PDA

View Full Version : Quad G4 Macs


bobbyl
Jul 30, 2001, 12:33 AM
Has anyone heard any more about Apple coming out with Quad processor machines at some point? If so,what timeframe.Thanks,BobbyL

evildead
Jul 30, 2001, 12:40 PM
I know that OS X can support up to 4 CPU's right now. I heard that Apple well be coming out with some Rack mount servers soon. My guess is that those new rack mount servers will have up to 4 CPU's in them. The would need to, to compeet with the sun low and mid range servers. That would be really cool if they did.

MrMacMan
Jul 30, 2001, 08:58 PM
Apple needs new server's!

bobbyl
Jul 30, 2001, 11:46 PM
My application is music production. I'm wondering if they'll come out with Quad versions of their regular high-end machines as opposed to servers.

MrMacMan
Jul 31, 2001, 08:16 AM
Apple's server's suck so I hope they will come out with a dual 867 server.

spikey
Jul 31, 2001, 08:39 AM
I didnt think the new G4's could be put in quad configs cos of sum MERSI ****.
or maybe i just made that up 2 confuse myself

MrMacMan
Jul 31, 2001, 08:42 AM
With 4 Processors?

ThlayliTheFierce
Aug 6, 2001, 09:06 PM
That brings something up-how much heat do G4's produce relative to the latest Intel and AMD chips? I know they are smaller. Would their lower Mhz make for less heat as well?

Kela
Aug 7, 2001, 02:23 AM
PLease do not use the word LATEST with the word Intel. The Pentium 4 is worse than the Pentium 3. SO actually there is a backturn

MrMacMan
Aug 7, 2001, 09:06 AM
A quad would be like having a normal 1.8 Intel. Apple's processor's use less power = Less heat

evildead
Aug 7, 2001, 11:50 AM
The G4 is extremly efficint. They use much less power and give off much less heat. Hell.. the G3 iMac's dont even come with a fan any more!! The P4 is really really hot. One of the windows guys that I work with is runny dual PIII's and he has to leave is case open for ventalation. Or he has problems. He benchmarked it with and without the case. Profromance problems with the case ON!! And it tends to crash a lot and give strange errors with the case one. He has 2 big fans, a huge heat sink, no tower cover and a seperate fan for is Video card. And its still too hot. While the G3... needs not fan at all....

blakespot
Aug 7, 2001, 12:09 PM
Kela: The P4 performs less per clock than the P3, true, but it's clocking at 1.8GHz now, vs. 1GHz for the P III. The P4 is not a "worse" chip.


blakespot

evildead
Aug 7, 2001, 12:53 PM
Its not worse... it just doesnt proform as well. Your right that the chip its self is faster.. but the OS doesnt support it yet. So ... its slower than the PIII in some applications. It's only optimized for some Applications. And some hardware too!!

MrMacMan
Aug 7, 2001, 07:30 PM
Quad mac are good, just like dual mac's. Of coarse if the program 'aint written for the quad processor then it's no good.

spikey
Aug 8, 2001, 08:05 AM
Whatever way you see it the P4 is a **** chip, it is unfinished and was released before it was finished, so it couldnt be built to its original design. Also any chip with a 20 stage pipeline is going to touch the monkey bollocks.
I read an article which said on average a multiprocessing PC only runs 3% faster than a single chip one.... probably because a lack of optimised software....i dont know why i wrote that.
BTW can software that takes advantage of 2 processors also take advantage of four? or does the software take advantage of multiprocessing no-matter how many processors there are?

blakespot
Aug 8, 2001, 08:50 AM
MrMacman,

Under OS X, every application will feel the benefits of two (or four, etc.) processors. If an application is written using in an efficient, threaded manner, it will benefit greatly from multiple processors. But even if it is a poorly written, unthreaded app, it will benefit from multi processors under OS X as the OS will run that app on one CPU (all to itself) and handle the (notable) background OS housekeeping chores, and other well-written multithreaded apps on the other processor(s). Even an old Classic app will benefit under OS X as the Classic environ can be run on one processor alone.


You always win under OS X.


blakespot

MrMacMan
Aug 8, 2001, 05:42 PM
From two processor's to four? And if the program is poorly writen it is given a Small improvment, Not much. It's in programs like Photoshop where the effects are Great. And when multiple Greatly Threaded Programs are used the Preformance is The max it could be. I understand what you are saying.
Now will there be any quas mac's to come?

Kela
Aug 9, 2001, 02:35 AM
Some poster posted a quote saying that Intel will have to face the Megahertz-Myth and combat it when they bring out the itanium chip. How true and How I will laugh at those PC fans that once said, I like my PC ugly and running at 1.8 GHZ. ItS sad but this is the chance for APPLE to grab a lot of market share. JUST IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO. The Itanium comes out at a max speed of 800 mHz. Try telling the PC dumb user to move from a P4 1.8 GHz to a 800 MHz. IT WONT WORK. Then simultaniously, Apple brings out the G5 early next year and as a dual processor running at 1 GHZ each. OH MY GOD. Apple could chew through the PC user market.
I always knew that those wierd multicolor biohazard suit wearing scientists at intel were very shortsighted.

digitalrampage
Aug 9, 2001, 06:56 AM
I run a mac and a PC

I can tell you G4 processors produce basically 1/4 or less of the heat compared to a Pentium or AMD

My brothers AMD Athlon 1300mhz has a 10,000 RPM fan on it with is attached with a special metalic (yet non conductive (?)) paste. It sounds like a small aeroplane flying thru my room. Not to mention if you connected any PC chip these days without a cooling device of excessive size your chip would shatter in a matter of seconds (as shown in many PC magazines.

Yet a G4 733 just has a large heatsink screwed down to it and even after days of use the heatsink doesn't get that warm. I open our one up at work all the time after days of uasge and on the old Dual 450, there was negligable amounts of heat being made.

IBM's stopped using heatsinks at 90mhz. Macs have never had anything but heatsinks.

Also, the G4 processor seems to be about 30%-40% smaller then your PC processors and has a smaller micron rating on its dyes.

MrMacMan
Aug 9, 2001, 09:35 PM
Less power usege, True and I have heard to many Pc users say that they have the Biggest Fan! lol Compeating on Fans! And intel is Screwing themselves, lol, Pritty funny. Proving that Mac Chips are Faster then PC chips! And on a unreleated note when will I become higher than a Seinor. On a Super-unrelated Bush Sucks The Idiot made a Bad decision on Stem Cells.

Kela
Aug 10, 2001, 02:35 AM
HAHAHA! "The Idiot" made a bad decision. I too like your former president more. but hey thats the hawks for you.

MrMacMan
Aug 10, 2001, 10:53 AM
Hawks? I'm not Clinton!!! WTF? And PC users do compare, Their Fans!!Itanuim is going to Funk up Pc user's Everywhere! Quad mac's would rule!!!

mischief
Aug 10, 2001, 11:11 AM
Yeah, embryonic's best in the lab, but it has no bearing on medicine: it'd still have to be blood and tissue typed. If you use Stem cells from a given patient: no rejection.

If ever we had a president running on Windows it's dubyaw. Them big ears heat sincs or what?

Er, what was the topic?? Oh, yeah : V12 supercharged 1000 HP, 4WD, Fusion powered Macs. Cool thought but it'd require switching to full-time IBM production of chips: Motorolla'd never keep up.

JoyBoy
Aug 12, 2001, 03:55 PM
I was under the impression Mac OS X was currently capable of supporting up to 32 processors, but that might be incorrect. 4 does seem a little low for an OS that is supposed to benefit greatly from multiple processors. Either way, 4 G4's would be extremely expensive me thinks. Base price of probably at least 5k, but for people buying servers, that isn't so bad.
And the more Macs with mulitple processors, the more developers will support them. Even with one config of MP, that is inscentive for developers to make their apps take full advantage of that.

MrMacMan
Aug 12, 2001, 07:49 PM
Quad's for server's. Would 4 800's be a bad thing? Nah. Would people buy them? They would buy more cause the server's now Suck. I think apple need's ned server's

evildead
Aug 13, 2001, 05:26 PM
I just read some rumors about Apple servers at http://www.appleturns.com/ They have posted Server rumors before. They seem to say that Servers are a while away from now but they are in the works. I know that I would love to see A 4X G4 server in the racks next to the Sun servers in my server room.

MrMacMan
Aug 13, 2001, 08:58 PM
REAL APPLE SERVER's!!!! OOOOOHHHHHHH, AHHHHHHHH!!!!! WOW!!!

mischief
Aug 15, 2001, 11:05 AM
Exactly how many chips CAN OS X see? Some of the upgrade cards for older Macs are PCI so what's to stop from putting extra chips in those slots or installing multiple cards at once in an older machine? OS X and even OS 9.1 override the software that comes with most upgrade cards so the Driver issue shouldn't matter.......

Probably not feasable, but I'm VERY curious.

MrMacMan
Aug 15, 2001, 09:51 PM
16. I think. I'm not sure about Os X tho.

mischief
Aug 17, 2001, 10:38 AM
So hypothetically, if I take a dual 500 G4 from last year and use three of those T-35 expansion chassis' to get 9 PCI slots, then get 7 of those sonnet PCI dual processor cards, I could use 16 G4 500's????!! Naw, it couldn't be that easy.

evildead
Aug 17, 2001, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by mischief
So hypothetically, if I take a dual 500 G4 from last year and use three of those T-35 expansion chassis' to get 9 PCI slots, then get 7 of those sonnet PCI dual processor cards, I could use 16 G4 500's????!! Naw, it couldn't be that easy.

You dont have to do that much work. You could just cluster a bunch of Mac's if you wanted that kind of processing power. May big univeristies are experimenting with clustering G3's and G4's. They are doing big time number crunching. Now is OS X... the sky is the limmit.

mischief
Aug 17, 2001, 01:03 PM
The further appart the Chips, the less reliable and speedy the setup. I want to find a way of getting as many processor cards as possible on ONE mother board. Or use machines like Rev A iMacs that could be linked by their Mezzanines. Could you rig a board-level connection thru the AGP? How 'bout the memory slots?
I want as much bandwidth as possible with as little wire as possible.

ShawnLavin
Aug 17, 2001, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by mischief
So hypothetically, if I take a dual 500 G4 from last year and use three of those T-35 expansion chassis' to get 9 PCI slots, then get 7 of those sonnet PCI dual processor cards, I could use 16 G4 500's????!! Naw, it couldn't be that easy.

No, because the processor cards do NOT go into the PCI slots, the use of the term "PCI Mac" is used just to make it easier to distinguish between version with a compatible slot for the processor (pull the old one out, put in a faster one) as opposed to those where you have to get more creative as to where you put the processor (like fake it into the L2 cache slot).

Scab Cake
Aug 17, 2001, 03:09 PM
I was just perusing the net for G5 information (I'm looking to get a new g4, but I'm thinking I'm going to wait til January to see if the G5s get released), and I found this in an article on The Register:

The schedule may also affect Motorola's G5 chip, its first multi-core CPU, which is believed to contain four G4s operating in close harmony to generate four times the performance of a single chip at a given clock speed. With the cores so tightly coupled, users should get all the benefit of four-way multiprocessing without the usual CPU management overhead - what, in other words, stops the new dual-CPU Power Mac G4s from delivering double the performance of a single-CPU Mac.

Maybe the rumors that Apple has quad-processor G4 machines are mainly centered around this tidbit of information...

mischief
Aug 17, 2001, 05:42 PM
Pardon me I seem to have **** my eyes. Where'd you find that?

MrMacMan
Aug 20, 2001, 09:06 PM
Apple is already making them? That was unclear.

evildead
Aug 21, 2001, 10:20 AM
I hear that Apple is making quad rack mount servers. They are currently working on the cometic desine of it. It's an attemped to make Schools computer systems more centralizd. Part of Apples plan to take back education I think. And an attempt at breaking in the the IT world. If your network is OS X, then it could support everything. Now most networks cant talk to Mac's right in the IT world. So Companies foce Mac users to take them off there desks.

thecube84
Sep 14, 2001, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by evildead
It's only optimized for some Applications. And some hardware too!!

The G4 is like that too. At least the velocity engine is.

mach5
Sep 16, 2001, 05:26 PM
Since Mac OS X is built to support up to 4 processors, the individual applications do not need to support multiple processors themselves. OS X automatically divides the tasks for other applications between the processors.

mach5
Sep 16, 2001, 05:34 PM
Since PC users measure performance only under MHz, all Intel has to do to make them upgrade their CPU is to create a chip with a huge pipeline and a high mhz (4ghz or so), which will actually have a WORSE performance if the pipeline is long enough, but since the pc users base performance on mhz only they will be tricked into upgrading. This way Intel can save money by stopping research, while still generating the same amount of sales. The only problem is that you will have to store the computer in liquid nitrogen to keep it cool enough.

MasterX (OSiX)
Sep 17, 2001, 05:59 PM
From mosr.com I recall a few things:
MacOSX supports a lot of CPUs, I think the number was 16 or 32, something Apple doesn't need to worry about.

The G5 "will" (might) have a multi-core. This means 2-4 CPUs on one motherbord, thus they exchange info at a rapid speed. I'm not shure about the CPUs sharing a cache because they're clustered. They might, but not shure onw that one.

Carbon and Cocoa apps will benifit up to 2x from a multi-processor, 4x with a 4 CPU setup.

Classic apps (under OS 9) will see little improvement from a 3rd or 4th processor, almost none if they have no multi-processor programming.

Catfish_Man
Sep 17, 2001, 10:47 PM
OSX will divide the load between processors, but it has to have something to divide. If you're running a single-threaded application it won't be able to use the second processor much (I think coresoundservices uses the second processor, so a game or music app would have some load taken off it). Multithreaded apps take full advantage of the second processor. Wouldn't it be fun to be playing Unreal 2 (when it comes out) with one processor doing graphics, one AI, one physics, and the fourth sound?

spikey
Sep 20, 2001, 12:18 PM
i thought the Over 500 Mhz G4s didnt have full MERSI support, so no quad processing?

MrMacMan
Oct 2, 2001, 07:59 PM
All of them