same bus? Don't DP machines have separate busses for each CPU? Isn't this a huge factor in performance?

[macer1]

good point blaskillet4

[Project]

While its clear that the DP G5's are outpaced by AMD's offerings, its crazy to see that people are comparing these computers prices pretty much purely on that fact.

Its the software, stupid.

While iLife is under a 100 to buy, you cant get software as good as what it offers on the PC for anywhere near that price.

Its the design, stupid.

Build quality and design values on Macs are exponentially higher than Dell or Gateway equivalents.

Overall, yes, the PM G5 IS Overpriced technically, but you cant compare speed for speed - its the whole package that is adding value to the stock configuration. Thats what people buy Macs for.

However, it will be incredibly difficult for Apple to make any real inroads switcher wise if they seek to maintain current profit margins on some of their products, particularly the PowerBooks and PowerMacs. Consumers will be able to compare spec for spec and then price, and you cant front about a Megahertz myth no more. Intel Apples HAVE to be competitively priced.

[Bern]

Does anyone know if Apple have plans to release the first set of Intel Macs as dual proccessors once development on a single has reached a stable ground?

Any info or ideas about this would be great.

thanx! :)

Steve and I will discuss this over dinner tomorrow night. Yes I know he's usually very secretive, but if he's going to tell anyone it's going to be me.
:rolleyes: