Quad PowerMacs? [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..

Well, all native Mac OS X GUI applications spawn more than one thread. While it's true that most of these threads are typically idle, it does mean that you have less interrupting whatever thread is currently monopolizing a CPU and the potential to have far more happening at once productively. Of course for this to be truly productive you need an ultra wide memory system (current G5's dual channel ddr400 may do for light to medium work, but not for something like video editing in a quad system).

Remember - Mac OS X always has the CPUs in the box doing something and there is always something for them to do.

CmdrLaForge

Feb 27, 2004, 10:47 AM

I guess that this is not true. Its just like the rumors about dual processor powerbooks.

But on the other side. Maybe its true and then they would rock !

I see a little chance.

nate13

Feb 27, 2004, 10:52 AM

Ok, im no comp wiz so this may be totally wrong but... couldnt you assign a processor to different uses/ apps? And have certian apps marked to be assigned to a totally seperate processor?
ex:
#1-Core system/ finder
#2-Photoshop/ plugins
#3-Dreamweaver/ Fireworks
#4-All those other little apps (safari, mail, exct...)

but anyways, i hope apple is reading these roumer pages cause that would be a first in personal computing that would pretty much landmark apple.

tom.96

Feb 27, 2004, 10:53 AM

I might be wrong, but didn't moto bring out a quad proc mac when clones were around? I have a feeling it had four 132mhz procs or something similar.

Does anyone have any info on how this machine performed with Mac apps? I know it was a long time ago, but it would be interesting to know people's experiences with this.

Please note - this is only from my memory, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am!

praetorian_x

Feb 27, 2004, 10:55 AM

I'd prefer to see IBM getting the memory controller on the chip before they go to a quad architecture. The 970's have serious bandwidth, but if they are running them through a single memory controller we won't see the scaling that we would like.

See here for opteron scaling:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~70023,00.html

This is why pretty much everyone is accepting that embedded memory controllers are the way to go.

Anyway, I think the rumor is wrong. This just isn't low hanging fruit at this point. Dual cores would be a lot easier.

Cheers,
prat

wPod

Feb 27, 2004, 11:00 AM

isnt there some technology comming out where the chips have a dual core. . . thus you could get 4 procesors out of 2 chips? so that might be feasable. . . but the question would be why? are there really enough people who would buy that kind of power? or even use that kind of power?

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by nate13
Ok, im no comp wiz so this may be totally wrong but... couldnt you assign a processor to different uses/ apps? And have certian apps marked to be assigned to a totally seperate processor?
ex:
#1-Core system/ finder
#2-Photoshop/ plugins
#3-Dreamweaver/ Fireworks
#4-All those other little apps (safari, mail, exct...)

but anyways, i hope apple is reading these roumer pages cause that would be a first in personal computing that would pretty much landmark apple.

Mac OS X already does something like that - but dynamically. So if App A request 100% of the CPU, OS X will give it as much as it can. If there is more than one CPU, it may give that App the entire CPU. If it requests more than one CPU, it may give it as many as it can while still giving time to other apps.

The way it does this is with threads - an application can have more than one thread, and the OS schedules threads to CPUs, so if there is more than one CPU each thread can be on a different one. Threads compete for CPU resources, so when a thread doesn't need the CPU (which is most of the time for most threads) other threads can use the CPU. Eventually even threads that monopolize the CPU can't keep it forever though, so your system is always responsive.

Originally posted by tom.96
I might be wrong, but didn't moto bring out a quad proc mac when clones were around? I have a feeling it had four 132mhz procs or something similar.

Does anyone have any info on how this machine performed with Mac apps? I know it was a long time ago, but it would be interesting to know people's experiences with this.

Please note - this is only from my memory, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am!

Daystar (which actually created the original threading implementation on Mac OS 8) produced such a box with as many as 4 (I think) 166Mhz 604e CPUs.

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:04 AM

iriejedi

Feb 27, 2004, 11:04 AM

Beofre the duals came out someone lekaed/showed/faked? a screen shot of a prototype quad processor G5 (G4?)'s usage monitor application (an OS X utility).

I'm not sure of the actual name of the OS X program utility but it has system usage in the form of verticle "RPM" type gauge.

This one had 4 bars!!!!!

the duals have been out long enough that if this was a prototype back then... - then the rumor of the quad machine could be true...

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 11:06 AM

I guess I just dont see the need for 4 processors. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you are wanting a renderfarm in a box, there's really no need.

iriejedi

Feb 27, 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by agreenster
I guess I just dont see the need for 4 processors. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you are wanting a renderfarm in a box, there's really no need.

Bragging rights!

:cool:

0 and A ai

Feb 27, 2004, 11:09 AM

Number one reason why this is not true: BECAUSE ITS NOT NECESSARY

The dual 2 ghz g5 as it is now is great. and when the next revision comes out which is pretty much expected to top out at dual 2.5 it will most likely lay a smack down on a 3.4 p4. Also it most liekly isn't cost effective.

THis reminds me back in the day when we were stuck at 400mhz and 500mhz when this was more beleivalbe. not anymore though.

Ge4-ce

Feb 27, 2004, 11:11 AM

Knox

Feb 27, 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by wPod
isnt there some technology comming out where the chips have a dual core. . . thus you could get 4 procesors out of 2 chips? so that might be feasable. . . but the question would be why? are there really enough people who would buy that kind of power? or even use that kind of power?

Of course - just look at the number of people who were clamoring for G5s. There are a lot of places where simple raw power is essential, and the more the better - basically anything that deals with processing large amounts of data, eg image or video editing, scientific or database apps and so on.

With 4 processors/cores you're also going into a different market - no consumer would be interested in that sort of power (at least at the moment) but for business then definately. HP/Sun/IBM all sell servers with large numbers of CPUs in them, and while i doubt Apple would be even looking to compete with them if they release a >2 CPU, or dual-dual core, box, i can still see them being used for the slightly smaller applications.

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Daystar (which actually created the original threading implementation on Mac OS 8) produced such a box with as many as 4 (I think) 166Mhz 604e CPUs.

They went up to 4x 233Mhz it seems -

http://www.lowendmac.com/daystar/plus.html

DharvaBinky

Feb 27, 2004, 11:15 AM

Yes. This is in the roadmap.

Macs are, now, traditionally 2way smp (symmetric multiprocessor)... The IBM PPC 975 (or 976?) is suppsed to have SMT built in (what intel people call Hyperthreading). SMT presents a single processor to the OS as 2 virtual processors (the operating system can't tell the difference), and by mixing the instructions from 2 virtual processors you can keep the chip busier more of the time.

With this in mind, it seems that what they're talking about is a Dual PPC 975 system that has 4 virtual processors. I have Dual Xeon servers at work that appear as quads to windows. Same thing, I bet.

:)

Dharvabinky

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by iriejedi
I'm not sure of the actual name of the OS X program utility but it has system usage in the form of verticle "RPM" type gauge.

This one had 4 bars!!!!!

??

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by 0 and A ai
Number one reason why this is not true: BECAUSE ITS NOT NECESSARY

If necessary was the dominant force in the computer industry we wouldn't have machines as fast as they are now. The reality is that there is an ever present top end that always needs more speed - and they are what the industry builds toward. And the faster machines get, the more they want to do and the more they need even faster machines.

If Apple put out a Quad G5 there would be a large minority that would open their wallets wide for such a machine. Unfortunately the economies of scale wouldn't allow Apple to make them very cheaply so they wouldn't sell to very many. The fact that economically it is not feasible to make a Quad CPU box for under $3K is the biggest reason why Apple won't make one, not because no one would be able to use that much power.

macshark

Feb 27, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by praetorian_x
I'd prefer to see IBM getting the memory controller on the chip before they go to a quad architecture. The 970's have serious bandwidth, but if they are running them through a single memory controller we won't see the scaling that we would like.

See here for opteron scaling:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8796_8800~70023,00.html

This is why pretty much everyone is accepting that embedded memory controllers are the way to go.

Anyway, I think the rumor is wrong. This just isn't low hanging fruit at this point. Dual cores would be a lot easier.

Cheers,
prat

You are right, one of the challenges in being able to scale multiprocessor performance is memory bandwidth. Even with 4 processors, memory bandwidth could become a bottleneck if the same dual channel memory controller in the first PowerMac G5 is used. However, note that each 970 has its own bus, they are not sharing a bus like the Xeon systems, so by scaling the number of channels of the memory controller, it may be possible to come up with a quad-processor system that will have decent performance. This will require either a 4-channel memory controller (which would requires to be DIMMs to be installed in groups of four) or a DDR2 system running at a much higher speed (like 600MHz or 800MHz).

The 90nm G5 does seem to have manageable power consumption (around 40W) so putting 4 of these beasts in a PowerMac enclosure is possible. 4 90nm 970 would generate less heat than a dual Opteron system...

Quad processor could be an interesting platform for very CPU intensive media applications that can be parrallelized. For example, real time editing of MPEG4/H.264 or HD MPEG2 files, rendering of MPEG4 or HD content to DVD, etc.

ffakr

Feb 27, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Daystar (which actually created the original threading implementation on Mac OS 8) produced such a box with as many as 4 (I think) 166Mhz 604e CPUs.
I'm pretty sure Daystar got up to quad 225MHz. It was called an MP900 or some such thing. I lusted greatly after one. :-)

on a totally unrelated note... having an on die mem controller for a quad machine would require 4 banks of descrete (yet interlinked) memory, like the quad opterons. It would also mean extra HT (or HT like) links built into the CPU. It would be the best move for performance, but it would make the mac Much more expensive and it would make the motherboard much larger. Apple could, as an alternative, put in a quad channel (256 bit) memory interface, like you can find in bigger PC servers, and it would have lots of bandwidth. It'd also be a lot cheaper to design, build, and populate with memory.

DharvaBinky

Feb 27, 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by ffakr
I'm pretty sure Daystar got up to quad 225MHz. It was called an MP900 or some such thing. I lusted greatly after one. :-)

on a totally unrelated note... having an on die mem controller for a quad machine would require 4 banks of descrete (yet interlinked) memory, like the quad opterons. It would also mean extra HT (or HT like) links built into the CPU. It would be the best move for performance, but it would make the mac Much more expensive and it would make the motherboard much larger. Apple could, as an alternative, put in a quad channel (256 bit) memory interface, like you can find in bigger PC servers, and it would have lots of bandwidth. It'd also be a lot cheaper to design, build, and populate with memory.

mmmmmmmmmmmmccNUMA

:)

Dharvabinky

strider42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
At the very least it is interesting because it makes it cheaper to make Dual processor boxes (think consumer dualie). For pros it would be the best way to get quad CPU performance levels as well. The POWER5 based PPC is rumored to be dual core, so along with symmetric multithreading a pair of the chips could appear to be 8 CPUs to the OS, which could give some huge performance improvements.

I might be misremembering this, but isn't the power 4, the processor the 970 is based on, already dual core. just because the super expensive server chip is dual core really had no bearing on the consumer lines necessarily. If it occurs on the consumer chip lines, its going to come down to price and power consumption probably, not technical reasons. Dual core is not new technology. I think its pretty much garaunteed that the power5 will be dual core.

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Ge4-ce
I'm in 3D animation..

Yeah, me too.

I could see this technology being great for schools and studios, but not really for home use.

When was the last time you actually rendered 5 minutes of animation at once? I dont know about you, but when I finish a scene (usually under 30 seconds worth of animation) I just render it overnight and voila. Check it in the morning.

But hey, if they want to make dual core dual processor servers for renderfarms, more power to em.

mrsebastian

Feb 27, 2004, 11:21 AM

i'm no wiz either, but the thought occured to me that if you get the cpus to work together, would it not be possible to get very powerfull systems for less money? since they could use smaller/slower (ie: cheaper) and put them together, so you get the power of a g5, but for less cost? i dunno, sounded good though.

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by strider42
I might be misremembering this, but isn't the power 4, the processor the 970 is based on, already dual core. just because the super expensive server chip is dual core really had no bearing on the consumer lines necessarily. If it occurs on the consumer chip lines, its going to come down to price and power consumption probably, not technical reasons. Dual core is not new technology. I think its pretty much garaunteed that the power5 will be dual core.

Your right, the POWER4 is dual core. But I was referring to a future chip in the PPC space - the 980 or some such that was rumored to be a dual core chip as well. Should that come along next year in another year afterward it would probably be feasible to use it in a consumer machine. And your right, dual core is far from new, as it was on IBMs road map for the G4 before Motorola & Altivec more or less put IBM out of the G4 PPC business (for better or worse).

And the POWER5 IS dual core - I only mentioned it because the successor to the 970 is based on POWER5, so it should have SMT & may have a dual core design.

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by mrsebastian
i'm no wiz either, but the thought occured to me that if you get the cpus to work together, would it not be possible to get very powerfull systems for less money? since they could use smaller/slower (ie: cheaper) and put them together, so you get the power of a g5, but for less cost? i dunno, sounded good though.

Not likely. The problem with lots of slower CPUs is that the other costs associated with stringing together multiple CPUs out weight the cost of using a single very fast CPU. Assume for a moment than a 1.5Ghz G5 cost $125 each, vs a 2.5 Ghz G5 that cost $300 - so put 2 in a box for $250 right? But then all the other costs associated with getting them talking to each other than puts you over the $300 the single 2.5 cost you - so you've saved no money and may or may not have a faster machine.

bnemesis

Feb 27, 2004, 11:45 AM

Two words:

QUAD DAMAGE!!!

ZildjianKX

Feb 27, 2004, 12:02 PM

I think this is one of the dumbest rumors I've heard in awhile... On the other hand, I think future G5 processors should have hyperthreading like P4s...

vpalvarez

Feb 27, 2004, 12:02 PM

lets see 4 2.5 ghz G5s would make ... oh my .... 10ghz!!!

I think the boys at intel are going to 'soil' themselves if this rumor comes true. Even if it happens in 12-18 months.

bousozoku

Feb 27, 2004, 12:03 PM

JoeRadar

Feb 27, 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..
Just from my personal observations, Apple seems to be coming on strong (again) in universities and other technical areas (e.g., physics, bio-informatics, etc.). In these areas "workstations", not just personal computers, that can seriously crunch data has a lot of value, and much of the software can take advantage of multiple processors.

Also, software in graphics, from 3D animation to film processing to photoshop, can probably take good advantage of multiple processors.

In short, many of the areas where Apple already enjoys a fair amount of support are well placed to support a four or more processor workstations.

Still, I am not inclined to believe this rumor at this time.

restiffbard

Feb 27, 2004, 12:14 PM

rather than more procs or even more gigahertz I'd prefer to see better video cards in Macs. A comparison review in the most recently available (in the U.S.) issue of Digit poo-pooed the dual G5 for one reason, poor video performance.

DaveGee

Feb 27, 2004, 12:19 PM

This report **could** just be a misunderstanding.

I've heard reports (not online but via friends who would know) that a dual core PPC (in the 9xx family) is being worked on - who knows if it's destined for Apple but none the less it is being worked on...

So if you take that into account and add to it a liberal dose of imagination... Take a dual core 9xx cpu in a dual cpu box configuration and you'd pretty much have a 4 cpu box. (for all the tech geeks I repeat "pretty much")

Then again this report **could** also be someone just having some fun...

Either way.. 4 individual single core CPUs (todays 970 class CPUs that is - not the stuff used in the daystar boxes from how many years ago...) in a single box just ain't gonna happen. A 130nm 970 or even a 90nm 970 is just too large and hot to pack 4 in a box... A 9xx class 65nm CPU available sometime in the next two/three/four? years... okay maybe... But not a chance 'today'.

Just my .02 cents

Dave

encro

Feb 27, 2004, 12:26 PM

Apple would never be that nice to us.

Sorry Kids, I think this one will remain a part of someones imagination for at least 4 years.

srobert

Feb 27, 2004, 12:40 PM

The more and more I see rumors like this and the cool X-Serve and X-serve apps coming out, I think Apple should try their hands at developping a render farm.

Frobozz

Feb 27, 2004, 12:47 PM

Anything beyond two processors will be in the shape of an xServe cluster. If people want to add horsepower to their machines, Apple has clearly indicated xServe modules as the answer. Add as many as you like/need...

It doesn't make sense to have a quad processor desktop when 2 decently-clocked PowerMac G5's are faster than anything in the PC world.

Frobozz

Feb 27, 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by DaveGee
This report **could** just be a misunderstanding.

I've heard reports (not online but via friends who would know) that a dual core PPC (in the 9xx family) is being worked on - who knows if it's destined for Apple but none the less it is being worked on...

So if you take that into account and add to it a liberal dose of imagination... Take a dual core 9xx cpu in a dual cpu box configuration and you'd pretty much have a 4 cpu box. (for all the tech geeks I repeat "pretty much")

Then again this report **could** also be someone just having some fun...

Either way.. 4 individual single core CPUs (todays 970 class CPUs that is - not the stuff used in the daystar boxes from how many years ago...) in a single box just ain't gonna happen. A 130nm 970 or even a 90nm 970 is just too large and hot to pack 4 in a box... A 9xx class 65nm CPU available sometime in the next two/three/four? years... okay maybe... But not a chance 'today'.

Just my .02 cents

Dave

This sounds much more plausible. I've heard of the 976's being dual core and they will certainly be used as the "G6".

EscCtrlPigUp

Feb 27, 2004, 12:55 PM

srobert

Feb 27, 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by EscCtrlPigUp
Here it is...time for us all to start drooling...

http://www.lowendmac.com/daystar/genesis.html

Ouch! $12,000 for a desktop! At that price point, I might buy myself 2 or 3 X-Serves instead. ^_^

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by vpalvarez
lets see 4 2.5 ghz G5s would make ... oh my .... 10ghz!!!

I think the boys at intel are going to 'soil' themselves if this rumor comes true. Even if it happens in 12-18 months.

This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very well.

andyduncan

Feb 27, 2004, 01:31 PM

The fact that the "source" claims Apple is reviving the Quadra name is enough to push this onto page 3.

Honestly. What would be next? A Power Macintosh G5 IIvx?

Maybe an LCiMac?

How about a Powerbook Portable?

Of course, a quad Processor machine would be a workstation worthy of a high-end graphics card. A Quadro in a Quadra anyone?

Puhleaze.

wHo_tHe

Feb 27, 2004, 01:36 PM

I'm amazed at the apparent lack of creative thinking here. Faster computers have tons of applications for consumers. More performance leads to new technologies like accurate, real-time voice recognition (without speaking loudly or slowly), or advanced image analysis (imagine an option in iPhoto to "find all photos of this person" in a library).

People who say we don't need more or faster processors are as short-sighted as Bill Gates saying nobody needs more than 640k of memory. And on a Mac message board, too. For shame. ;)

vpalvarez

Feb 27, 2004, 01:37 PM

hose this!

Feb 27, 2004, 01:50 PM

I'd shell out big bucks for a faster machine. How could this possibly be a bad thing? This thread reminds me of all those people on this board who say we should be happy with the speeds of the latest PowerBooks and why on earth would we want a more powerful machine? Well, because I do a bit more than just post 3 pg messages comparing my Apple to a spiffy BMW or Mercedes, that's why.

-Angry Mac Fan

BaghdadBob

Feb 27, 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
I guess I just dont see the need for 4 processors. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you are wanting a renderfarm in a box, there's really no need.
Yes...yes...let me say it again myself..."Render farm in a box..."

Excellent.

I'll take two.

army_guy

Feb 27, 2004, 02:28 PM

Dont expect it to be cheap $10k-$15k, and also it wont be a consumer machine. More likely it will be used for the Xserves not for the Powermac destops. I should also note QUAD CPU Opteron with AGP is shipping March 1st 2004 from Appro its not a consumer machine though.

Quote "This server is ideal for compute-intensive graphics application such as mechanical and engineering graphics simulation and rendering, scientific visualization, digital content creation and more"

Link http://www.appro.com/product/server_4145h.asp

and ship date.

ennerseed

Feb 27, 2004, 02:36 PM

please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, did i say please.

army_guy

Feb 27, 2004, 02:40 PM

Unless you people can spend that kind of money without blinking then QUAD CPU machines are not for you.

Grimace

Feb 27, 2004, 02:55 PM

well, the Dual 2Ghz G5 blew a few people's minds - maybe they will release a quad 2.5Ghz as the top of the line option. Or BTO, 2 or 4 Processors.

neilw

Feb 27, 2004, 03:11 PM

I don't buy it. It'll likely require significant new chip work on Apple's end, and there are much higher priority items on their list right now (PowerBook G5, iMac G5). It would be cool, and I have no doubt that they'd sell some of them, but given the difficulty they seem to be having producing timely updates to the core product line, I'd hate to see them divert significant resources to something focused on so narrow a market.

I know Apple has multiple teams of engineers, but this is something that would require a lot of work.

Of course, if this rumor really refers to the future availability of dual processors with either dual core or hyperthreading, then that I believe (and I do think we'll see that next year sometime.)

army_guy

Feb 27, 2004, 03:11 PM

If the rumor is true the QUAD machine will be for the xserve not the desktops. A quad machine with an AGP slot has only been attemped by AMD and the OEMS only now are finishing the boards off.

Photorun

Feb 27, 2004, 03:34 PM

Bitchin! This would be great. Yes, the average consumer wouldn't need or care but where time is money, I know people who do 3D, if the machines were priced at $10,000 and the cost of getting a frame done could be halved they'd pay for themsevles.

And think if Apple could make OS X multithread to four, who, and I think it's snappy now on my G5 1.8 DP! Aha, another point, I test drove a 1.8 SP vs. a 1.8 DP, I didn't necessarily need two processors was my line of thought, my primary apps are Illustrator and Photoshop. I did some home backed tests to find the 1.8 DP machine was quicker in everything, not just DP aware apps. In some cases only a smidge faster, in some cases quite a bit. This even in Illustrator (actions) which, to my knowledge, AI isn't a DP aware app, it just was quicker becauese with two processors you machine can focus on more tasks easier.

Frohickey

Feb 27, 2004, 03:39 PM

gekko513

Feb 27, 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Anything beyond two processors will be in the shape of an xServe cluster. If people want to add horsepower to their machines, Apple has clearly indicated xServe modules as the answer. Add as many as you like/need...

It doesn't make sense to have a quad processor desktop when 2 decently-clocked PowerMac G5's are faster than anything in the PC world.
It makes sense for some applications that are multithreaded but need access to shared memory.

Databases and web-servers are two examples.

Quad Xeon servers usually cost from $15000. If Apple made a Quad G5 Workstation/Server in the $5000-$15000 range, they could do very well.

ZildjianKX

Feb 27, 2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Photorun
Bitchin! This would be great. Yes, the average consumer wouldn't need or care but where time is money, I know people who do 3D, if the machines were priced at $10,000 and the cost of getting a frame done could be halved they'd pay for themsevles.

And think if Apple could make OS X multithread to four, who, and I think it's snappy now on my G5 1.8 DP! Aha, another point, I test drove a 1.8 SP vs. a 1.8 DP, I didn't necessarily need two processors was my line of thought, my primary apps are Illustrator and Photoshop. I did some home backed tests to find the 1.8 DP machine was quicker in everything, not just DP aware apps. In some cases only a smidge faster, in some cases quite a bit. This even in Illustrator (actions) which, to my knowledge, AI isn't a DP aware app, it just was quicker becauese with two processors you machine can focus on more tasks easier.

Actually the DP 1.8 machine is noticeably faster than the SP 1.8 for one main reason... the hard drive used. The hard drive in the DP 1.8 (and probably the currently shipping DP 2.0 machines) is no longer the Seagate Barracuda.

I lot of people were stunned when they benchmarked the DP 1.8 and the DP 2.0 and the DP 1.8 edged it out in some tests since the hard drive was actually a lot faster.

HiRez

Feb 27, 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Yes...yes...let me say it again myself..."Render farm in a box..."

Excellent.

I'll take two. Me too! What you really want is the PowerNode G5 (http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/)!
http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/images/powernode_small.jpg

HiRez

Feb 27, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very well. That's not necessarily true. What you say is only true for non-MP-aware apps. If you're running MS Word, then yes, you have a 2 GHz machine. But many high-end apps can take advantage. Cinema4D, for example, can get over 180% performance on a dual G5 as on a single, so if that's your main app, then you do have, for all intents and purposes, a 3.6 Ghz+ PowerMac. You'll rarely see 200% efficiency from a single app, but some can come close to it. Not only that, but Mac OS X itself is pervasively multithreaded and MP-aware, giving you better than 2 GHz performance for some tasks.

FlamDrag

Feb 27, 2004, 04:21 PM

If they priced them at $200 they would fly off the shelves. :rolleyes:

j_maddison

Feb 27, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by wHo_tHe
I'm amazed at the apparent lack of creative thinking here. Faster computers have tons of applications for consumers. More performance leads to new technologies like accurate, real-time voice recognition (without speaking loudly or slowly), or advanced image analysis (imagine an option in iPhoto to "find all photos of this person" in a library).

People who say we don't need more or faster processors are as short-sighted as Bill Gates saying nobody needs more than 640k of memory. And on a Mac message board, too. For shame. ;)

That has to be the most inteligent thing I've ever read on here, and there are some bright people on this board!

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 04:33 PM

Some_Big_Spoon:
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..

This is absolutely not true. The OS is already multi processor aware. It is true that anything that isn't MP aware only uses 1 CPU, but you can get two non-MP apps running simultaneously thanks to the OS. So your statement is wrong. It will be faster just not by a factor of 2.

With SMP [t]here is a 3-10% overhead for coordinating EACH CPU. So 2 processors does not equal 2x as fast, but at worst maybe 1.9x as fast. There is a limit of diminishing returns. This is why you pay big bucks for 1024 CPU devices from IBM.

Originally posted by agreenster :
This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very wel

This is also misleading. You are right in your last statement, but two processors at 2 GHz is why we can keep up with faster clocked intel P4s. There is no way a single 2GHz G5 can keep up with a single 3.2 GHz P4.

DharvaBinky:
Macs are, now, traditionally 2way smp (symmetric multiprocessor)... The IBM PPC 975 (or 976?) is suppsed to have SMT built in (what intel people call Hyperthreading). SMT presents a single processor to the OS as 2 virtual processors (the operating system can't tell the difference), and by mixing the instructions from 2 virtual processors you can keep the chip busier more of the time.

The dual core technology from IBM is absolutely NOT hyperthreading. It is the real deal. Dual core is just that, two identical single cores on the same dye. Hyperthreading is just clever ordering of the commands sent to the cpu done through software. Traditionally, there are wasteful "bubbles" where clock cycles are wasted. Hyper threading fills the bubbles, and give the appearence of a second CPU without any computational benifit (<5% the last time I've seen numbers).

DharvaBinky:
With this in mind, it seems that what they're talking about is a Dual PPC 975 system that has 4 virtual processors. I have Dual Xeon servers at work that appear as quads to windows. Same thing, I bet.

You may be right about 4 processors being a two dual core 975 system, but, again, it is not the same as the smoke and mirrors win-tel technology. It is the real thing.

MSCONVERT

Mac user since OSX.1

Ge4-ce

Feb 27, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
Yeah, me too.

I could see this technology being great for schools and studios, but not really for home use.

When was the last time you actually rendered 5 minutes of animation at once? I dont know about you, but when I finish a scene (usually under 30 seconds worth of animation) I just render it overnight and voila. Check it in the morning.

But hey, if they want to make dual core dual processor servers for renderfarms, more power to em.

Well, I usually work like that too ofcourse, but it's just a matter of speaking... I could also have said "with a Quad G5 I could consider radiosity as an option" but then the ones not familiar with 3D wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about..

wizard

Feb 27, 2004, 04:41 PM

Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes.

No really; you have dual core technology coming so a quad processor will be childs play.

As to why that is also simple, the Mac OS has developed to the point where it has the ability to manage thousands of threads and processes. Having real processors available to run those real tasks makes the machine much more responsive. Even for the user that only makes use of a one or two applications at a time will benefit as the vast amjority of the applicaitons being writen for the MAC are now multithreaded.

There certainly are enough people available to buy that power, especially if that power is delivered in a desktop machine at desktop prices. But that is today, in the future when just about evey program will be heavily threaded there will be huge advantages to having four or more processors in your machine. I forsee a huge explosion in the capability of games for example. The increased computing resources and the additional memory cpability will present us with a whole new generation of games.

Yes people will use that sort of power. There are many a scientist and researcher that may not be able to afford a cluster but can afford a desktop. Just in this catagory there would be huge demand. On top of that and the games previously mentioned, just about any machine functioning as a server would benefit. Anybody running Java apps would benefit .

It amazes me that people seem to thinke that we have reached some sort of performance summit that no one needs to scale over. We are a long ways from the end of the climb.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by wPod
isnt there some technology comming out where the chips have a dual core. . . thus you could get 4 procesors out of 2 chips? so that might be feasable. . . but the question would be why? are there really enough people who would buy that kind of power? or even use that kind of power?

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by msconvert
This is also misleading. You are right in your last statement, but two processors at 2 GHz is why we can keep up with faster clocked intel P4s. There is no way a single 2GHz G5 can keep up with a single 3.2 GHz P4.

Well, a single 2Ghz G5 does keep up with/spank a 3.2 Ghz P4 for quite a few things :D. Not all, but quite a few.

Hyperthreading is just clever ordering of the commands sent to the cpu done through software. Traditionally, there are wasteful "bubbles" where clock cycles are wasted. Hyper threading fills the bubbles, and give the appearence of a second CPU without any computational benifit (<5% the last time I've seen numbers).

Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT - but the P4 does a really poor job at it, with as you say generally <5% benefit. But if it were done in software you wouldn't see any benefit at all :).

0 and A ai

Feb 27, 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
If necessary was the dominant force in the computer industry we wouldn't have machines as fast as they are now. The reality is that there is an ever present top end that always needs more speed - and they are what the industry builds toward. And the faster machines get, the more they want to do and the more they need even faster machines.

I meant neccesary from apples perspective.

Frohickey

Feb 27, 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by FlamDrag
If they priced them at $200 they would fly off the shelves. :rolleyes:

Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 05:14 PM

Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT

What I should have said was on chip but external to the core and not software. Yes it happens on the chip, so I will give you hardware.

Again, this is very subtle. BUT HT is not SMP. On a single CPU machine there are bubbles in the instructions sent to the core. With Hyperthreading, "software on the chip" evaluates the priority of threads and changes the order of which set of instructions need to be performed. When a bubble is anticipated, the instructions from another thread are stuck in to the space of the bubble. In some cases, HT will even delay the main thread to take advantage of the bubble caused by the secondary thread. So now you get two threads moving throught the ONE CPU at the same time.

So, you get to keep you speed of the single CPU and you gain a processor with the speed determined by how INEFFICIENT the original CPU instuction ordering really was. This is why it is only 5% - the average rate of bubbles sent to P4s.

With true dual core SMP, similar choices are made about the most efficient way to process threads being sent to the "core", but the extra core is at the full speed and not the size of the bubble. Again, this is why Dual G5s perform nearly 95% faster than single G5s, where P4w/HT only get 5% than P4w/oHT.

MSCONVERT

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

Sure you can! (see Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft). Apple would just have to charge a $150 license fee for each piece of software you buy to run on it...

But heck a quad G5 would fly off the shelves at $4K-$5K, there are just some people that would buy power at any cost (no, I don't think a quad G5 would be $10K+). But there are also a good number of people that would settle for the low end at the same time. Me? I'd love to have any G5 right now (being broke sucks) but what I really want is a Holodeck and that'll take more than just a quad G5 to do anyway. Oh well... maybe someday :D

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by msconvert
With true dual core SMP, similar choices are made about the most efficient way to process threads being sent to the "core", but the extra core is at the full speed and not the size of the bubble. Again, this is why Dual G5s perform nearly 95% faster than single G5s, where P4w/HT only get 5% than P4w/oHT.

Ok, we're talking about different things :). Your talking about Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) and I'm talking about Symmetric Multithreading (SMT). HT is an SMT implementation - the running of 2 threads in a single core. SMP is OS level and involves sharing the CPU with multiple threads. Both are valid technologies, but the P4 simply sucks at SMT while IBM's Power5 has some very interesting pre-release results on improvements with it. The Power5 is also a dual core (as the Power4 before it) so it lets you do SMP & SMT on one chip - 4 CPUs as far as the OS thinks. Dual P4 (Xeon really) performs much faster than single P4 but I don't think that Windows is as good at SMP as OS X is, but that may depend on the version as much as anything else.

HiRez

Feb 27, 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT - but the P4 does a really poor job at it, with as you say generally <5% benefit. It depends on the app. Cinema4D renders seem to gain a consistent 17%-19% from Hyperthreading on a P4, using Cinebench:

http://www.imashination.com/bench.html

Of course it's no substitute for dual processors, but it's a significant gain if you're rendering something that'll take hours or days.

g30ffr3y

Feb 27, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

i think the original post was sarcasm... ; )

i have no real use for such a thing as a quad machine... but by god i'd sure want one!!!

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 05:32 PM

Your talking about Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) and I'm talking about Symmetric Multithreading (SMT)

Ah, see the difference is subtle. 'T/P' Agreed, HT is not SMP. It would be really silly to not include SMT/(bubble filling) in a dual core (SMP) chip. Lets hope that the dual core G5 inherit from the Power5.

HiRez

Feb 27, 2004, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by msconvert
Ah, see the difference is subtle. 'T/P' Agreed, HT is not SMP. It would be really silly to not include SMT/(bubble filling) in a dual core (SMP) chip. Lets hope that the dual core G5 inherit from the Power5. But, will the gains be less dramatic on the G5/G6 architecture? What I mean is, as I understand it the P4 has a very long pipeline. That means more bubbles and with larger penalties for them. The G5/G6, having shorter pipelines, should have better efficiency to begin with, meaning that filling bubbles might not yield incredible gains. Yes/no?

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 05:40 PM

It depends on the app. Cinema4D renders seem to gain a consistent 17%-19% from Hyperthreading on a P4, using Cinebench:

It depends on your perspective. The instructions being asked of the P4 by Cinebench are just inefficient by more than 17-19%. The CPU is having a performance hit because of all the NOOPs in the pipeline. HT gives some of that back wich you already had. You can't get something for nothing, without HT you were being robbed by poor instruction sets.

johnpaul191

Feb 27, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

i guess you have never heard of the Playstation or Xbox. they are sold at a loss.

i know, i know... they make it back (in theory) by licensing deals on the games and accessories, but each individual box is a loss for the company.

Bear

Feb 27, 2004, 05:47 PM

I suspect Apple does have a 4 processor machine in their lab and probably has had it for a while. When they might start selling one is another story.

My reasoning is that going beyond 2 processors in a machine requires a lot more work in cleaning up the OS Kernel. Also, any work done with that makes the kernel run that much better on a dual processor system.

As for how much one might cost, I suspect less than double a what a dual processor system costs. I'd say with the dual 2GHz G5 being $3000 US, a quad processor system would come in around $5000 US at most.

Who would buy one? Well anybody who does animation rendering, DVD encoding, etc.

Would I buy one? Probably. At times it wouldn't get bogged down, at other times I'd probably keep it very busy. As it stands, my next Powermac is liable to be a dual 3GHz G5 with at least 4GB of RAM. And yes, I really do need that much RAM. Heck, if I could add more RAM to my current Powermac that would be great.

I guess my one major point here is please remember that if you can't use something, someone else might be able to. Just buy what you need and can aford and let those who need bigger systems buy them

Bear

Feb 27, 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by johnpaul191
i guess you have never heard of the Playstation or Xbox. they are sold at a loss.

i know, i know... they make it back (in theory) by licensing deals on the games and accessories, but each individual box is a loss for the company. Actually there might not be as much of a loss on them now. Manufacturing costs did go down and such.

However, when the main selling point is the hardware, Apple can't afford to take a loss on the sale.

Rincewind42

Feb 27, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by HiRez
But, will the gains be less dramatic on the G5/G6 architecture? What I mean is, as I understand it the P4 has a very long pipeline. That means more bubbles and with larger penalties for them. The G5/G6, having shorter pipelines, should have better efficiency to begin with, meaning that filling bubbles might not yield incredible gains. Yes/no?

My understanding is that with the G5 currently there is an incredible under usage of the processor's functional units. Not bubbles per se, but the fact that half the units go unused at times because there are just so many of them. So the G5 still has room to do more work and SMT would help greatly with that. And the Power5 (basis for the G6 more than likely) which will have SMT will also iirc have more execution units per core, so it would benefit even more from SMT.

If you look at the G5 now, it can dispatch up to 5 instructions per cycle, but has 8 (I think more) units that can be doing work, and which mostly do their work in a single cycle (probably some 75%+ of PPC instructions are 1 cycle execution). Having two threads pushing instructions through such a core would make for lots of speed gains.

Bear

Feb 27, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Anything beyond two processors will be in the shape of an xServe cluster. If people want to add horsepower to their machines, Apple has clearly indicated xServe modules as the answer. Add as many as you like/need...

It doesn't make sense to have a quad processor desktop when 2 decently-clocked PowerMac G5's are faster than anything in the PC world. Actually in most cases, a quad processor system will be much faster than 2 dual proc xServes in a cluster.

As for what's faster, AMD is not sleeping and there will be plenty of makers of quad opteron systems.

I think a Quad G5 system is a good thing for Apple.

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by johnpaul191
i guess you have never heard of the Playstation or Xbox. they are sold at a loss.

Going out on a limb here, but my suspicions are that apple has yet to pay off any investment in OSX. I'd go as far to say that the OS is being sold at a loss and that Apple can't take a loss on the hardware AND the software.

MSCONVERT

frankzeg

Feb 27, 2004, 06:44 PM

Although it would seem unlikely that Apple would really pursue a quad machine there are some temptations. Apple has not been resoundingly successful in the low-end mass market but does currently have some interesting leverage at the high end with the G5. There are numerous engineering tools such as Pro-E and Ideas which kill even a high end workstation as models get above a certain size. A lot of time is spent staring at an unmoving screen. And the unadulterated Unix OS with those machines is not all that user friendly when it comes to working with MS applications- at least as compared to OSX. With a stable OS, clear MS compatibility and a super-fast machine it is conceivable that Apple could actually make inroads in the high end workstation - if the developers could see some motivation to make their tools function on the Mac. Given the constant costly overhead of dealing with Windows viruses and the like, if there was a clear, confirmed performance advantage to the Mac system the potential exists for corporate EIS organizations to reconsider the Mac as a viable platform. This is probably a pipe dream but you never know. I think about Pixar.....

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by HiRez
That's not necessarily true. ... But many high-end apps can take advantage. Cinema4D, for example, can get over 180% performance on a dual G5 as on a single, so if that's your main app, then you do have, for all intents and purposes, a 3.6 Ghz+ PowerMac.

Right, but what tasks are you talking about? Rendering? Sure, when rendering a scene, C4D will devote one processor to half the image and the other half to the other processor (I used to use C4D all the time) which will cut the rendering time in half. But thats not really going to give you 3.6ghz processors, its still giving you 2ghz processors that divide the work up better. (multitask)

In Maya, 2 processors mean one processor for smoothshading and the other for wireframe, so in theory actual response time in the gui may be quicker. (read this one time at www.alias.com) Still, thats just divide and conquer.

Argue it all you want, but 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 +2.5 does not equal 10gHz. It would still be a 2ghz machine that multitasks so well that it might compete as a 6-7 ghz. Although, I would bet that the more processors you add, the less effect they would have. (law of diminishing returns)

Oh,and BTW, I wouldnt call Cinema4D a "high end app" ;)

ZildjianKX

Feb 27, 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by msconvert
Going out on a limb here, but my suspicions are that apple has yet to pay off any investment in OSX. I'd go as far to say that the OS is being sold at a loss and that Apple can't take a loss on the hardware AND the software.

MSCONVERT

How is Apple selling their OS at a loss if probably the number one reason people buy Apple's hardware is to run their OS on it? If everyone went out and pirated the Apple OS, it doesn't matter that much in the sense that they're running it on hardware that they paid Apple for. Now if everyone did that for windows, that's another story. I believe that's one of the main reason is that there is no anti-piracy protection in OS X... since there is no reason to. In the end, Apple made their $$$.

mdriftmeyer

Feb 27, 2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
I guess I just dont see the need for 4 processors. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you are wanting a renderfarm in a box, there's really no need.

I don't know about you but if I'm hosting Web Apps I'd like to let one CPU running Apache Tomcat/Cocoon lock down that CPU and spawn 100s even 1000s of threaded instances of Web Apps.

If I'm doing Real-Time Video Editing you have to lock down one CPU to do just or it's not in Real-Time.

There are myriad reasons for this but if you like multithreading via just a single CPU then so be it.

HiRez

Feb 27, 2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
Right, but what tasks are you talking about? Rendering? Sure, when rendering a scene, C4D will devote one processor to half the image and the other half to the other processor (I used to use C4D all the time) which will cut the rendering time in half. But thats not really going to give you 3.6ghz processors, its still giving you 2ghz processors that divide the work up better. (multitask)That's not multitasking, that's multithreading. In this case, the threads are split across processors. My point is that if your machine happens to spend 90% of it's time rendering (or calculating protein folding or whatever), then dual processors are just as good as a faster machine. If they do the job nearly twice as fast, you can term the internal workings however you want, but there's no difference to me, it's faster. But yes, a single 4 GHz G5 would be preferable, I agree (because of, as you mention, tasks with are not MT/MP-aware). I wish there were one to buy.Originally posted by agreenster
Oh,and BTW, I wouldnt call Cinema4D a "high end app" ;) Well you might be surprised if you haven't used it for a while, it's quite capable now and is beginning to sport some very high-end features, some of which even Maya doesn't have. Streamlined workflow, a pretty and fast stock raytracer, and rock-solid stability are still its best features though, IMO. I find Cinema much faster for certain kinds of things and Maya better for others. But anyway, same deal with MP Maya rendering...

msconvert

Feb 27, 2004, 10:02 PM

How is Apple selling their OS at a loss if probably the number one reason people buy Apple's hardware is to run their OS on it? If everyone went out and pirated the Apple OS, it doesn't matter that much in the sense that they're running it on hardware that they paid Apple for. Now if everyone did that for windows, that's another story. I believe that's one of the main reason is that there is no anti-piracy protection in OS X... since there is no reason to. In the end, Apple made their $$$.

This is way off topic, but here goes:

10 Million copies of OSX have sold as of Feb. Apple has sold some 7 million computers in the last two years. But we don't know their cost, but indirectly we can look at the retail sales numbers to get an idea. So 3 million retail boxes were sold most likely through dealers. Cheapest I saw OSX sold was $69 so divide that by 2 to get the actual box cost to dealers (standard mark up 100% for retail software). Actual profit for apple is probably 50 to 75% of that. So at best apple keeps $30 per box.

Lets be generous and say that apple makes $50 per box and be more generous that the cost is included in the cost of each machine. So that is at most $500 million in sales for the OS.

Apple bought NeXT from Jobs for $400 million just about 8 years ago.

Looking at the last 8 years of OS RD on the 10-K forms submitted by Apple to the SEC, they spent as little as, $10 but more like $20 million each year for OS development. That is an additional $160 million in costs.

Lets not forget the loss costs on developing Rhapsody that didn't sell one copy.

So maybe my statement of selling at a loss is far from damning but it is hardly week. Even with a generosity factor of 66%, giving an over estimate total os sales of $500 million, it doesn't cover the published $560 million for development.

The profitability of the OS is far from certain, hence me saying, I am going out on a limb. The point of the poster was to sell a cheap machine at a loss. If your highest volume machine is sold at a loss as is the software on it, how does Apple stay in business?

agreenster

Feb 27, 2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by HiRez
That's not multitasking, that's multithreading.

Okay okay. I stand corrected. Multithreading...I agree that four processors are better than two. But its still a misnomer that the mHz of a quad machine = the speed of the single processor x 4.

And yes, I have heard some things about C4D, and that its made some improvements. (I havent used it since XL7) But its nowhere close to the industry standard: Maya.

C4D was one of the first to use "hyperNurbs," which is still great (called smooth Proxy in Maya) and I remember the renderer was pretty decent. But the interface and character setup was so much slower. Character animation in Maya FLIES.

But anyway...

ffakr

Feb 27, 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by j_maddison
Originally posted by wHo_tHe
I'm amazed at the apparent lack of creative thinking here. Faster computers have tons of applications for consumers. More performance leads to new technologies like accurate, real-time voice recognition (without speaking loudly or slowly), or advanced image analysis (imagine an option in iPhoto to "find all photos of this person" in a library).

People who say we don't need more or faster processors are as short-sighted as Bill Gates saying nobody needs more than 640k of memory. And on a Mac message board, too. For shame

That has to be the most inteligent thing I've ever read on here, and there are some bright people on this board!

Actually, that's FAR from the most intelligent thing I've ever read on here.
Faster processors do lead to new technologies. Imagine something like iPhoto, or Garageband if we were still using machines that were on par with a 486.
On the other hand, the thought that a quad processor G5 would bring advanced to typical users is rediculous. Home users will Never have quad processor G5s unless they have really small, *ahem*.. thingies.. or maybe if their home Graphics or Research business would greatly benefit from it. [It would be a boon to all those home Computational Chemists. ;-)]
A Quad processor G5, though really swank, would be physically big. It would be very expensive. It would require much more power to run and it would generate much more waste heat. It'd even, very likely, generate more noise. It's not a machine that would find a niche in a typical home.

I agree that we would all benefit from faster machines, though I have to point out that for the typical user the current machines are currently FASTER than what is required by most people. Do you think that having 4GHz P4s or 3GHz G5s today would significanlty change most people's computing experience? Would they read their email faster or even browse the web faster? Would they type their Word docs faster? The fact is, todays hardware is ahead of the software in all but a few very processor intensive applications like Video. Even most photoshop operations are instantanious unless you are working on enormous production quality images, and then it's still blazingly fast. Long gone are the days were you'd apply a filter and walk across the street for a snack.

and.. ahem.
Bill Gates never said that we'd never need more than 640K. That's an internet myth.

Ge4-ce

Feb 28, 2004, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by agreenster

And yes, I have heard some things about C4D, and that its made some improvements. (I havent used it since XL7) But its nowhere close to the industry standard: Maya.

C4D was one of the first to use "hyperNurbs," which is still great (called smooth Proxy in Maya) and I remember the renderer was pretty decent. But the interface and character setup was so much slower. Character animation in Maya FLIES.

But anyway...

It really depends on what you want actually. You forget about Newtek's Lightwave 3D, wich has an encridible good renderer even exceding Maya's with a lot of professional features not implemented in many apps..

You have to put a lot of effort in Maya before you get good results. In Lightwave, it goes a little bit easier. (still hard)

All other 3D apps I know off, .. going from very good toys to pretty bad toys..

Not to mention even that C4D is way more expensive than LW 7.5 or 8.. All the seperate modules are build in in LW 8 for 1599 $ while you have to buy the Studio version of C4D to get the same (and it isn't that good as LW either) you pay 2500 $ !!

army_guy

Feb 28, 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by ffakr
That has to be the most inteligent thing I've ever read on here, and there are some bright people on this board!

Never have quad processor G5s unless they have really small, *ahem*.. thingies.. or maybe if their home Graphics or Research business would greatly benefit from it. [It would be a boon to all those home Computational Chemists. ;-)]
A Quad processor G5, though really swank, would be physically big. It would be very expensive. It would require much more power to run and it would generate much more waste heat. It'd even, very likely, generate more noise. It's not a machine that would find a niche in a typical home.

[/QUOTE]

Try massive not big, typical QUAD chassis are 27" deep in a 4u/5u width, imagine 4 of those G5 heatsinks, also 2 PSU's (500W/600W each) as a 600W is not enough for a QUAD system and also alot more fans hence more noise. Iam planning on the QUAD Opteron end of the year but it will definetly be completly liquid cooled (CPUS, VIDEO, CHIPSET, PSU's) and will require alot of work to shut it up!

Bear

Feb 28, 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by army_guy
Try massive not big, typical QUAD chassis are 27" deep in a 4u/5u width, imagine 4 of those G5 heatsinks, also 2 PSU's (500W/600W each) as a 600W is not enough for a QUAD system and also alot more fans hence more noise. Iam planning on the QUAD Opteron end of the year but it will definetly be completly liquid cooled (CPUS, VIDEO, CHIPSET, PSU's) and will require alot of work to shut it up! Actually as the die size on the G5s (and future processors used by Apple) shrink, the amount of electricity they use and heat they generate gets reduced. Therefore the overall space requirements and powersupply needs are reduced. Also reduced is the amount of cooling needed per processor. So, I suspect a Quad processor G5 within a year might have the same space and power/cooling requirmements as the current Dual 2.0GHz G5 Powermac. I do know in terms of noise, the fan setup in the Powermac G5 is relatively quiet for what it is cooling.

It might take a little longer than a year, but IBM is not sleeping the way Motorola was.

tortoise

Feb 28, 2004, 09:55 AM

army_guy

Feb 28, 2004, 09:57 AM

A year, these people are thinking that its being released now? As for the die size yes it decreases but you need more powerfull cooling solutions as the contact area is smaller hence the heat is harder to remove so you need bigger heatsinks to absorb the heat faster so no, space requirements do not get smaller. As for the power requirement they will be high anyway due to the 90nm process (current leakage etc) and this is worse at 65/40nm eventually you will be dissipating more static power than dynamic. Power requirements will continue to increase as we move on, remember when the Althon was released a few years back we had 200W PSU's now I cant do without a 600W for a DUAL Opteron and with the QUAD requiring 1000W.

army_guy

Feb 28, 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by tortoise

The two downsides are that it takes a ccNUMA aware operating system to really use it well (e.g. Linux 2.6) and accessing memory on other nodes is slower than vanilla SMP, though in practice a remote memory access on Opteron is about as fast as a local memory access on the PPC970.

Before they do anything else, I too would like to see IBM embed a memory controller and start working on using HyperTransport as a ccNUMA fabric.

Memory performance scales with number of CPUS in an Opteron system 6.4GB/s per CPU when NUMA is enabled. Unfortunetly this makes the CPUS with 3 HT links very expensive aka 800 series. If Apple wanted to make a realistic QUAD CPU machine this method would not be used only the standard SMP hence OSX would take advantage out of the box.

invaLPsion

Feb 28, 2004, 10:25 AM

How's this for a Quad Processor Powermac lineup?

Single 2.5 GHz: $1999
Dual 2.5 GHz: $2999
Quad 2.5 GHz: $3999

Quad Powermacs? Never gonna happen...;)

tortoise

Feb 28, 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by army_guy
Memory performance scales with number of CPUS in an Opteron system 6.4GB/s per CPU when NUMA is enabled. Unfortunetly this makes the CPUS with 3 HT links very expensive aka 800 series.

It is a relative thing. Before the Opteron, you couldn't buy a scalable 4-way or 8-way server without spending MAJOR coin on Unix iron. The 4-way and 8-way Opteron boxes may be expensive, but they are still priced like high-end commodity PC servers, which is to say pretty damn reasonably.

The important point is that these boxes are as fast as anything with the same number of processors, whether it is proprietary Big Iron or not. In essence, you can now pay PC server prices and get as much or more scalability and performance as the classic proprietary Unix enterprise hardware that would normally cost you 10x as much as the Opteron equivalent. Which is why just about every Unix Big Iron vendor is making plans for an Opteron-based mid-range product line.

The Opteron represents a significant move up the performance hierarchy for commodity computing in the world of enterprise servers, and is now soundly in the mid-range enterprise arena.

agreenster

Feb 28, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Ge4-ce
[B You forget about Newtek's Lightwave 3D, wich has an encridible good renderer even exceding Maya's [/B]

Well, I wouldnt say I was forgetting LW, we just werent talking about it. And Maya's renderer sucks really bad and pretty much always has. Thats why its now bundled with MentalRay, and has always been used with custom rib (renderman) exporters.

Though I'm not much of a TD or lighter/renderer. I'm more of a character guy.

Rincewind42

Feb 28, 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by army_guy
As for the power requirement they will be high anyway due to the 90nm process (current leakage etc) and this is worse at 65/40nm eventually you will be dissipating more static power than dynamic.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to IBM much. The 970FX uses 24.5W at 2Ghz (vs 51 for the 970 at 1.8Ghz). Doesn't look like the power requirements went up to me.

Intel is having a hell of a time with leakage because they use a different process. IIRC, their 90nm doesn't use SOI, just Strained Silicon. Since SS makes it easier for electrons to move, I would assume that it also makes it easier for electrons to leak. SOI prevents leakage by putting an insulator between layers. The 970 FX uses SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) so it gets the best of both - and we get a chip that uses and leaks less power at a smaller process size.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040121202659.shtml

shyataroo

Feb 28, 2004, 02:28 PM

I remember them well they had a picture. it was around the single 800mhz G4 was still the Disturbingly fast processor. if you ask me 2 more processors will be useless... I mean why not just give each G5 hyper-threading and RDRAM? that way you will get the effect of a Dual 8.0ghz 32 bit CPU P4 Extreme will seem like the Celeron (original)

army_guy

Feb 29, 2004, 02:36 PM

I guess you haven't been paying attention to IBM much. The 970FX uses 24.5W at 2Ghz (vs 51 for the 970 at 1.8Ghz). Doesn't look like the power requirements went up to me.

Intel is having a hell of a time with leakage because they use a different process. IIRC, their 90nm doesn't use SOI, just Strained Silicon. Since SS makes it easier for electrons to move, I would assume that it also makes it easier for electrons to leak. SOI prevents leakage by putting an insulator between layers. The 970 FX uses SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) so it gets the best of both - and we get a chip that uses and leaks less power at a smaller process size.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040121202659.shtml

I have been paying attention, but IBM has only part solved the problem, get to higher clocks or 65nm/40nm and your back to square one. Through the past few years power dissipation has continued to increase for all manufacturing companies and will do as time goes buy. It will not suddenly stop and go backwards. Cooling techniques such as liquid/TEC have to replace aircooling in consumer machines, aircooling went obsolite a few years back unless you want KG heatsinks the size of footballs or a water block half the size of a pack of cards.

lind0834

Feb 29, 2004, 02:44 PM

nuckinfutz

Feb 29, 2004, 03:00 PM

I think it's just a misinformed somebody spreading wrong information that got out of hand. Somebody was talking about Dual Core Tech.. and was thinking about Dual Core Dual Processor.. Somebody over heard and came up with quad processor. There is really no reason to want/need it. The kind of heat dissipation you'd need is kind of crazy.

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

The problem with Quad G5 is one of memory. The G5 has a Point to Point bus so with Quad G5 Apple needs to have a controller that handles 4 independent streams. Expensive for a limited market.

Perhaps when DDRII becomes affordable Apple may make a stab at Quad G5s if multicore tech doesn't take off.

edenwaith

Feb 29, 2004, 11:04 PM

[url="http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P2240_0_1_0"]
MacDailyNews, however, has not been a reliable source of information, previously claiming that iTunes would introduce higher bit-rate AACs for sale back in October 2003.

Personally, I don't really care for how MacDailyNews' credibility is derided in this case. If one reads the MacDailyNews article, they emphasize on several attempts that the rumor should be taken with a grain of salt and not be considered as a hard core fact by any means. Now, if MDN was porting false rumors on a continual basis, then there might be more reason to publicly cut down their credentials.

ipiloot

Mar 1, 2004, 01:35 AM

This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very well.

According to your logic, VT supermachine is a 2 Ghz machine which has 2199 processors for multitasking very ver well.

Afaik they work in parallel really multiplying effective processing power of the machine. The real usage of the available power depends very much of the applications ability to use the extra processors.

Think of it that way - it really doesn't add Ghz, but it multiplies processor size making it x-way parallel.

ionas

Mar 1, 2004, 02:57 AM

Yes. This is in the roadmap.
... The IBM PPC 975 (or 976?) is suppsed to have SMT built in (what intel people call Hyperthreading). ...
Dharvabinky

Imho i dont know which one, the 975 or 976 but one of both will have two REAL CORES,

virtual 2 cores per one real core would still be neat then, resulting in 4 "visible" cores per cpu, resulting in 8 virtual cpus per machine in a dual CPU machine.

if we say 3.5 ghz will be dual cored ones coming end of 2005 (if we are optimistic) and they build in both, real dual cores and so called hyperthreading, then we ll have 8 bars in our system untility ;->

army_guy

Mar 1, 2004, 08:18 AM

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

The problem with Quad G5 is one of memory. The G5 has a Point to Point bus so with Quad G5 Apple needs to have a controller that handles 4 independent streams. Expensive for a limited market.

Perhaps when DDRII becomes affordable Apple may make a stab at Quad G5s if multicore tech doesn't take off.

Dissipate the same heat yes, running cooler no, why? because the contact area is smaller hence you would need a bigger HSF to cool a 90nm CPU to the same temperature of a 130nm CPU. In the end you have bigger HSF's hence bigger chassis, again another reason why liquid cooling is so good able to absorb 200-250W (or more if you use TECS) of heat in a waterblock 1/2 the size of a pack of cards, the only big thing is the radiator.

As with DDRII I speculated it would make system slower and it did, some guys did some benches on the new grantdale chipset and overall performance was 10-20% lower on the P4 platform. This could actually be worse for Opteron/G5 which have excellent memory subsystems due to the rediculous latency of the DDRII parts. DDRII will come but not now (18-24months thats how long it took DDR) and definetly not for $800-$900 for 512MB DIMMS! Apple would gain more to wait for the 666/800MHz DDRII parts and until prices fall to acceptable levels, think about it $999 gets you a 2GB ECC Reg DDR400 Crucial DIMM (server grade RAM)? and will perform faster than a 533MHz DDRII part.

wizard

Mar 1, 2004, 10:32 AM

Actually yes! Apple would do very well if the could duplicate the success of the LC and at the same time avoid some of the mistakes they made with it. In a nut shell there is a market for LC class hardware, the PC side of the world has seen a huge burst of innovation with respect to small form factor devices.

Such a machine would employ a 970FX, and ATI 9600 and a reasonable amount of memory. Make the machine fast and it would fly off the shelves.

Dave

Maybe an LCiMac?

.

ffakr

Mar 1, 2004, 11:03 AM

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

Unfortunately, your logic is somewhat flawed.
If Apple were to market a quad processor G5, we would have to assume that they were targeting markets that require extremely high performance in a box. It wouldn't be suitable for a database server (lacking the appropriate I/O subsystems), so I'd be a visualation workstation, research number cruncher, video editing station...

If Apple were to build such a box, do you expect that they would use 2GHz 970fx processors? We have to assume that these CPUs scale much better than the previous versions so it would be silly to try and sell a high margin quad processor workstation at 2.0GHz when you are also selling a cheaper dual 2.6GHz or maybe dual 3.0GHz G5. This would ensure that Apple either sold VERY VERY few of these (making the R&D a waste), or they'd have to sell them VERY VERY cheap.
Personally, I think they could sell them cheap (cheap like under $5000), but I'm not sure they would.

If Apple actually put competative 970s in them, like Quad 2.6GHz cpus, the heat advantage would disappear and you'd once again be dealing with twice the waste heat of the dual, plus increased size and all the other things that would keep this from being a machine that would ever see the inside of a typical consumer house.

phonic pol

Mar 1, 2004, 11:07 AM

Reliable Rev B Powermac rumors seem to have thinned one hell of a lot over the last couple of weeks. I think this may mean that those in the know can't let any more info out without totally announcing new machines - they must be very close now! The quiet before the storm, so to speak... :)

Rincewind42

Mar 1, 2004, 12:15 PM

If Apple were to build such a box, do you expect that they would use 2GHz 970fx processors? We have to assume that these CPUs scale much better than the previous versions so it would be silly to try and sell a high margin quad processor workstation at 2.0GHz when you are also selling a cheaper dual 2.6GHz or maybe dual 3.0GHz G5. This would ensure that Apple either sold VERY VERY few of these (making the R&D a waste), or they'd have to sell them VERY VERY cheap.
Personally, I think they could sell them cheap (cheap like under $5000), but I'm not sure they would..

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that many would see a Quad 2Ghz G5 as being superior to a Dual 3Ghz G5. In fact, Apple has done something like this twice now - they sold Dual 533 G4s when the 733 G4 came out (and many many performance benchmarks showed these systems as MUCH better for the cost than the 733 for particular apps) and they sold Dual 800s as the high end when a single 867 was the middle machine.

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

army_guy

Mar 1, 2004, 12:41 PM

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

I agree to that, so far ive been trying to find uses of a QUAD machine aside from my EDA tools (the limitation is LINUX but RH AS support more than 2 CPUS, all the tools are fully multi threaded anyway), even using say Softimage one would require 2 license's, not sure about Maya though. Can anyone find out about Maya and how many CPUS it can use?

beefcake

Mar 1, 2004, 05:04 PM

According to your logic, VT supermachine is a 2 Ghz machine which has 2199 processors for multitasking very ver well.

Afaik they work in parallel really multiplying effective processing power of the machine. The real usage of the available power depends very much of the applications ability to use the extra processors.

Think of it that way - it really doesn't add Ghz, but it multiplies processor size making it x-way parallel.
Exactly. I don't believe this rumor at all, but creating a quad processor machine would be a huge improvement for the future of home computing.

KC9AIC

Mar 2, 2004, 06:07 AM

Apple can't release quad powermacs, because it will make all those who have duals feel woefully inadequate. :p

I can't believe I read this whole thread, and this is the most intelligent thing I have to say...

nuckinfutz

Mar 2, 2004, 09:08 AM

Unfortunately, your logic is somewhat flawed.
If Apple were to market a quad processor G5, we would have to assume that they were targeting markets that require extremely high performance in a box. It wouldn't be suitable for a database server (lacking the appropriate I/O subsystems), so I'd be a visualation workstation, research number cruncher, video editing station...

Funny you say that ffakr. I was just browsing CreativeCow the other day and heard one Digital Video Maven remark that he wishes he could buy a Quad Powermac as speed is something his company needs. They were looking to move to High Def Editing with a High End I/O system and lots of RAID. Yes I realize Apple would have charge $5k but $5k is easier to swallow when you're making money with the computer.
I don't even think the cooling system in the G5s has been stressed yet but I could be wrong. '

In the end though I do agree with you. Is it feasible? Yes. But practical? I doubt it with Dual Cores around the corner and faster memory tech.

ingenious

Mar 2, 2004, 09:36 AM

I just think that any speed increase would be great!

wHo_tHe

Mar 2, 2004, 02:58 PM

Actually, that's FAR from the most intelligent thing I've ever read on here... (snip)

A Quad processor G5, though really swank, would be physically big. It would be very expensive. It would require much more power to run and it would generate much more waste heat. It'd even, very likely, generate more noise. It's not a machine that would find a niche in a typical home.

Once again, applying today's limitations to tomorrow's technology. Someday, I assure you, we will all have access to the level of computing power offered by today's mythical quad G5, even if it isn't powered by four processors.

And if it is, system packaging will have undoubtedly advanced by then, as will have heat levels will have decreased.

But it's frustrating to hear a cacaphony of reasons why something like this won't happen, instead of pointing out the conditions under which it will.

It's like saying 10 years ago, "In 10 years we will have hard drive-based music players in our pockets that can carry 10,000 songs!", and getting the response "We can't carry a 400gb disk array in our pocket!", obviously failing to realize that both storage and compression technology would advance and ultimately converge, bringing (yes, even lowly consumers) machines like the iPod.

and.. ahem.
Bill Gates never said that we'd never need more than 640K. That's an internet myth.
Yes, that's well-known; I only said someone would be as short-sighted as Gates saying it, not that he actually did.

iChan

Mar 3, 2004, 09:12 AM

Rincewind42

Mar 3, 2004, 09:49 AM

i see no reason why apple don't have this already. it's quite weird actually... putting one out there would totally blow anything away in teh PC world... 4x2.5GHz g5's. OUCH!

what are the barriers to this i wonder? heat issues? only one i can think of.

however, with even the xbox purportedly coming with 3 chips of similar calibre, i doubt it.

redesign the case again if you have to! get it out there!

It's fairly likely that Apple has (and has had) quad configurations in the Lab, but the question is more one of mass production. Lots of designs get stuck in the lab due to mass production issues that haven't been resolved yet. Sure, a quad G5 would blow away the competition (heck, 4 x 1.6 GHz G5 would do that easily) But the question as always is at what cost. There could be power, cooling, or technology issues that we aren't privy to preventing these machines from coming to market, or simply political reasons. For example, if a Quad G5 required you to install memory 4 at a time with 16 memory slots it might be hard to mass produce such a system. Or if it had only 8 slots, it might be looked upon as too constraining for the user (I have to throw away HOW MUCH memory to get to 16GB?!). Maybe the case for such a beast would have to be another 12" taller, or you needed a system controller that required twice as many transistors. These are all things to think about in design, they all affect cost, and they all affect the ability to bring them to market. If Apple jumps the gun on these things, they may fact bad press due to system instability or more DOA purchases.

As for the Xbox 2, from what I've heard, M$ is waiting for 65nm tech so they will have smaller cooler CPUs for that system. But since they want that in a year, they could be taking a HUGE loss on such technology...

RandomMacGuy

Mar 3, 2004, 06:17 PM

Oh yeah! I remember seeing one of those 4x2.6GHz machines in an Apple Store. It was reasonably priced, too, but then I realized that the "hidden" costs of LIQUID NITROGEN would add up.

Here's to forward thinking...

ffakr

Mar 3, 2004, 09:34 PM

Once again, applying today's limitations to tomorrow's technology. Someday, I assure you, we will all have access to the level of computing power offered by today's mythical quad G5, even if it isn't powered by four processors.
You utterly and completely missed the entire point of my argument. I SPECIFICALLY noted that faster processor speed is important to innovation.

You stated, in essence, that quad processor macs would drive new innovation for typical users. In response I pointed out: a) Machines are VERY fast right now yet we don't seem to be keeping up with the hardware performance (except for a few niches).. and b) though more processing power is always better, there are plenty of reasons why a quad processor machine is NOT an appropriate machine for the average user.. not now.. not at .09 micron.

Your example of a 10 year prognostication has no relevance with my argument. I never stated that we'd never see quad processor macs in comsumer grade machines. In fact, unless the transistor ups quite a bit when the process shrinks to .065 micron or smaller, it would make perfect sense to move the PPC to dual core.. or to use multiple (maybe 4) PPCs in tower that fit the same price point as the current G5s. At this point.. late 2005 or further down the road, quad processor machines may make sense. They do not, however, make sense now.
That said, I also did NOT discount the possibilty a quad processor G5 in the near future, with current technology. I simply discount the possibility that a quad processor G5 based on today's technology could be constructed and marketed at a price point (and with physical characteristics) that would make it appropriate for typical consumers.

ffakr

Mar 3, 2004, 09:57 PM

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that many would see a Quad 2Ghz G5 as being superior to a Dual 3Ghz G5. In fact, Apple has done something like this twice now - they sold Dual 533 G4s when the 733 G4 came out (and many many performance benchmarks showed these systems as MUCH better for the cost than the 733 for particular apps) and they sold Dual 800s as the high end when a single 867 was the middle machine.

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

I think you are stretching a bit here. You will find increasingly diminishing returns as you scale to more processors. A quad processor 2GHz with today's general architecture (central memory access via main chipset) will not scale as well compared to a dual as a dual would scale compared to a single. I would expect that a dual 533 would perform better than a single 733 on multi-threaded apps. I'd CERTAINLY expect a dual 800MHz to run much better than a single 867MHz on processor intensive, multi-threaded apps. I'd also expect a quad processor 2GHz to outperform a dual 2.5GHz on highly multi-threaded, processor intensive apps but you'll see diminishing returns on the extra CPUs. Now consider a dual 3GHz vs. a quad 2 GHz. The performance difference narrows.
Now consider that in your example that the dual processor G4s were fairly close in price to the single processor machines. If Apple could release a quad processor box for only twice the price of a dual processor box, I think it would be a first in the computer industry.

I think that, in a likely scenero, Apple could release a quad processor workstation and they could do it at a relatively reasonable price. It would still be very expensive compared to typical G5s though.. probably very nearly twice as expensive as a high end Dual processor. Because of the cost difference, it would seem very unlikely to me that Apple would opt to use a significantly slower version of the PPC 970 in the theoretical quad machine than they would in a dual machine. Although there are plenty of people who demand as much power as possible.. at any price, the number of potential buyers would decrease significantly if the performance increase was only marginal compared to the additional cost.

Then again, there is no solid evidence they will release a quad at all. I was just responding to other people's conjecture.

jmho
ffakr

marcshovan

Mar 6, 2004, 02:46 PM

I doubt that there will be quad G5's. The current power consumption is too high. Thus producing too much heat for the type of cooling currently available (Hello, Cooligy). But I do believe that there could be a quad G6 in the same form factor. Mainly because, If I heard right the Power6 processors from IBM are dual core, thus the quad that everybody has been rumorizing about.

Dreadnought

Mar 10, 2004, 12:19 PM

Give me a couple for folding@home and soon I will be the number 1 Macfolder for team 3446! Better start on a new script MC86K for folding on quad macs! :p

benpatient

Mar 10, 2004, 12:40 PM

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

and by the time that's implimented, it won't matter, anyway. Dual core will probably be implimented in a single processor with a next generation HyperTransport and DDR2 and PCIx16 graphics and all of that stuff...If we see dual-core in PowerMacs, we'll see it as a replacement for dual processor (because after development, it will be cheaper), not as an addition to dual processor.

the framework for 4 separate processors that can't even use each-other's RAM slots by design is a cost limitation beyond what you might call reasonable.

A quad G5 would need (aside from more HT tunnels ($$ and Sq Inches), more power, more cooling, and more controller chips) matching sets of 4 for the RAM, which would be expensive and a PCB nightmare. Not to mention DDR dual-channel specs wouldn't apply...has anyone done experimental quad-channel DDR tests?

Opterons can go "more than two" because they share one memory access...each G5 processor has, essentially, it's own RAM chips and pipelines. This is an advantage or a disadvantage for the G5, depending on your point of view. You can't ignore the fact, though, that it limits processor implimentation to 1 or 2, though...

The most innovative thing that apple did with the G5, on their own, is the case design. The memory structure was established. The processor was developed almost totally by IBM (although obviously apple had some sway in helping decide what it would do and in a general sense, how it would do it). HT was developed outside the influence of apple. PCIx was developed outside the influence of apple. SATA is a standard. the audio I/O is a well-developed standard. The graphics cards are last-year's middle-of-the-road PC cards (unless you pay an insane premium for the 9800, which costs less for PCs at the store than it does to upgrade to from the 5200 on apple's website!).

in other words, they don't have the resources to be developing some sort of new architecture...they would have to rely on IBM to do it, and IBM isn't all secretive about their plans like apple is, and we've heard nothing actually from IBM that leads us to think they want to invest in a new 4-chip tandem line of 64 bit machines...

Apple wants you to buy 2 dual 2.0's and two fiber-channel cards and run a copy of x-grid, not sit in line waiting for a 15,000 dollar 300 lb aluminum case that does the same thing at a lower profit margin.

Rincewind42

Mar 10, 2004, 04:12 PM

Sorry man, but there are many inaccuracies here...

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

And we can start here... IBM isn't the planner we are debating, Apple is. And we don't have access to their plans so there isn't much we can say. What we do know is that IBM has used their POWER CPUs in 4-way and larger systems, so we know it is at least possible.

the framework for 4 separate processors that can't even use each-other's RAM slots by design is a cost limitation beyond what you might call reasonable.

A quad G5 would need ... matching sets of 4 for the RAM, which would be expensive and a PCB nightmare. Not to mention DDR dual-channel specs wouldn't apply...has anyone done experimental quad-channel DDR tests?

You don't need quad-channel DDR to do 4 CPUs. The G5 accesses the northbridge, the northbridge accesses RAM. The only thing quad-channel would get you is more memory bandwidth (a good thing of course) but not necessarily a speed boost (think of it like this - instead of 2 trucks going down the road you have 4, the trucks still have the same top speed, you just get to haul more on the way. But if each truck is only half full now with 4, you get nothing from the arrangement).

Opterons can go "more than two" because they share one memory access...each G5 processor has, essentially, it's own RAM chips and pipelines. This is an advantage or a disadvantage for the G5, depending on your point of view. You can't ignore the fact, though, that it limits processor implimentation to 1 or 2, though...

Wrong again. Opterons have a bank of memory per processor, the G5s share memory (the northbridge owns the memory, not the CPUs). So in theory it should be easier for the G5 to go beyond a 2-way implementation. Of course the rub in the G5 case is having to have a more complicated system controller that can keep up. The issue with the Opteron is getting fast access to the memory connected to another CPU and keeping coherency between the CPUs.

in other words, they don't have the resources to be developing some sort of new architecture...they would have to rely on IBM to do it, and IBM isn't all secretive about their plans like apple is, and we've heard nothing actually from IBM that leads us to think they want to invest in a new 4-chip tandem line of 64 bit machines...

Apple wants you to buy 2 dual 2.0's and two fiber-channel cards and run a copy of x-grid, not sit in line waiting for a 15,000 dollar 300 lb aluminum case that does the same thing at a lower profit margin.

Uh... Apple designs it's motherboards, it designed the system controller (northbridge) in the G5, and they are almost certainly toying around with designs that use more than 2 CPUs in the lab. If they ever see the light of day is something completely different of course, but if Apple should ever decide to ship a 4-way system, even before Dual Core PPCs become common, it certainly won't cost as much as your car or weigh more than your average human being. It could be done with modest hardware changes, and for under $6k (likely around $5k if they really wanted to). Doing this really isn't all that hard to do, the rub is that it also isn't a huge mass market item, so you can bet it's on the bottom of the list of things to do for a while.

MasonMcD

Mar 12, 2004, 10:07 PM

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

Gotta stop ya there. :D

In 2005, the Power blades will begin resembling IBM's Unix server line, with a system comprising four PowerPC 970 processors, Dougherty said. And with a four-processor model, IBM's version of Unix--called AIX--becomes a compelling alternative to Linux, he said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1010-5171648.html

Prom1

Mar 15, 2004, 07:35 PM

Gotta stop ya there. :D

In 2005, the Power blades will begin resembling IBM's Unix server line, with a system comprising four PowerPC 970 processors, Dougherty said. And with a four-processor model, IBM's version of Unix--called AIX--becomes a compelling alternative to Linux, he said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1010-5171648.html

Also note that IBM is in huge court case with SCO over its licence of Unix; implementing code into its Linux offerings - effectively giving it out for free via source code - a violation of its licensing with SCO.

Furthermore, that just may put IBM's plans of doing a major revamp of AIX code early this year (2004), on hold.

LucidX

Mar 16, 2004, 11:02 AM

It seems illogical that Apple would introduce a Quad Powermac G5 before (if at all) a Quad Xserve G5, a place where such certainly belongs.

Rincewind42

Mar 16, 2004, 11:18 AM

It seems illogical that Apple would introduce a Quad Powermac G5 before (if at all) a Quad Xserve G5, a place where such certainly belongs.

Why would you say that? It would seem logical to have the Xserve always have the fastest CPUs available, or at least on par with the PowerMac. Yet that hasn't been the case most of the time - the Xserve has consistently had slower CPUs than the PowerMac that was available at the same time. Why? Simply because there is more room in the PowerMac for heat dissipation. Why else would it take Apple 6 months to bring the Xserve G5 to the market and why else will they continue to sport slower processors after the next PowerMac G5 revision?

If Apple does introduce a Quad Xserve G5, then it will probably not be a 1U unit. But if it isn't a 1U unit, then you might as well buy 2 Dual Xserves and get better performance than a single Quad Xserve. However a given the markets the Xserve and the PowerMac target, a Quad PowerMac would be much likely to be purchased than a Quad Xserve because while it is relatively easy to rack 2 Dual Xserves to get 4 CPUs, it is quite harder to put two Dual PowerMacs on your desk and use the 4 CPUs to their utmost efficiency.

wdlove

Mar 16, 2004, 11:30 AM

So you are talking about having 4 processors in a Power Mac unit. Would Mac OS X be able to use all 4 efficiently? Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

Rincewind42

Mar 16, 2004, 12:38 PM

Would Mac OS X be able to use all 4 efficiently?

It was designed to use up to 32...

Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

Probably, but does it matter? If you have more than one program going, each use a different CPU. And you always have more than one program going...

Mr. Anderson

Mar 16, 2004, 12:54 PM

Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

Video and 3D animation software would love to have more processors. Having 4 cpus would be fantastic for me - buy one machine and pretty much have the power of 2. 100 hour render would take 50 hours, etc. (its not quite half, just using that as an example) It remains to be seen if they even have quad machines and then do speed tests to see how much faster they are than duals.....

D

army_guy

Mar 16, 2004, 05:17 PM

You also need more licenses for rendering, 4 instead of 1 or 2.

Mr. Anderson

Mar 16, 2004, 05:36 PM

You also need more licenses for rendering, 4 instead of 1 or 2.

That would be incorrect - a quad machine would be one license. I have Lightwave on two separate machines, needs two dongles, even though one of them is a dual processor. There is no way anyone would require separate licenses for each processor. Its just per machine or seat in this case.

D

wdlove

Mar 16, 2004, 06:12 PM

Just think of the output with a Quad G5 for the production of Folding. If we got a couple of these online it woudl be awesome.

Mr. Anderson

Mar 16, 2004, 08:11 PM

Just think of the output with a Quad G5 for the production of Folding. If we got a couple of these online it woudl be awesome.

folding is what your machine does when its not doing something else - like work. I would laugh at anyone who got a quad machine just to increase their folding score :D

But it would be nice, just like 2 or so computers instead of just one. We would need dozens in order for there to be a significant impact on the output.

D

wizard

Mar 16, 2004, 11:30 PM

While it may not be an issue at the moment, there is historical evidence that software vendors might just try to charge by the number of processors in use. It would be vey bad form the software management standpoint and probally not good for the venodr in a competitive environment, but a possibility none the less. Hopefully those sorts of days are long pass us.

Dave

That would be incorrect - a quad machine would be one license. I have Lightwave on two separate machines, needs two dongles, even though one of them is a dual processor. There is no way anyone would require separate licenses for each processor. Its just per machine or seat in this case.

D

wdlove

Mar 17, 2004, 02:06 PM

folding is what your machine does when its not doing something else - like work. I would laugh at anyone who got a quad machine just to increase their folding score :D

But it would be nice, just like 2 or so computers instead of just one. We would need dozens in order for there to be a significant impact on the output.

D

I have been laughed at before Mr. Anderson! :p

Still every little bit of extra output will help the cause.

King Cobra

Mar 17, 2004, 02:52 PM

Up to about post 134, I think most people hit the little "reply" button beside a random person's post, quoted it, said something of medium relevance in response to the quote, and then went off on their own thoughts of a specific issue regarding the rumored quad PowerMacs.

All right. Now I've heard this line before from jefhatfield, and from a quickie free-time program, and I'm going to quote it again here:

Any rumor that survives more than 24 hours is probably true.

So, for the 8th nonconsecutive month or so, we have Quad PowerMac rumors. Anybody think that Apple will bring them into mainstream production eventually, as supposed to today, or tomorrow, or maybe in a week?

Now I've also noticed this trend in rumors:
Any rumor that survives for more than 4 months without specifications is probably going to be echoed for at least twice as long before it receives official verification.

So Apple probably is testing out 4x processor machines in some small corner of their facilities.

I can just see it now: Mac OS X 10.4: $129 per processor, comes with all new quad processor G5s. :p

formatc

Mar 17, 2004, 03:32 PM

You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

All of Apple's software is sold at a loss. Apple is a hardware company.

On Apple's Q1 2004 data summary (http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/q104data_sum.pdf), the software unit volume is labeled NM, for Not Meaningful.

Apple spends much more $ developing software than it earns from selling it. Why? Apple is a hardware company.

jsw

Mar 17, 2004, 04:55 PM

All of Apple's software is sold at a loss. Apple is a hardware company.

On Apple's Q1 2004 data summary (http://www.apple.com/pr/pdf/q104data_sum.pdf), the software unit volume is labeled NM, for Not Meaningful.

Apple spends much more $ developing software than it earns from selling it. Why? Apple is a hardware company.

Perhaps Frohickey should have said "You cannot sell your products at a net loss and expect to stay in business." Most companies, as formatc notes, sell some of their products or services at a loss to promote other products or services.

Frohickey

Mar 17, 2004, 05:54 PM

Perhaps Frohickey should have said "You cannot sell your products at a net loss and expect to stay in business." Most companies, as formatc notes, sell some of their products or services at a loss to promote other products or services.

Erp! I was thinking about a company that only had one product.

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

jsw

Mar 17, 2004, 09:13 PM

Erp! I was thinking about a company that only had one product.

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

Well, then there's Amazon. Are they in the black yet? They weren't for a very long time at least. I guess you either need to make money or be very convincing to VC's. ;)

GFLPraxis

Mar 19, 2004, 11:35 PM

I wouldn't consider this proof:
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11808&stc=1
I could probably create an image that looks like that in MICROSOFT PAINT. A Photoshop user could fake that in no time flat.

ddtlm

Mar 20, 2004, 10:40 PM

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to a product offered by Appro:

http://www.appro.com/product/server_1142h.asp

Your eyes do not decieve you. That is a 1U quad Opteron system, and the "product comparision chart" PDF available at that page declares that all Opteron speeds work in this machine. Hopefully that settles any misconceptions about heat holding Apple back. :D

DrGruv1

Mar 22, 2004, 02:11 PM

Tuesday the 23rd.!!!!!

mcdawson

Mar 23, 2004, 10:45 AM

I agree that we would all benefit from faster machines, though I have to point out that for the typical user the current machines are currently FASTER than what is required by most people. Do you think that having 4GHz P4s or 3GHz G5s today would significanlty change most people's computing experience? Would they read their email faster or even browse the web faster? Would they type their Word docs faster?

There are lots of people that use Apple's iLife, especially iMovie and iDVD. While I don't know how many are considered "typical", most users of iMovie and ESPECIALLY iDVD would love a machine a lot faster! It easily takes 4-6 hours to encode a 2 hr DVD and many minutes to add 30-40 iMovie transitions on my dual 1 GHz G4. Being able to to have instant transitions and say 30 min DVD encoding would be wonderful (esp if you're trying to convert your tape library to DVD, and have a lot of tapes!). So the typical user doesn't need extra power for Photoshop--they need even MORE power for iDVD and iMovie--programs that now consume (it sounds like) even more processing power than many professional apps.

Mr Maui

Mar 24, 2004, 01:42 PM

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

Hate to disagree ... but ...

Check out the Federal Government. :D

All it really requires is someone, somewhere willing to keep investing capital in your losing venture. :)

tibor

Mar 24, 2004, 01:58 PM

Hate to disagree ... but ...

Check out the Federal Government. :D

Maybe (hopefully) you're not serious, but in case you are:

-the government is not primarily in place to make a profit. Corporations are.

-the government is not a corporation, nor is it run like one. Know anyone who works for a large government organization? Then you know horror stories of bureaucracy and incompetence.

I think in some ways, government should be run more like corporations. But overall, I'm very happy they're not. I don't want to get in a bidding war for better garbage or police service than my neighbors. That goes against what my country stands for.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

-d

ffakr

Mar 24, 2004, 02:06 PM

There are lots of people that use Apple's iLife, especially iMovie and iDVD. While I don't know how many are considered "typical", most users of iMovie and ESPECIALLY iDVD would love a machine a lot faster! It easily takes 4-6 hours to encode a 2 hr DVD and many minutes to add 30-40 iMovie transitions on my dual 1 GHz G4. Being able to to have instant transitions and say 30 min DVD encoding would be wonderful (esp if you're trying to convert your tape library to DVD, and have a lot of tapes!). So the typical user doesn't need extra power for Photoshop--they need even MORE power for iDVD and iMovie--programs that now consume (it sounds like) even more processing power than many professional apps.

I don't disagree with this at all, but my posts are about balance. A dual 2GHz G5 tears ass through things like rendering keynote output to high quality Quicktime (I haven't actually ripped a DVD on ours, but I'd hazard that it would fall into your requirements.

The original discussion I was commenting on, however, was mainly about two points. The first was that, with very fast dual G5s and the prospect of much faster dual G5s right around the corner.. there is already a LOT of horsepower available to typical home users (even recreational video editors). So much so that, in fact, it wouldn't make sense to expect that consumers would pay significantly more for a quad processor Mac than a Dual G5. The other main point was that it wouldn't make sense for Apple to release bumped dual G5s and a lower clocked quad since the performance advantage of a slower clocked quad wouldn't justify the price increase over a very fast dual G5 (there was a post about Apple maybe releasing dual 2.5GHz vs. a quad 2GHz).

It's not entirely fair to look at the performance of a dual 1GHz G4 and deduce that the current or Next Gen dual G5s don't have enough horsepower to render home DVDs.

just my 2 cents.
Ffakr.

Mr Maui

Mar 24, 2004, 02:56 PM

Maybe (hopefully) you're not serious, but in case you are:

-the government is not primarily in place to make a profit. Corporations are.

-the government is not a corporation, nor is it run like one. Know anyone who works for a large government organization? Then you know horror stories of bureaucracy and incompetence.

I think in some ways, government should be run more like corporations. But overall, I'm very happy they're not. I don't want to get in a bidding war for better garbage or police service than my neighbors. That goes against what my country stands for.

Actually, though I hate to disagree with people when possible, our Government IS a corporation, like most Cities, Townships, etc., but I concur that they are not run like one (at least not a functional one). I further absolutely agree with your quote from TJ, and hope one day that our government will recognize, respect, and acknowledge the truths in that statement.

Viv

Mar 26, 2004, 05:20 AM

ffakr

Mar 26, 2004, 09:50 AM

Ok I have only skimed the tread but the main arguments seems to be we dont need quads or duels that much as most users dont use the power, the power they do have is used for reading emails and browsing the web with a small percentage using the power to do video editing etc.

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

Viv

Mar 26, 2004, 09:58 AM

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

$5K for a high end desktop for a researcher is pretty small bear so yes i would agree with you, throw exgrid in and its a good budget argument for any one in that line of work.

Viv

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 10:32 AM

$5K for a high end desktop for a researcher is pretty small bear so yes i would agree with you, throw exgrid in and its a good budget argument for any one in that line of work.

Viv

Well, I sort of agree. Xgrid is a good argument in favor of that (though, side topic: the Xgrid Mandlebrot demo is god-awful slow...).

But...would there not be a better argument for a quad-processor Xserve? It seems to me that a quad-processor G5 desktop would be harder to justify - unless you're using it nearly full-time for Xgrid, you're wasting a lot of potential CPU cycles. So, to me, a quad-processor, headless (i.e., no graphics card), single disk (meant for calculation, not storage), number-crunching menace in a 1U or 2U size factor would sell quite well.

I'm just not sure a quad G5 desktop would sell many units - compared to the headless option that would let research teams more easily pool their resources. I'd love to see one, though, of course!

ffakr

Mar 26, 2004, 11:05 AM

Well, I sort of agree. Xgrid is a good argument in favor of that (though, side topic: the Xgrid Mandlebrot demo is god-awful slow...).

But...would there not be a better argument for a quad-processor Xserve? It seems to me that a quad-processor G5 desktop would be harder to justify - unless you're using it nearly full-time for Xgrid, you're wasting a lot of potential CPU cycles. So, to me, a quad-processor, headless (i.e., no graphics card), single disk (meant for calculation, not storage), number-crunching menace in a 1U or 2U size factor would sell quite well.

I'm just not sure a quad G5 desktop would sell many units - compared to the headless option that would let research teams more easily pool their resources. I'd love to see one, though, of course!

xgrid is cool, and the latest preview release (still only days old) supports MPI..
Unfortunately, xgrid is being designed for loosely coupled networks (a grid) with high latency. It's a solution for massively parallel tasks, not for tightly coupled - parallel tasks. A quad processor machine would fill a research, cad, video market where you want a lot of CPU power and a fairly low latency between processing units [CPUs]. I'm not saying that xgrid won't be fabulous in a lab full of quad processor macs, just that it's designed for situtations where you don't need to buy a pallette of quad G5s to get a lot of work done.

wdlove

Mar 26, 2004, 11:06 AM

Actually I think it'd be a brilliant move for Apple to release Quad processor macs, especially because I think they could do it at a lower price point than x86 offerings.

I've simply been arguing that they will be too expensive for average users, no matter how well Apple does at keeping the price down. My main contention was that quad processor macs would not usher in new killer apps for consumers because typical consumers, not even iMovie/iDVD users will be buying them. I don't think anyone is arguing that more cpu processing power isn't a good thing, though we all seem to agree that most people don't max out current high end machines most of the time (an occasional DVD rip not withstanding)

Regardless of how cheaply Apple can produce a quad processor G5, they will market it at a price that maximizes their profit. I'd imagine they try to get a base model out for around $5000 (totally pulling that # out of my butt). $5000 would beat the pants off of other quad machines, yet it would likely provide a good profit margin. I'd be low enough for the typical dual Xeon buyer to grab, but not so expensive that they only sold 2000 a year.

JMHO,
ffakr.

I don't use iDVD or iMovie. Though happily for the first time, I feel that I'm using the full processor power of my dual 450 G4. I doing good for humanity by protein folding. So if I had more processor power, then I would just increase my capacity.

jsw

Mar 26, 2004, 11:59 AM

I don't use iDVD or iMovie. Though happily for the first time, I feel that I'm using the full processor power of my dual 450 G4. I doing good for humanity by protein folding. So if I had more processor power, then I would just increase my capacity.

There you go! Multi-processor Macs let us serve humanity while still giving us a processor's worth of capacity to, say, browse the web and complain about why the new computers aren't out yet!

Bear

Mar 26, 2004, 04:58 PM

Tuesday the 23rd.!!!!!The 23rd of what month and year?

jsw

Mar 27, 2004, 08:22 PM

The 23rd of what month and year?

The next Tuesday the 23rd is in November. Sounds about right for G5 laptops....

:)

ClimbingTheLog

Mar 27, 2004, 09:53 PM

Let me just go on record that anybody who says, "nobody needs a computer that fast" is a knucklehead.

The sad status-quo of computing is largely bound by slow hardware speed. If hardware was faster we could use more reliable technologies, making computing more reliable and occasionally less infurating.

Just like the Macintosh 128k didn't run an OS like Mac OS X, the OS we're going to run on faster machiines will seem that much better.

I remember when the 386/33 came out - "Only scientists and architects will ever need that much power" was PC Magazine's take. And 640k of RAM will be enough for anybody. And nobody needs a computer in their home. Get in line, knuckleheads.

aswitcher

Mar 27, 2004, 10:20 PM

Let me just go on record that anybody who says, "nobody needs a computer that fast" is a knucklehead.

SNIP

I remember when the 386/33 came out - "Only scientists and architects will ever need that much power" was PC Magazine's take. And 640k of RAM will be enough for anybody. And nobody needs a computer in their home. Get in line, knuckleheads.

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right! :p

jsw

Mar 28, 2004, 10:07 AM

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right! :p

Agreed. Few people need more than 100HP, and few people need anything faster i.t.o. computers than what was available 4-5 years ago.

But, man, oh man, people will buy what they want, not just what they need. And people will always want something faster.

It's kind of like when you're cruising along in the fast lane, thinking you're going plenty fast enough. Then someone gets in front of you, going the same speed. Suddenly, you need to go faster. Because it's no fun going as fast as everyone else.... :)

Viv

Mar 29, 2004, 01:50 PM

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/29/moe/index.php?redirect=1080560731000

well they seem to thinka big Mac on every desk is fine, sounds like a nice product and designed to make use of the new Macs.

Viv

j_maddison

Mar 29, 2004, 03:52 PM

And never underestimate the Geekfactor need for faster machines...its like cars, you may not need that power most of the time or that off road four wheeling drive, but plenty of people buy these...and the buyer is always right! :p

The reality is that consumes do need faster machines. I'll agree that browsing the net is fine on even my modest Rev A 12" Powerbook, but lets be honest any gains in speed while using imovie or idvd have major benefits when winning the consumer market. Apple know their faithful consumers are the prosumers, but the consumer (imac / emac / ibook) market is much much bigger. Even prosumers would benefit from economies of scale if apple gains a few more % in the consumre market. The reality is i think (gamers aside) that Apple products would add more to the consumer market than people realise. I wish id discoved macs sooner (four year user), i wouldnt have lost half as much work while i was at univrsity. Its your average consumer that gets hit with viruses becuse quite frankly we know less, were the ones who need the simplicity of imovie and idvd, and the whole mac experience makes me enjoy using a computer as opposed to using it because i have to.

anyway apple marketing, like most marketing departments wont listen because in reality there are alot of people in marketing departments who know nothing about marketing. I work for a bluechip company and to say that marketeers and management and directors know very little about marketing and strategy is an understatment. If it doesnt fit into basic Porter or a basic swat or pestel analysis then they havent a clue.

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

jay

aswitcher

Mar 29, 2004, 04:05 PM

The reality is that consumes do need faster machines. SNIP

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

jay

G5 will go to iBook, but no time soon.

Colour is a big issue I think if they follow the Mini iPod schemes in metal not plastic. Not sure about gold but silver, blue, green and pink would work for eMacs and ibooks for consumers IMNSHO. Kids go to school with ibooks these days and most kids will have a home eMac or iBook if they have their own mac at home, so colours would appeal. It worked a number of years back and you know what the KILLER APPLICATION WOULD BE FOR COLOURED eMACS and IBOOKS - CHANGABLE PANELS!!! Just like mobile phones, but obviously afixed far more securely. I think a whole industry would spring up like it has for mobile phones doing customs panels for people...

Dual for power line makes sense once iMacs get a G5 and decent specs.

I agree PB line could do with the same chip BUT I think you;ll find that they dont do that because of battery life due to larger space in larger machines.

Superdrives will become standard...maybe end of 2005

What this has to do with Quad Processes I cannot say...

Viv

Mar 29, 2004, 04:16 PM

"Snip"

What this has to do with Quad Processes I cannot say...

Welll! I was just arguing against the idea that you did not need a super fast machine to read this post, I think you do becouse Apple have a way to use that spare power to form clusters and groups of CPU power in companys.

imagine building full of computers, nowadays you would have to put one on each desk any way just to run your business.

Now Apple have given you the ability to use all the spare CPU power in the building to run applications as well.

How cool is that! buy our Macs and get a super computer thrown in for free!

So the users win becouse now the better their desktop machine is the better the companys computing resources are.

That software link I posted earlyer uses this capacity.

Am i selling new lamps for old here or what!

Viv

Frohickey

Mar 29, 2004, 05:08 PM

How cool is that! buy our Macs and get a super computer thrown in for free!

So the users win becouse now the better their desktop machine is the better the companys computing resources are.

That software link I posted earlyer uses this capacity.

Yeah. But I think its a bad idea. I could see biotech firms buying a lot of Macs for their employees and researchers to use, and then at quitting time all of the Macs are clustered and go and churn on the batch jobs... but it only takes a few engineers playing net Unreal Tournament to hose that idea. :o

Viv

Mar 30, 2004, 02:32 AM

Yeah. But I think its a bad idea. I could see biotech firms buying a lot of Macs for their employees and researchers to use, and then at quitting time all of the Macs are clustered and go and churn on the batch jobs... but it only takes a few engineers playing net Unreal Tournament to hose that idea. :o

Well they just posted the new version of UT2K4 so it seems a real danger! so we do need faster Macs to stop it happening:-)

Viv

aswitcher

Mar 30, 2004, 02:35 AM

Well they just posted the new version of UT2K4 so it seems a real danger! so we do need faster Macs to stop it happening:-)

Viv

I saw the minimum specs, 933Mhz, 6 gig HD, 64Vid AGP ram, 256RAM, DVD, OSX 10.2.8...

Does anyone know what the recommended is for decent performance?

thatwendigo

Mar 30, 2004, 04:27 AM

Even prosumers would benefit from economies of scale if apple gains a few more % in the consumre market. The reality is i think (gamers aside) that Apple products would add more to the consumer market than people realise.

Actually, I think you're dead wrong in a number of ways. The prosumer and professional macs are an order of magnitude more complex than the consumer boxes, and use parts that are wholly more expensive than the lower end machines. As such, it doesn't benefit them for there to be a greater availability of components that would be of no use.

That's akin to arguing that the mac market benefits because the sub-$500 market prospers, just because small hard drives are being produced.

Make the entire range G5 including the ibook. bring back the colour to the e mac, differentiate the powermacs by making them duals and have two models instead of three. and give the fastest posible chip to the powerbook and give them all superdrives and the same speed processor. I think powerbook users buy a 12' because they want a 12' and a 15' because they want a 15' and a 17' because tehy want a 17', i dont think it has annything to do with the processor speed beying different between the models.

enough of my rant. Just give me a 2ghz Powerbook and make the ibooks 1.6ghz G5's.

Sorry, but you're not going to see it, short of some kind of hardware miracle. For one thing, IBM needs to supply the chips, just to begin with. There's the issues that have been talked to death, too, like heat, redesigned systems, and the expense of the parts needed to keep the G5 fed. The G4 is not a whole lot slower, unless you pay the premium for better FSB, better I/O, better drives, better motherboards, and so on... It doesn't lend itself to cheap systems, period.

Keep this in mind: To cool the tower effectively and quietly, Apple uses nine fans in a full enclosure. The Xserves manage it with something like four, but they're loud, loud, loud. Apply that as you wish.

macridah

Mar 30, 2004, 10:54 AM

4 G5's in a case would make a good frying pan (with the 130nm chips of course). Are the new G5 xServes as loud as the G4's? The new ones do use the 90nm chips that produce less heat. Maybe if the new chips are that much cooler, than maybe.

Anyone that needs that much power would probably just use a workgroup cluster.

But I did go to an oracle event where a apple rep attended and he did mention that they were looking into a 3U xserve, same size as the xRaid. I thought that could of been for the 2 G5 130nm xserve. So maybe the 3U enclosure is for a quad cpu server ?

wdlove

Mar 30, 2004, 12:49 PM

Just think of the Protein Folding that could be accomplished with a G5 Quad. There wouldn't be a need for many of those to really increase the teams production.

jsw

Mar 31, 2004, 12:34 PM

I saw the minimum specs, 933Mhz, 6 gig HD, 64Vid AGP ram, 256RAM, DVD, OSX 10.2.8...

Does anyone know what the recommended is for decent performance?

Ask Don't Hurt Me. I assume he'd say a PC. :)

I'll let you know shortly how it runs on a dual-2/9600. Not the 9800, but hopefully enough.

And, no, I'm not really an FPS player. But I'm just curious about how well it will run. I hear it should be available is stores Saturday. Does this sound right?

I'm more interested in seeing this one (http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2004/03/returnoftheking/) , though.

Apr 1, 2004, 01:42 AM

i am sure there is a market for quad g5 systems ... have a look at those performance boosts for quad xeon workstations:

http://www.imashination.com/bench.html

looks like apple needs something new and fast very soon ...
.a

bryantm3

Apr 3, 2004, 02:54 PM

MacDailyNews claims (http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P2240_0_1_0) that Apple will bring us Quad-processor PowerMacs.

MacDailyNews, however, has not been a reliable source of information, previously claiming that iTunes would introduce higher bit-rate AACs for sale back in October 2003.
quad powermacs?
y'all should take this off of here. that's a joke.

Engagebot

Apr 8, 2004, 10:51 PM

putting more processors in your machine is not like attaching more rockets to the space shuttle.

bousozoku

Apr 9, 2004, 12:03 AM

quad powermacs?
y'all should take this off of here. that's a joke.

They're probably getting their news reading our forums. :D

ffakr

Apr 9, 2004, 10:01 AM

putting more processors in your machine is not like attaching more rockets to the space shuttle.
Yea, when you attach more rockets to the the space shuttle, you increase the weight of the shuttle, thereby decreasing the utility of the original rockets and the new ones.. not only that, but you need to add extra fuel stores and support equip (tanks, lines, pumps, insulation, structural re-inforcement..) to feed those extra rockets.. that further decreases the utility of the original and additional rockets. Depending on the efficiency and force of the extra rockets.. adding extra rockets so the space shuttle could ensure that it's unable to reach orbit... at the very least, you'd have a much bigger shuttle that didn't really go much faster.
Just to put this into perspective.. I've heard that there is enough energy in a gallon of gas to put that gallon into orbit. Have you ever seen a rocket with 1 gallon of pump gas that could make orbit? The hardware required hold and burn that gas (at a fraction of its potential energy) would weigh so much that it probably wouldn't get off the ground.

Putting more processors in an already dual G5 would increase overhead and tax chipset bandwidth.. but for a move from dual to quad with the G5's architecture, it wouldn't be too though to add the extra CPUs without otherwise causeing a significant decrease in the system efficiency (maybe a few percent).

:-)
putting extra cpus in is a much better idea than adding rockets to the Space Shuttle.

Urdam

Apr 10, 2004, 02:34 PM

This rumor has come and gone, a quad Mac would burn up..

Urdam

Apr 11, 2004, 03:58 PM

No quad Macs, get real

wizart

Apr 15, 2004, 08:47 AM

wdlove

Apr 15, 2004, 09:02 AM

Mac developer-sources I know, confirm that there might be a Quad 3 Ghz available this year, and that´s why Apple have no rush on upgrading now becourse:"We will get more than expected..."....... :rolleyes:

That certainly would be more than anyone is expecting. In reality very few would actually need a Quad. All I want is a Rev. B dual 3 Ghz G5 announced at WWDC.

wizart

Apr 15, 2004, 09:10 AM

That certainly would be more than anyone is expecting. In reality very few would actually need a Quad. All I want is a Rev. B dual 3 Ghz G5 announced at WWDC.

I know what U mean....A machine that runs smoothly, doesn´t make any high frequens pitched tone, and no fans taking off.....That will be a start..!

ffakr

Apr 15, 2004, 10:30 AM

This rumor has come and gone, a quad Mac would burn up..
A quad mac would NOT burn up.. Don't be a fool. You can put 20 G5s [970s] in one case if you cooled it enough, and the current case has tons of cooling potential.
We've gone over this.. and over this, and over this.. the 970fx processors generate 1/2 the heat of the previous generation....
The problem is, IBM is still having problems with the process so volumes are low.

wizard

Apr 15, 2004, 01:33 PM

I'm stilll amazed that people think that there is no need for quad processor machine or that they can not be made in an economical manner. Economics go out the window once dual core processors arrive, so it becomes feasable for even the desktop. Even without the arrival of Dual core, quad procesor based machines can justify their existance.

As to desktop usage the response being seen in this thread of recent are similar to the responses seen when duals first came out for the desktop - who needs that sort of power. Well it is prety clear just aobut everyone buying a PowerMac has made that decision and went with the dual processor machine. I believe the result will be much the same when quad processors come out, at some point in time Apple will have a hard time moving the duals.

Thanks
Dave