PDA

View Full Version : Quad CPUs


cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 01:50 AM
If I were to buy an old dual 500 or 533 graphite, and then purchase two of the Powerlogix Dual 1ghz upgrade cards, and slide a dual into each slot.. Would osX recognize the quad system? Would it even work? Has anyone ever seen it done? Just an idea... thanks!

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 02:34 AM
i have been asking if tri or quad processors are wve possible for the last three years and have never got a straight awnser. I would love to buy a single or dual g4 or card and have spaces left open for future g4,s. this would make osx and os9 multi processor apps fly and could sale relatively cheaply with 1 or 2 processor. then i could add later. my music apps, i.e. cubase logic,itunes, plugin effects, plugin instrument and multi open apps in osx would just be too ggod even with the thruput limitation. does anyone know.?

DreaminDirector
Nov 21, 2002, 03:49 AM
If this were at all possible, and I don't see why not, my life would be so much easier. Video editing and renderign time would be a thing of the past. I'd love some info on this idea too!

pianojoe
Nov 21, 2002, 05:56 AM
I'm afraid the little man on your motherboard who takes care that all CPUs share the same RAM and the same bus (but not at the same time, thus pulling the brake for each other all) is not ready to deal with four of them.

barkmonster
Nov 21, 2002, 06:05 AM
Powerlogix mention on their site that you can only replace a dual cpu module with another dual cpu module, not add one cpu and another one later and certainly not add 4 cpus.

Even apple use 1 card for either dual or single cpus, the card has the cpu(s) and L3 cache(s), the 1 slot on the motherboard is where the card plugs into.

It's a shame really because it would make upgrading macs far simpler and cheaper if you didn't have to buy both cpus at the same time.

Bradcoe
Nov 21, 2002, 08:08 AM
I wish mac's upgraded like x86 boxes. CHEAP AND EASY.

alex_ant
Nov 21, 2002, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Bradcoe
I wish mac's upgraded like x86 boxes. CHEAP AND EASY.
Yeah... damn, I wish I could upgrade my 2-CPU Mac to 4 CPUs without changing motherboards like I can with my Pentium.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 21, 2002, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Bradcoe
I wish mac's upgraded like x86 boxes. CHEAP AND EASY.

macs upgrade very easy - obviously you've never put in an upgrade card on a mac before.....it actually quite painless. Now as for expense, well, that's what happens when there is less of a need for Mac upgrades, naturally the prices are higher because the demand just isn't there.

D

mnkeybsness
Nov 21, 2002, 09:23 AM
quad processor talk again...argh

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


macs upgrade very easy - obviously you've never put in an upgrade card on a mac before.....it actually quite painless. Now as for expense, well, that's what happens when there is less of a need for Mac upgrades, naturally the prices are higher because the demand just isn't there.

D
I have upgraded four macs the latest being a biege g3 while technically easy hardware wise software can get real crazy. if quads were avaiable demand would skyrocket!. and you can bet even with the slow bus and mem it would be a major boost for my music apps amd mac osx.

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
quad processor talk again...argh
i actually want to talk about 6-8 procvessors but 3 and four seem good enough

barkmonster
Nov 21, 2002, 01:10 PM
i actually want to talk about 6-8 procvessors but 3 and four seem good enough

No, what we need is 16 cpu powermacs using 1.3Ghz Power4 chips for the high end, 32 cpu 800Mhz G4s in the midrange and 64 cpu 200Mhz 604e based Powermacs in the entry level.

Running a superthreaded version of OS X to take full advantage of the cpus and they should have a 12Gb/s system bus of apple's own design using proprietory memory.

Don't forget the iMac, that should move to a 100 cpu 32Mhz 68030 just to keep the cost down. The added size for the extra cpus should make the entry level iMac small enough (with Johnathan Ive's design skills) to only need a minimum of a 22" widescreen display built in

:D

cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 02:22 PM
This was not a thread about me wanting a quad mac, or dreaming about a quad mac (although at some point it may have become one), it was however a question about an idea I came up with while sitting on the crapper. You guys seem pretty intelligent so I thought I'd let it fly... I'm pleased to say that to the short lists of adjectives that decribe you, mnkeybsness, we may also add snobby.

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster


No, what we need is 16 cpu powermacs using 1.3Ghz Power4 chips for the high end, 32 cpu 800Mhz G4s in the midrange and 64 cpu 200Mhz 604e based Powermacs in the entry level.

Running a superthreaded version of OS X to take full advantage of the cpus and they should have a 12Gb/s system bus of apple's own design using proprietory memory.

Don't forget the iMac, that should move to a 100 cpu 32Mhz 68030 just to keep the cost down. The added size for the extra cpus should make the entry level iMac small enough (with Johnathan Ive's design skills) to only need a minimum of a 22" widescreen display built in

:D
I am all for it. but would be satisfied with a dual 867 with two open slots for 2 more cpu. simple. ijust wanted to know if it is possible for the currently released towers to be upgraded to more then 2 processors. no one seems to know. just hink dual 1.25 low end tri 1.25 midrange, quad 1.25 high end.
this is a valid discussion and thread if you dont like it start a single cpu thread.

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
Powerlogix mention on their site that you can only replace a dual cpu module with another dual cpu module, not add one cpu and another one later and certainly not add 4 cpus.

Even apple use 1 card for either dual or single cpus, the card has the cpu(s) and L3 cache(s), the 1 slot on the motherboard is where the card plugs into.

It's a shame really because it would make upgrading macs far simpler and cheaper if you didn't have to buy both cpus at the same time.

actually xlr8 (remember them} had a dual processor upgrade that you could buy with 1 processor and then add a diffent faster or slower processor later.
if they could do it so could powerlogix but then everyone would get the single processor model and it would hurt profits, thats the only reason powerlogix does not allow it now. those penny pinchers

Sun Baked
Nov 21, 2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by daveg5

I am all for it. but would be satisfied with a dual 867 with two open slots for 2 more cpu. simple. ijust wanted to know if it is possible for the currently released towers to be upgraded to more then 2 processors. no one seems to know. just hink dual 1.25 low end tri 1.25 midrange, quad 1.25 high end.
this is a valid discussion and thread if you dont like it start a single cpu thread.
The PPC 604s were designed to handle Quad configurations, the current crop of G4s are not able to do it as well - better left with singles or duals.

Anyway the bandwidth that would be needed for Quad G4s really isn't there, the current duals can suck data far faster than they can be fed right now anyways.

Speeding up the data flow would improve things a lot more than throwing more MHz or CPUs at the machines anyways.

barkmonster
Nov 21, 2002, 06:12 PM
actually xlr8 (remember them} had a dual processor upgrade that you could buy with 1 processor and then add a diffent faster or slower processor later.

if they could do it so could powerlogix but then everyone would get the single processor model and it would hurt profits, thats the only reason powerlogix does not allow it now. those penny pinchers

It wasn't 2 cpu sockets on the motherboard, it was 1 card plugged into the slot on the motherboard with daughter cards added at a later date so you could upgrade in stages.

I don't understand why other upgrade companies can't manage this but price could make it pointless.

for instance, the sonnet duet 500Mhz dual G4 upgrade is 939.94 but the sonnet encore ST 800Mhz single G4 upgrade is 428.88

Both are way overpriced.

Computer_Phreak
Nov 21, 2002, 06:13 PM
due to the way computers are made, i dont think tri cpus are possible, but quad certainly is... just not by adding upgrade cards to your mac.

100% garuntee what you are thinking of WON'T work...

cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 07:19 PM
'100% garuntee what you are thinking of WON'T work...'

Your argument would be much more compelling if you could spell.

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster


It wasn't 2 cpu sockets on the motherboard, it was 1 card plugged into the slot on the motherboard with daughter cards added at a later date so you could upgrade in stages.

I don't understand why other upgrade companies can't manage this but price could make it pointless.

for instance, the sonnet duet 500Mhz dual G4 upgrade is 939.94 but the sonnet encore ST 800Mhz single G4 upgrade is 428.88

Both are way overpriced.
I stand corrected. i just saw 2ghz athlons and P4 in the $50-$200 dollar range in quanities of one and the new 3gigP$ with hyperthreading in only $600 in I believe 1000 Qty's
exatly what does ibm and yo moto charge for the 1 GHZ chips.
Does anybody know.

Computer_Phreak
Nov 21, 2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
'100% garuntee what you are thinking of WON'T work...'

Your argument would be much more compelling if you could spell.


ya well... so i dont feel like spellchecking...

but still... trying to stick 4 CPUs in a dual cpu computer is like.... trying to put another engine in a car or somthing...

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked

The PPC 604s were designed to handle Quad configurations, the current crop of G4s are not able to do it as well - better left with singles or duals.

Anyway the bandwidth that would be needed for Quad G4s really isn't there, the current duals can suck data far faster than they can be fed right now anyways.

Speeding up the data flow would improve things a lot more than throwing more MHz or CPUs at the machines anyways.
Technically you are right, however i just looked at some dual shootouts on www.barefeats.com and a dual 9600 and biege g3 stood neck to neck with the 100MHZ based dual 500 g4s.
So there is only one way to find out for sure. my money is on the theory that a 4 processor 1.25 would be much faster than a 2 processor 1.25 maybe not double but close to it on milti processor aware apps.
But of course i could be wrong.
If the duals we have right now cant be fully utilized with the current motherboard than why should yo moto make any faster processors without a new motherboard, it would be a waste right?

cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 08:02 PM
Point blank, has anyone done it? The answer seems to be no.
Has anyone tried it? The answer seems to be no.
Will it work? The answer seems to be "I can't spell and I haven't tried it, but I know it will not." That's just not convincing enough for me.

As for the argument that it's just not economically feasible, I disagree. The bandwidth argument I like, but I also like my 15,000rpm SCSI drives.

I don't know and I respect your guys' ideas so I thought I'd ask... maybe I'll try it this winter. Thanks.

cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Speeding up the data flow would improve things a lot more than throwing more MHz or CPUs at the machines anyways.

I think Intel would disagree with you, they're beating us with MHz alone.

daveg5
Nov 21, 2002, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
Point blank, has anyone done it? The answer seems to be no.
Has anyone tried it? The answer seems to be no.
Will it work? The answer seems to be "I can't spell and I haven't tried it, but I know it will not." That's just not convincing enough for me.

As for the argument that it's just not economically feasible, I disagree. The bandwidth argument I like, but I also like my 15,000rpm SCSI drives.

I don't know and I respect your guys' ideas so I thought I'd ask... maybe I'll try it this winter. Thanks.
let us know how it goes. cuz no one here has a clue, just theories
good luck

finchna
Nov 21, 2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Bradcoe
I wish mac's upgraded like x86 boxes. CHEAP AND EASY.

I wouldn't make the cheap assumption. Upgrading some Dell workstations from top speed stock chips to anything faster (2.0 to 2.8) requires a new motherboard ($500 on top of the chip price) to allow use of the chips and controllers due to chip redesign. Ease of upgrade doesn't seem much different among current Macs and many Intel boxes.

rice_web
Nov 21, 2002, 08:37 PM
Actually, this represents a unique possibility for Apple. Quad-CPUs are the next stage when the PowerMacs went to all dual-processing, so planning ahead never hurt anyone.

Apple could offer a PowerMac of speeds 1GHz-1.5GHz in dual-configurations. The motherboards would sport a convenient slot for the addition of two processors.

The PowerMacs would sell as usual, but an additional option for the PowerMac would be the extra two CPUs. Apple could sell dual-1GHz cards for maybe $800, dual-1.25GHz for $1000, and dual-1.5GHz for $1200 or so, and start raking in some real money.

Heck, if the average PowerMac consumer purchased a dual-1GHz system for $1699 and later spent $800 or so on an upgrade card, Apple can increase it's short-term income.

Now, many would suggest, "But this will hault new PowerMac sales as users can simply upgrade!" To this I offer that the motherboards should be limited in their potential multiplier (thus requiring a user to update regurlarly). Besides, this is something that investors have been looking for over a long time.

cr2sh
Nov 21, 2002, 09:36 PM
Check out this table...

http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/compatibility/powermacg4/index.html

It lists DUAL cpu cards as being compatible with DUAL cpu systems...

On a side note, just over $3k would set up a quad 1GHz system... you could get a graphite dual 450 on ebay for $800, the cards go $1200 a piece...
We still haven't seen bench results of these cards though.... who knows.

Sun Baked
Nov 21, 2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
I think Intel would disagree with you, they're beating us with MHz alone.
I meant you'd get more from doubling bandwidth than you would from a similar increase in either CPUs and/or MHz - because the system bus on the Macs is so bottlenecked.

A doubling in bandwidth on a dual G4 1.25 should yield a bigger percentage increase than either a dual G4 2.5 or a quad G4 1.25.

The MHz race is a race the winner will lose eventually, the increase in MHz comes with a longer pipeline (increased chance on pipeline flush), increased power requirements, increased cooling system complexity, and if the increase in MHz isn't backed up by increases in bandwidth the increases in MHz yields smaller and smaller increases in performance.

But the bandwitdth boost should come with the switch to 64-bits and/or the Hypertransport/RIO system bus.

vniow
Nov 21, 2002, 09:53 PM
The G4 has been used in quad configs before, but only for industrial systems, none for the consumer.

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/data/502/1quadg4.jpg

Sun Baked
Nov 21, 2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
Check out this table...

http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/compatibility/powermacg4/index.html

It lists DUAL cpu cards as being compatible with DUAL cpu systems...

On a side note, just over $3k would set up a quad 1GHz system... you could get a graphite dual 450 on ebay for $800, the cards go $1200 a piece...
We still haven't seen bench results of these cards though.... who knows.
How do you get a Quad system, who makes them?

Oh yeah, thats right there are still some Daystar Quads floating around with the 604s in them.

The CPUs are on a daughter card with either 1 or 2 G4s.

All the G3s upgrade cards are single CPUs due to lack of support on the G3 for multiple processors.

And there is only 1 connector on the motherboard for a CPU daughter card.

barkmonster
Nov 22, 2002, 04:48 AM
http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/pfdualg4133/index.html

Compatibility:

These upgrades require MacOS 9.2.1, 9.2.2, or Mac OS X 10.1 (or higher.)

One note of clarification: if your PowerMac G4 came from Apple as a dual processor machine, it has a single card with two processors on it. This dual CPU card is removed and the PowerForce G4 card replaces the Apple card and *both* CPUs .It is not possible to install two PowerForce G4 cards to replace the two processors in your machine; only one card is required.

cr2sh
Nov 22, 2002, 05:15 AM
I guess that ends it then... I get props for originality though. I wonder if this was the case for all dual systems...

MacCoaster
Nov 22, 2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
I think Intel would disagree with you, they're beating us with MHz alone.
Not just MHz. But in bandwidth as well. Their processors are once again changing FSB from 533 MHz to a WHOPPING 800 MHz--already! Wonder how high the FSB will be before the PowerPC 970 comes out, hmm? Only got 100 MHz to beat the 970 @ 1.8 GHz.

Sun Baked
Nov 22, 2002, 06:58 PM
Sort of sucks that the Mac will probably never have a DDR system bus, hopefully skipping skipping directly from SDR to Hypertransport/RIO.

And remember that 800 MHz bus on Intel is Rambus technology, so you still have to compare bandwith (GB/s) and not MHz.

Rambus vs DDR is a good matchup, but 800 MHz Rambus vs 166 MHz SDR is instant bandwidth roadkill.

MacCoaster
Nov 22, 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
And remember that 800 MHz bus on Intel is Rambus technology, so you still have to compare bandwith (GB/s) and not MHz.
Yes, higher MHz == more bandwidth. I'm not sure about exactly the GB/sec, But IIRC it's 5.3 GB/sec w/ 533 MHz... maybe just dividing by 100 == the GB/sec, I dunno anything about that, so if anyone knows, please post.

cr2sh
Nov 22, 2002, 11:06 PM
533mhz fsb.... 800mhz fsb....
I don't give a **** about what intel claims their fsb is. dont give a **** about how they calculate this new "fsb" cuz I know its total ************. I consider DDR to be a total waste of my time, its the quiters solution. Rambus is fast, but there is also some trickery involved in calculating the "fsb." Call me a cynic, but everything that comes out of intel is media-spun, stupid-consumer logic, ************....
I want solid mhz bus increase, not this tacking on a multiplier ************.

MacCoaster
Nov 23, 2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
533mhz fsb.... 800mhz fsb....
I don't give a **** about what intel claims their fsb is. dont give a **** about how they calculate this new "fsb" cuz I know its total ************. I consider DDR to be a total waste of my time, its the quiters solution. Rambus is fast, but there is also some trickery involved in calculating the "fsb." Call me a cynic, but everything that comes out of intel is media-spun, stupid-consumer logic, ************....
I want solid mhz bus increase, not this tacking on a multiplier ************.
I do give a crap because it's meaning that Intel is getting faster and faster.

Macs currently have horrible hardware bandwidth yet the PCs go for gigabytes of throughoutput.

What do you mean by trickery anyway? So the XServe/Power Mac DDR solution isn't trickery? Interesting.