PDA

View Full Version : Quad Processor Mac


Exlaxxboy
Nov 7, 2003, 11:58 AM
Remember way back when the hottest rumor besides the G5 was the Quad Processor G4? what ever happened to it? last I heard all we had to go on was a picture... if we had a Quad Processor G5 Apple would Destroy any Competition when it comes to speed and it would be 2GB of RAM per Processor and you could create a 2Gigabyte image in photoshop in less than 1 tenth of the time that it would take a Peecee the only problem is that it would run too hot thats why I say apple invests in mini A/C system for the G5 that would let us over clock em and everything....now than who wants to give me a G5?

jonapete2001
Nov 7, 2003, 12:20 PM
HA

Schiffi
Nov 7, 2003, 01:33 PM
Double HA

Sun Baked
Nov 7, 2003, 01:36 PM
Motorola made the decision to downgrade the cache coherency in the 7400 from the Quad capable standard (Apple wasn't using it) to something more suitable to singles/duals.

The MERSI/MESI differences ...

The 604s had it and the 7400 had the more capable cache coherency, the rest of the G4s basically don't (can't remember exactly which 74xx unit killed it either, but it's l years back).

Makosuke
Nov 7, 2003, 02:02 PM
I'd say it could happen, but not in anything resembling a consumer machine--if the power consumption and heatsinks on the current duals are any indication, it'd take a big, beefy, noisy box to handle four G5s. I'd say it might still happen for a server or workstation, but I wouldn't bet on it yet.

Just for reference, based on my quick testing with my "measly" dual G5, a quad version would draw a HUGE amount of power and have big ol' heatsinks and fans to deal with the heat generated. My old G4 dual drew in the range of 100W, give or take. My G5 draws 170W idling, and can easily go up over 325W if you push it. By extrapolation, a quad version would need at minimum 500W of power, likely a lot more (I don't even have any addon cards, and the computer isn't powering a monitor, either--the Cinema Display via ADC has got to suck some serious juice), and cooling to match.

That adds up to a major power supply, a lot of cooling, a whole lot of heatsink on those G5s (they're probably a third of the volume of the current huge case) or a much louder set of fans/liquid cooling, and one hefty mother of a computer.

Not that it can't be done, but not in the current tower case without at the very least making a massive amount of noise, and I'd guess realistically you'd need something much bigger.

rainman::|:|
Nov 7, 2003, 02:40 PM
"mini-AC" huh. you're clearly adept at engineering. it's called a heat pump, and if you knew that much, you'd know why it isn't going to happen. no offense. even if they got past the magnetic and electrical noise that the pump itself would create, which would be quite a chore, they'd have to deal with the potential problem of one/more processors getting too cold and cracking... the electical draw would be phoenomenal, probably enough to warrant a 220 circuit (and who wants to unplug their Mac to run the dryer?), the heat that the pump moved into the room would be enough to make a cooling system for the room necessary (heat doesn't just disappear)...

starting to see why apple can't simply "invest in a mini A/C"?

liquid pipe cooling, or submerged liquid cooling, would be the only options. and frankly i don't think they would draw nearly enough heat away from the processors.

pnw

plinkoman
Nov 7, 2003, 03:22 PM
it'd probably be over kill for a powermac, but, i wouldn't rule out future xserve's

and if they were to make a dual core G5, a dual G5 would essentially be quad, without necesarily all of the problems of 4 cpu's.... still doubtful

XnavxeMiyyep
Nov 7, 2003, 03:49 PM
Couldn't you get 2 dual G5 Powermacs(or 2 Dual G5 xServes when they come out), cluster them together, and get the same affect?

wrc fan
Nov 7, 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
starting to see why apple can't simply "invest in a mini A/C"?

liquid pipe cooling, or submerged liquid cooling, would be the only options. and frankly i don't think they would draw nearly enough heat away from the processors.

pnw

There's a company called Asetek that have a product called the VapoChill. It basically is like a A/C or Refrigerator. Here is a review of it: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDAw

Exlaxxboy
Nov 8, 2003, 11:48 PM
I don't knowo the second thing about computer design but still... its a dream, how bout instead of a Mini A/C apple invests in making a 100% waterproof casing for ram and other internal components and than have the G5 filled with coldish water and than we eliminate all the fans and heat sinks and than we will have more space for other internal components like 2 more HDDs and a second Drive bay.

Exlaxxboy
Nov 8, 2003, 11:55 PM
oh and one more thing a G5 Xserve would probbably run much too hot unless you got rid of 2 hard drives and the second drive bay...but, there is no neeed for a G5 Xserve because the bottlenecking (if any) occurs at the Ethernet Cable so the solution for that would be to have 2 or more ethernet cables linking each computer to the server... and I still would want a Quad Processor G5 with 3 Video Cards and a 2 ghz fron and backside bus speed

G5orbust
Nov 9, 2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by plinkoman
it'd probably be over kill for a powermac, but, i wouldn't rule out future xserve's

and if they were to make a dual core G5, a dual G5 would essentially be quad, without necesarily all of the problems of 4 cpu's.... still doubtful

Well, since IBM joint created the cell technology, something along those lines wouldnt be that farfetched. Its probably never going to happen, and if it did its time is far from now. The cell technology is in its baby stages.

http://www-1.ibm.com/mediumbusiness/venture_development/content/featurearticle.jsp?id=8649

manitoubalck
Nov 9, 2003, 01:23 AM
can you imagine the size of a Quad proc, tower? and the amout of heat it would produce.

Sun Baked
Nov 9, 2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
can you imagine the size of a Quad proc, tower? and the amout of heat it would produce. Probably as much heat as a dual Itanic. :p

manitoubalck
Nov 9, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Probably as much heat as a dual Itanic. :p

The Quad G4 would probably still cost more

solvs
Nov 9, 2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
can you imagine the size of a Quad proc, tower? and the amout of heat it would produce.

Doesn't AMD have an Opteron that's Quad capable? Talk about hot! My Duron gets a little toasty, but you could use one of those as a heater.

Probably still cooler that a P4 EE, or 100W + Prescott. Ouch. Here's hoping the next G5s aren't that hot.

Edit: And no, 4 G4s probably still cost way less than 1 Itanic. Unless you meant G5, but even then... The Opteron isn't as bad, but those Dual capable Motherboards aren't exactly cheap.

Hey, how did Exlaxxboy get banned?

Sun Baked
Nov 9, 2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
The Quad G4 would probably still cost more The last quad CPU Mac OS machine was only $10,000 in 1997/8

AmigoMac
Nov 9, 2003, 03:23 AM
"Doesn't AMD have an Opteron that's Quad capable? Talk about hot! My Duron gets a little toasty, but you could use one of those as a heater."


IMO, PC Users do not care about how hot/noisy a machine is... Otherwise there wouldn't be those 3" thick/ 3 Kg laptops.

At work, I have 2 Xeon dual processor and don't let me listen my tunes. :mad:

ddtlm
Nov 9, 2003, 04:05 AM
XnavxeMiyyep:

Couldn't you get 2 dual G5 Powermacs(or 2 Dual G5 xServes when they come out), cluster them together, and get the same affect?
Only on certain software. You'd pretty much need problems that could be solved separately.

Exlaxxboy:

I don't knowo the second thing about computer design but still... its a dream, how bout instead of a Mini A/C apple invests in making a 100% waterproof casing for ram and other internal components and than have the G5 filled with coldish water and than we eliminate all the fans and heat sinks and than we will have more space for other internal components like 2 more HDDs and a second Drive bay.
The heat has to go somewhere. You can move it around but somehow it has to leave the system.

G5orbust:

Well, since IBM joint created the cell technology, something along those lines wouldnt be that farfetched. Its probably never going to happen, and if it did its time is far from now. The cell technology is in its baby stages.
Multiple processor cores per die has nothing to do with the cell technology. Most companies are preparing multi-core chips, including x86 chips that will compete directly with the G5's sucessors. I bet we'll see a multi-core Mac chip sooner or later.

Sun Baked:

Probably as much heat as a dual Itanic.
Probably more, assuming your talking about G5's. Last time I looked at Intel's page, even the 1.5ghz 6MB L3 Itanium2 is somewhere in the 100W max output range. As you know, a 1.8ghz G5 "typically" produces just under half that, so it would not be hard to imagine 4 2ghz G5's producing a maximum total of more than 200W.

solvs:

Doesn't AMD have an Opteron that's Quad capable? Talk about hot!
Yeah, they scale to 8-way and there are 4-way systems on the market now. Opterons are probably not much hotter than G5's at the same clockspeed, although the exact figures for each are not known. People have had excellent luck with clock-throttling A64's running pretty cool, for example

http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=105050725

AmigoMac:

IMO, PC Users do not care about how hot/noisy a machine is
I know lots of PC users who care a lot about it. There are entire specialty shops on the web for quiet PC components, there are specialty cases, acoustic padding, heatsinks, fans and power supplies. When PC users outnumber Mac users 19 to 1 you can bet there are a lot of different types of PC users that have plenty of market presence. Painting PC users with such a broad brush reflects poorly on you. Check this link out:

http://store.yahoo.com/siliconacoustics/index.html

G5orbust
Nov 9, 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm


G5orbust:


Multiple processor cores per die has nothing to do with the cell technology. Most companies are preparing multi-core chips, including x86 chips that will compete directly with the G5's sucessors. I bet we'll see a multi-core Mac chip sooner or later.

I think we are thinking of two different things. I misunderstood what he said when I quoted him, so you are correct. But, on the other hand, use of the cell technology wouldnt be such a bad idea either :D

ZetaPotential
Feb 14, 2004, 06:36 AM
dual core is feasible but the issue is connectivity and the relationship each of the 'sub cores' would have with relevant electronics such as cache and register pipes. Even MIPS have avoided the idea of multi core systems in place of multi CPU node boards because of the (im assuming) unnecessary sophistication required to manage interleaving resources and basic chip manufacture attrition.

There is all this talk about heat and power consumption!! Crap. Lets set some ground rules...

1) if you have the requirement for mass MP h/w environments then power shouldn't be an issue. If it is, get the hell out of your living room and hire an office or a factory.

2)Heat? its a simple physics thing... POINT A FAN AT IT YOU IDIOT. heat, unlike the flow of electric signal, is NOT directly registrable by electronics, therefore the cooling of it is (to borrow an expression) 'off-line' to the actual running of it. Hence, there is no finite answers, no actual figures and now real rules other than once it gets to hot it burns and if it gets too cold it cracks.

The question that seems to be missing in all of this is WHY do you need more than two CPU's?
{{And for all you PC flunkies, MP systems under Motorola or IBM systems are more than capable, they are products and piss on any Intel or AMD calculators from a lofty height. }}
If your reasons are because of normal work flow you may have a wait on your hands because it would be necessary for apple to recompile the mach kernel (either the 32 or 64 bit versions of BSD) to make it capable of more than two CPU's. This is fairly easy but getting the now realGUI like osX to play the game is a task i wouldn't put on my enemies.

G5? you mean POWER4 don't you? why don't you have a look at the genesis for the G5 and see how it handles MPing...

The issues are simple:

1) OS capability.
2) Need for doing so.

In both cases it comes down to the AMOUNT of people who require the need for mass parallel processing and their ability to pay for it. YES it is more than possible and in fact is done regularly in a variety of ways but due to the relatively small number of real reasons to do it there is a natural lack of OS support and the hence the applications to utilize it.

The exception to this is Beowulf style distributed network clustering. OR go and have a look at SGI archives on systems like the Origin 2000 and you'll learn a few things about the realities behind the NEED for MP environments.

HasanDaddy
Feb 14, 2004, 07:01 AM
I don't like that ElaxxBoy is being berated

I find it to be a perfectly valid question

after all - OS X was designed to handle 4 processors, if need be

and it also has 9 freaking fans ---- I'm sure that could accomodate 2 more processors

Hodapp
Feb 14, 2004, 01:58 PM
I'm noticing the over-use of the word 'Probably' in this thread.

You guys are probably all electrical engineers too, right?

Sun Baked
Feb 14, 2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by io_burn
I'm noticing the over-use of the word 'Probably' in this thread.

You guys are probably all electrical engineers too, right? Probably...

Either that or electrical imagineers.

The hopes for a Quad G4 Mac died when Motorola went from MERSI to MESI cache coherency. Though with all the cache problems the G4 had through the 7457, it would have been a PIA.

A 400MHz Quad PowerMac G4 just doesn't quite sound as useful as a DP 1.42GHz PowerMac.

The Quad G5 using the original 970, would have been heat/power -- seems the original 2GHz G5 was as bad as the Itanic with around a 100W maximum for each CPU. Plus each CPU needs x pins for support on the System Controller. So the system controller gets quite a bit bigger, hotter, and more power hungry.

But we'll see when and if people start offering Quad PPC970s.

ddtlm
Feb 14, 2004, 03:20 PM
ZetaPotential:

{{And for all you PC flunkies, MP systems under Motorola or IBM systems are more than capable, they are products and piss on any Intel or AMD calculators from a lofty height. }}
A Quad G5 would have a superior through more expensive layout when compared to a quad Xeon, since the G5 would have 4 FSB's vs just one. (The Xeon would, however, have the advantage of L3 caches.) The quad G5 would have an inferior and more expensive layout when compared to a quad Opteron, since the Opteron has on-die memory controllers (4 128-bit channels for a quad) and direct chip-to-chip HT links in addition to larger caches which reduce the need to use those memory resources. The cost savings for the Opteron comes in not needing any monolithic chipset with 4 FSB's and 256 to 512 bits of memory interface (actually wider including ECC).

ZetaPotential
Feb 14, 2004, 10:02 PM
Let me say this again:
WHAT do you need multiple processors for? There are many reasons with many solutions. The problem with mac people (regardless of how much i love you all) is they stop at the box in front of them. There is this concept that the boys from Bell and MIT were messing around with a while back, its called networking. Have a look at the real MP systems like the SGI Origin series servers and you will notice that they don't waste millions of bucks designing quad (or higher) processor system boards because they solved the problem of bandwidth in the interconecting fabric between the CPU cards. And yes each CPU can snoop each others cache so stop rabiting on about L3 cache and start looking at branch prediction cache instead.

Now i will admit i need to do some homework on the new Opteron and how it functions but i have to remind all and sundry that the POWER4 and its pedigree the G5 are superscalar RISC CPU's and not instruction heavy like the Intel Plentym's. In other words there is literally less requirement for cache size which allows for more steps in the pipe. What i dont know is if the branch prediction can re-order the cache mid-flight or execute instructions out of order like a MIPS R12K ... Ill get back to you on that. The point is if CISC CPU (x) needs to do 120 cycles to figure out one operation and RISC CPU (y) needs only to do 5 or 6 as it reorders its cache then you do the math on which CPU wins the little fluffy toy.

Now lets put this all back together. If you have a network of computers and you are running a network operating system with a network file system (lets say, um let me think, BSD) and you run it all on lots of small, fast RISC CPU's then you have one large computer that has as many processors as you would like. THE ISSUE IS APPLICATION! or as i said before WHY.

ZetaPotential
Feb 14, 2004, 11:39 PM
i stuffed up one thing re: dual core...

The POWER4 IBM processor IS dual core, the G5 is its mummy.

so there

ddtlm
Feb 15, 2004, 12:18 AM
ZetaPotential:

Have a look at the real MP systems like the SGI Origin series servers and you will notice that they don't waste millions of bucks designing quad (or higher) processor system boards because they solved the problem of bandwidth in the interconecting fabric between the CPU cards.
I've handled some older Origins (2000's and 2100's) and it's true that they keep the CPU count to two per CPU card. Newer SGI's seem to run at least 4 per card, for example see the Origin 350 which holds up to 4 CPU's but at 2U is pretty much too small to have CPU boards like the older SGI's do. Looks like the 4U Origin 3000 can run 16 CPU's in 4U, again it's likely that they have at least 4 on some single boards in there. I've never handled those machines so I don't know for sure.

But anyway your pretty much speaking nonsense. What you are describing as a networked computer is in fact just a NUMA computer, not news at all. In fact the Opterons are NUMA machines. Large NUMA machines are in fact easier to make than large SMP machines, and they've known that for quite some time. This is not the same thing as just networking distinct computers together, that's clustering.

And yes each CPU can snoop each others cache so stop rabiting on about L3 cache and start looking at branch prediction cache instead.
A processor with L3 is faster than the same processor without it. Just because the G5 doesn't have L3 doesn't mean you can dismiss it. The G5 is not perfect.

And what the heck are you talking about with "branch prediction cache"? No such thing exists. Branch prediction is handled in the CPU core and has next to nothing to do with cache.

Now i will admit i need to do some homework on the new Opteron and how it functions but i have to remind all and sundry that the POWER4 and its pedigree the G5 are superscalar RISC CPU's and not instruction heavy like the Intel Plentym's. In other words there is literally less requirement for cache size which allows for more steps in the pipe.
The number of possible instructions is not related to the memory space that the instructions take. In fact x86 code is typically smaller than PPC code doing the same thing, because it takes more PPC instructions to do the same thing. In case you've forgotten, the first "C" in "CISC" stands for complex, as in it does more than just one basic operation.

What i dont know is if the branch prediction can re-order the cache mid-flight or execute instructions out of order like a MIPS R12K ... Ill get back to you on that.
Reording the cache? I think you're confused. Cache doesn't need to be reordered. The G5, P4's, and Opterons can all reorder instructions in flight, however. About the only powerful modern CPU's that can't are US3/4 and Itaniums.

The point is if CISC CPU (x) needs to do 120 cycles to figure out one operation and RISC CPU (y) needs only to do 5 or 6 as it reorders its cache then you do the math on which CPU wins the little fluffy toy.
Your pulling that out of thin air. It's true that some x86 instructions take a long time but on average the difference is nowhere near 120 cyles to 6.

If you have a network of computers and you are running a network operating system with a network file system (lets say, um let me think, BSD)
Are you talking about networking support like every other darn OS on the market? Neither BSD nor any other mainstream OS allows task sharing between separate computers, special software exists to do that (clustering software).

and you run it all on lots of small, fast RISC CPU's then you have one large computer that has as many processors as you would like.
No, then you've got a whole bunch of separate computers.

THE ISSUE IS APPLICATION! or as i said before WHY.
Your obviously not someone who has written programs to utilize multiple processors, let alone multiple computers.

G5orbust
Feb 15, 2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
ZetaPotential:


I've handled some older Origins (2000's and 2100's) and it's true that they keep the CPU count to two per CPU card. Newer SGI's seem to run at least 4 per card, for example see the Origin 350 which holds up to 4 CPU's but at 2U is pretty much too small to have CPU boards like the older SGI's do. Looks like the 4U Origin 3000 can run 16 CPU's in 4U, again it's likely that they have at least 4 on some single boards in there. I've never handled those machines so I don't know for sure.

But anyway your pretty much speaking nonsense. What you are describing as a networked computer is in fact just a NUMA computer, not news at all. In fact the Opterons are NUMA machines. Large NUMA machines are in fact easier to make than large SMP machines, and they've known that for quite some time. This is not the same thing as just networking distinct computers together, that's clustering.


A processor with L3 is faster than the same processor without it. Just because the G5 doesn't have L3 doesn't mean you can dismiss it. The G5 is not perfect.

And what the heck are you talking about with "branch prediction cache"? No such thing exists. Branch prediction is handled in the CPU core and has next to nothing to do with cache.


The number of possible instructions is not related to the memory space that the instructions take. In fact x86 code is typically smaller than PPC code doing the same thing, because it takes more PPC instructions to do the same thing. In case you've forgotten, the first "C" in "CISC" stands for complex, as in it does more than just one basic operation.


Reording the cache? I think you're confused. Cache doesn't need to be reordered. The G5, P4's, and Opterons can all reorder instructions in flight, however. About the only powerful modern CPU's that can't are US3/4 and Itaniums.


Your pulling that out of thin air. It's true that some x86 instructions take a long time but on average the difference is nowhere near 120 cyles to 6.


Are you talking about networking support like every other darn OS on the market? Neither BSD nor any other mainstream OS allows task sharing between separate computers, special software exists to do that (clustering software).


No, then you've got a whole bunch of separate computers.


Your obviously not someone who has written programs to utilize multiple processors, let alone multiple computers.


Owned.

---------------------------

Anyway, to add to this fray, I dont think quad procs are really the way to fly. I think dual and single chips are as far as Apple will go for practical, consumer based applications. Though, if they decide to take on the higher unit server markets, they may develop units with more procs inside.

This is all speculation, of course.

Sedulous
Feb 15, 2004, 12:47 AM
How about a quad 970FX system? These chips are supposedly much cooler.

ddtlm
Feb 15, 2004, 02:04 AM
G5orbust:

I think dual and single chips are as far as Apple will go for practical, consumer based applications.
Yeah I'd settle for a dual-processor Power5 derivitive with SMT. :) Four threads per CPU, wasn't it?

Sedulous:

How about a quad 970FX system? These chips are supposedly much cooler.
Yeah but the system controller with 4 FSB's and 256 bits of RAM is still gona be trouble. There's a reason Intel runs quad Xeons on a single FSB.

HiRez
Feb 15, 2004, 08:35 AM
How about an Xserve Cluster Node Lite, a bare-bones dual G5 without all the server-friendly features? Drop the ECC RAM, drop the PCI-X slots, drop the Mac OS X Server software. Get rid of the serial port and just leave 1 FW 800, 1 FW 400, 1 USB 2.0, and 1 gigabit Ethernet. Make it 2 RU high, so less fancy cooling is needed. Then price it at something like $1,799. Sure, their margins would not be huge at this price, but I bet they'd still make a profit and sell a lot of them. This would be great for smaller shops looking for a cost-effective render/encoding/compiling farm, where $3,000-$4,000 per box is just a bit too steep to justify. My order for three of them would be entered within minutes! 12 GHz of G5 rendering capability for $5,400, mmmmm.....

Quixcube
Feb 15, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by HiRez
How about an Xserve Cluster Node Lite, a bare-bones dual G5 without all the server-friendly features? Drop the ECC RAM, drop the PCI-X slots, drop the Mac OS X Server software. Get rid of the serial port and just leave 1 FW 800, 1 FW 400, 1 USB 2.0, and 1 gigabit Ethernet. Make it 2 RU high, so less fancy cooling is needed. Then price it at something like $1,799.

So you want a rack-mounted... I don't know what to call it.

The machine you describe isn't really very server-class if you strip away things like ECC RAM, redundant power supplies (if they were there to start with) and the rest to make it cheap. Aren't you concerned with reliability and data-integrity?

The machine you describe is priced like a consumer machine, but it isn't really very workstation or consumer-class friendly if it is housed in a 2U rack mountable enclosure... Unless you lay it across two short filing cabinets and use it as the desktop...

Umm.. hmm.. With the exception of the processor class, it sounds like you want Apple to just recycle the original xserve concept--except have them price it at what it is actually worth this time. The first two xserve revisions really didn't have anything fancy going for them. Come on, Apple! Non ECC memory in a server? What makes a server anything other than a repackaged workstation? The form factor?

If size and cost are the only considerations when shopping for a server, why not use the ultra small form factor PCs that most vendors sell and run Linux--or if you must, run Darwin--instead? Talk about processor density. And cheap! Why not? Because they don't have server-class hardware inside? Servers shouldn't be the fastest Macs made, they should be the most rock-solid Macs made--and that isn't cheap.

I say let the idea of the ultra low-cost "server" die and be glad Apple is bringing at least a little more serious hardware to their "server-class" effort than the last time. Some things just shouldn't go together, and "cheap" and "server" are two of them. Isn't that what network appliances are for anyway?

HiRez
Feb 15, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Quixcube
So you want a rack-mounted... I don't know what to call it.

The machine you describe isn't really very server-class if you strip away things like ECC RAM, redundant power supplies (if they were there to start with) and the rest to make it cheap. Aren't you concerned with reliability and data-integrity?No, the machine I describe is NOT A SERVER (nor an engineering box). That's the whole point, it's a stripped-down network render box (Cinema 4D, Maya, After Effects, etc.), basically, but could be used for MPEG encoding or distributed Xcode compiles, or whatever other distributed CPU tasks you might need (probably Xgrid will help make more of them available in time). I'm not suggesting they scrap the Xserve, this would be a similar but separate product, one targeted towards people who just want raw G5 processing power but don't need all the extra stuff that demanding server and scientific computing environments need. The G5 Xserve Cluster Node is a step in the right direction, but it still costs as much as a full dual-G5 PowerMac. I'm saying take that concept to the extreme. It wouldn't necessarily even have to be rack-mountable (though the option would be nice), put some feet on them and make them stackable on a table or the floor.

Quixcube
Feb 15, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by HiRez
No, the machine I describe is NOT A SERVER (nor an engineering box). That's the whole point, it's a stripped-down network render box (Cinema 4D, Maya, After Effects, etc.),

...

It wouldn't necessarily even have to be rack-mountable (though the option would be nice), put some feet on them and make them stackable on a table or the floor.

Uh oh, the headless G5 iMac thread is spreading :) Just kidding... Yeah I understand what you want but I don't think there is much demand for an extremely gutted version of the xserve. Most corporations who would be interested in a group of dedicated rendering machines want an industrial piece of hardware even if it isn't the full-fledged high-end model (industrial meaning redundant power, ECC RAM, redundant disks unless netbooting etc.)

Making do with reality, if a bunch of xserves aren't in the budget, I would just fill a lab or fill a department with entry level single processor G5 powermacs and render on them while people are getting their Microsoft Word on all day long. They will never even know it... The biggest hidden cost would be in gigabit switches to feed every desk, but that could be optional I guess depending on the nature of the distributed task. When our university filled up the new student learning center, I would love to have seen them purchase 1100 Macs instead of 1100 Dells. It is amazing what a university can do with 1100 G5s nowadays. :) Of course the students would object to not knowing how to use the computers for anything, but nothing is perfect.

If Apple were to build a fantasy product that met the need for massive processing power on a shoestring budget though, I would like to see something configured like a strand of christmas lights--only replace the bulbs with G5s. They would glow when hot and make a festive mood while delivering massively parallel processing power. Just don't let the cat bite the cord.

jefhatfield
Feb 15, 2004, 09:19 PM
i read that some clone back in the 90s had a quad powerpc mac but it was very expensive

i don't really see the need for one for consumers, but i could see the need for a dual G4 powerbook for some high end consumers/professionals on the go

but it might suck up too much battery time but i wouldn't think it would cost that much more to make in terms of parts and the extra processor and possibly slightly larger case to hold all that stuff

i think someday apple will have dual processor laptops once the battery issue gets solved to a manageable level

Makosuke
Feb 16, 2004, 11:52 AM
Wow, another ancient thread back from the dead. But, since it's alive now...

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i read that some clone back in the 90s had a quad powerpc mac but it was very expensive The company was called DayStar, and made a few different 4-processor, 604e-based towers. They ran between $5000 and $10,000, but were the ultimate in speed at the time. Apple (as well as Umax) also made dual processor 604e boxes back then--they just disappeared when they went G3 because those weren't multiprocessor capable.

Nowadays, I'd say there's at least a chance of a return to the quad processor Mac, if Apple decides to go workstation or maybe do a super-dense cluster node (four processors, only one hard drive or something). The 970FX makes it possible in terms of heat draw, but I wonder how big the market really is--they'd be expensive no matter how you look at it, and it's just not something there's a huge demand for.

The advances of the 970 and beyond, assuming IBM can keep the momentum up, are far more compelling even with dual processors than a four processor G4 ever would've been, and would make a four-processor G5 mostly unnecessary as well.

By the way, jefhatfield, if IBM can get the 970FX running at reasonable clock rates with a laptop-scale power draw, there's absolutely no reason for Apple to go dual in it's laptops--what you've got then is a portable workstation, and while cool, I just don't think there's a big market for such a beast, since people wanting that much power are probably going to want all the other advantages of a tower. It'd also go entirely against Apple's laptop design philosophy of slim, elegant, and long battery life.

Mr. Anderson
Feb 16, 2004, 12:01 PM
as for why - its an old argument. If you do Video, 3D animation or anything that requires rendering, faster is better. And not everyone wants to have more than one machine in a distributed system. So having a quad processor would give you more bang for your bucks....

I'd love to have a 16 processor machine myself :D

D

HiRez
Feb 16, 2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Quixcube
Uh oh, the headless G5 iMac thread is spreading :) Just kidding... Yeah I understand what you want but I don't think there is much demand for an extremely gutted version of the xserve.Well now you've gone and made me create it! I call it the PowerNode. Come on, you know you want one!

http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/images/powernode_small.jpg

OK fine, so I was bored :p Here's a larger pic if you want to see it:

PowerNode Home Page (http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/)

Mr. Anderson
Feb 16, 2004, 01:27 PM
Ha, interesting concept....what'd you make it in?

D

gwuMACaddict
Feb 16, 2004, 01:28 PM
why do people still talk about water cooling...? the reason they use circulated air is because it releases the heat right out in to the environment... are these water cooled computers gonna come with a big ****ing water tank to recycle the heated water with colder water...? this topic comes up all the time... i don't get it... :mad:

Mr. Anderson
Feb 16, 2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict


why do people still talk about water cooling...?



Its more efficient and quieter than air cooling - but you need that radiator..... I don't ever see it happening, even though on some machines (super computers) have had it in the past.

You can also buy kits if you want to install it yourself :D

http://www.bigbruin.com/html/innovatek-xxs.htm

D

gwuMACaddict
Feb 16, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Its more efficient and quieter than air cooling - but you need that radiator..... I don't ever see it happening, even though on some machines (super computers) have had it in the past.

yes... more efficient (although there are lots of liquids more suitable for it than H2O), quieter (um, possibly? i guess it would depend on the circulation method and how they removed the heat from the water)... but for a laptop? or even a desktop? who wants to carry around an extra water tank? ugh...

HiRez
Feb 16, 2004, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Ha, interesting concept....what'd you make it in?Maxon Cinema 4D (exactly what I could use such a box for).

Opteron
Feb 16, 2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by HiRez
Well now you've gone and made me create it! I call it the PowerNode. Come on, you know you want one!

http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/images/powernode_small.jpg

OK fine, so I was bored :p Here's a larger pic if you want to see it:

PowerNode Home Page (http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/)

Well done, well done indeed. I would love to be able to design stuff like that.

jefhatfield
Feb 16, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Makosuke


By the way, jefhatfield, if IBM can get the 970FX running at reasonable clock rates with a laptop-scale power draw, there's absolutely no reason for Apple to go dual in it's laptops--what you've got then is a portable workstation, and while cool, I just don't think there's a big market for such a beast, since people wanting that much power are probably going to want all the other advantages of a tower. It'd also go entirely against Apple's laptop design philosophy of slim, elegant, and long battery life.

G5 laptop? hey, i am all for it but not sure it will come out thtat soon

in the meantime, a dual G4 can be possible, and be sleek, but the battery time is what may be hard to get around ;)

...but if it could be done, it would be a great stopgap measure if it takes a year from now to get the G5 into a laptop