PDA

View Full Version : Quad Processor Macs???


Falleron
Jul 12, 2004, 05:35 PM
Take a look at :

http://macosrumors.blogspot.com/

96% chance?? Ok, I know the usual remarks about the creators of this site. What do you think??

Quad 3Ghz G5's 6 PCI etc..

King Cobra
Jul 12, 2004, 05:39 PM
As I said in the MacOS Rumors gone? thread...well, I don't remember exactly what I said, but: 96%, sweet.

Falleron
Jul 12, 2004, 05:40 PM
As I said in the MacOS Rumors gone? thread...well, I don't remember exactly what I said, but: 96%, sweet.
I know its iffy. But, 96% sure is quite high. Worth a note anyway!

invaLPsion
Jul 12, 2004, 06:27 PM
If they are right, I'll eat my foot... :rolleyes:

And if they are right, and the computer is $3000 or lower, I'll eat the other one. :D

King Cobra
Jul 12, 2004, 06:31 PM
What will you do if MacOSRumors at blogspot goes back to macosrumors.com ? http://www.thetechpub.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/new_shocked.gif

.a
Jul 12, 2004, 07:02 PM
... well i hope for apple that they release an absolute highend machine - i even would be in business for something like 5000-6000$, though i will order a new powermac g5 dual 2.5 and a powerbook 17" tomorrow ... have to do some serious vfx business.

anyway, have a look at those cinebench charts ... well even the new (yet not released) dual 2.5 lags behind ... and number one is a quad ... xeon ... time for apple to go way beyond those xeons ...

i would be very surprised if we see something like a quad powermac this year
.a

&RU
Jul 12, 2004, 08:44 PM
You can also bake bread in it.

I like the "four handles on top" myself - if it needs four handles to be lifted, should it really be lifted at all?

musicpyrite
Jul 12, 2004, 08:59 PM
While I doubt this rumor is true, I will bet big $$$ that if any company (Dell, HP, IBM, ect.) can make a quad processor computer first, it will be Apple.

jouster
Jul 12, 2004, 09:08 PM
While I doubt this rumor is true, I will bet big $$$ that if any company (Dell, HP, IBM, ect.) can make a quad processor computer first, it will be Apple.

Dell, HP and IBM already make computers with many more than four processors.

Nermal
Jul 12, 2004, 09:14 PM
Well, it's been a long time since that last quad-processor Mac, but that was made by Daystar, not Apple. I don't think that Apple is going to release a quad anytime soon, because the dual G5 is already ridiculously fast.

Chaszmyr
Jul 12, 2004, 09:14 PM
Will Apple make a quad processor powermac some day? Probably.

Is this particular rumor going to be proven true? I'd say it's got a snowball's chance in hell.

jsw
Jul 12, 2004, 09:22 PM
Is this particular rumor going to be proven true? I'd say it's got a snowball's chance in hell.

Perhaps more appropriately: a snowball's chance in a quad-G5. ;)

wrldwzrd89
Jul 12, 2004, 09:48 PM
Although it's nice to dream, I somehow think that, with MacOSRumors' poor track record (less than 50% correct), that both this rumor and the 96% certainty figure are bogus. I doubt that Apple would come out with a quad PowerMac in late 2004. That just seems unreasonable, given Apple's past history.

Chaszmyr
Jul 12, 2004, 10:04 PM
Perhaps more appropriately: a snowball's chance in a quad-G5. ;)

LOL

pdpfilms
Jul 12, 2004, 10:22 PM
That's waaaay too soon.....They just barely announced the new G5s, there's no way they're going to throw in a computer to shadow their entire still-new G5 lineup. Talk about rumors...

Sun Baked
Jul 12, 2004, 10:25 PM
Perhaps more appropriately: a snowball's chance in a quad-G5. ;)Right, but the snowball has a chance of surviving virtually.

The Quad Mac will have two real processors (Physical) and two virtual processors (Logical).

So it is really a Dual Power5-UL with SMT.

The OS only sees 4 CPUs... And this should give us a 35-40% boost over the G5 at the same clock speed.

We also keep hearing the possibility of dual core G5s and such, but that is a reality in the Power4s and Power5s.

We should probably be seeing these around the time Tiger arrives, which is damn good news.

Sol
Jul 12, 2004, 11:09 PM
Quad-CPU PowerMacs are not really needed these days. Two 2.5 GHz G5 processors provide all the power a modern application could need and for anything that requires more there are XServe Cluster Nodes and the XServe RAID.

I am not an expert in programming but I think that the resources it would take to make OS X and its applications quad-CPU aware would not be worth it. Better for Apple to keep making dual-CPU PowerMacs and XServes and push their power-hungry customers towards cluster solutions.

johnnowak
Jul 12, 2004, 11:31 PM
Software without support for being clustered is worthless on a cluster system.

Sol
Jul 13, 2004, 12:20 AM
Software without support for being clustered is worthless on a cluster system.

I do not know what it is called but Apple has a cluster software solution that is very easy for developers to implement into their applications. The first application to utilise this is Motion and I think Shake might be using it too. Basically your workstation seeks out compatible computers on your network and distributes the workload to them. Adobe utilises a similar system for After Effects and 3D rendering applications have used solutions like this for years.

Falleron
Jul 13, 2004, 01:44 AM
Could something like a quad powermac be the "XStation" - Apple's high end Server?? Therefore, not overshadowing the PowerMacs? It would address a different market. Those people building supercomputers would love it!

ddtlm
Jul 13, 2004, 03:28 AM
I really don't expect Apple to have four separate processors in any machine any time soon but IBM is eventually gona make a dual core G5 decendant. Everyone seems to be planning dual cores on high-end desktops, including Apple's competition in PC land.

Quad G5's as they stand now would be prohibitively expensive because of the need for 4 FSB's and the RAM to feed them, all linked into a single connection point (or series of interconnected connection points). Xeons and Itaniums have 2-4 processors per FSB, AMD doesn't have to worry about FSB's these days.

xiola
Jul 13, 2004, 04:12 AM
They say the housing is a stretched cube. Reminds me of the SGI Terzo http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/ Why make it look like that when you have liquid cooling?

wrldwzrd89
Jul 13, 2004, 04:57 AM
I really don't expect Apple to have four separate processors in any machine any time soon but IBM is eventually gona make a dual core G5 decendant. Everyone seems to be planning dual cores on high-end desktops, including Apple's competition in PC land.

Quad G5's as they stand now would be prohibitively expensive because of the need for 4 FSB's and the RAM to feed them, all linked into a single connection point (or series of interconnected connection points). Xeons and Itaniums have 2-4 processors per FSB, AMD doesn't have to worry about FSB's these days.
I was just thinking - why not swing for the fences with an 8 CPU design? Here's how this one would work: the Mac would have two dual-core CPUs (that's 4 right there), plus SMT to create 8 effective CPUs. This way, Apple wouldn't need 4 or 8 system buses, and would still get most of the performance benefits from the additional processors. (BTW, if Mac OS X is dual-CPU aware, that automatically makes it n-CPU aware.)

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 13, 2004, 05:08 AM
Given the G5 farms of late the Quad G5 is not that far fetched.

Also were there not those that thought pictures from AppleInside prior the G5 rev. B update indicated a quad design possible?

ddtlm
Jul 14, 2004, 01:50 AM
wrldwzrd89:

was just thinking - why not swing for the fences with an 8 CPU design? Here's how this one would work: the Mac would have two dual-core CPUs (that's 4 right there), plus SMT to create 8 effective CPUs.
That's certainly possible, but its still really just a 4 CPU machine. SMT does not make one CPU perform like two.

Chip NoVaMac:

Given the G5 farms of late the Quad G5 is not that far fetched.
You need to check on prices of quads. Quad Opterons are about the least expensive quads out there and they start at $10k, for between 50% and 100% more expensive than the same hardware divided between two dual-CPU machines. Unless there is something that really benefits from the shared memory, its not worth it.

Now of course Apple could come in and try to lower that price, but they can't do that till they get away from these current 970's with their FSB's because the monolithic system controller would be one heck of a complex chunk of electronics. With a CPU-CPU interconnect and on-die memory controllers they could do a quad for twice the cost of a dual, if IBM allows it.

wrldwzrd89
Jul 14, 2004, 04:26 AM
wrldwzrd89:


That's certainly possible, but its still really just a 4 CPU machine. SMT does not make one CPU perform like two.

Yes, you are correct - however, the advantages of such a design over a traditional 4-CPU design are numerous:
1. Because there are still only 2 CPU "units" (each containing 2 CPUs), Apple doesn't need to make significant design changes to the G5 to accomodate the new chips.
2. Only two system buses would be required, further simplifying the design.
3. Even though SMT isn't the same as having true dual processors, Apple would surely market the fact that SMT is supported in these Macs (perhaps even going so far as to call it an "effective-8 CPU PowerMac").
4. Assuming that SMT gives you 130% of the performance you'd get without it, 30*4=120, so this quad-CPU design will perform like it has over 5 CPUs.

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2004, 07:56 AM
I was just thinking - why not swing for the fences with an 8 CPU design? Here's how this one would work: the Mac would have two dual-core CPUs (that's 4 right there), plus SMT to create 8 effective CPUs. This way, Apple wouldn't need 4 or 8 system buses, and would still get most of the performance benefits from the additional processors. (BTW, if Mac OS X is dual-CPU aware, that automatically makes it n-CPU aware.)If you have a handy-dandy copy of Tiger sitting around, try this command in the terminal...

sysctl -a

Which "turns up two interesting values, specifically the number of physical and logical processors." (possible SMT hint from Catfish_Man42).

The only thing that strikes me odd about MOSR true quad is the "maximum" power dissipation at 3.0 GHz Power5-UL which would probably be 100-120W per CPU -- times four -- on the consevative side.

The 970 @ 2GHz is near the top of that and the 2.5GHz 970FX near the low end of the 100-120W, why would a 3.0GHz chip that's 20% larger than the FX and clocked higher be much lower power consumer on the same process (it probably wouldn't).

I can see a 2.5GHz Power5-UL kicking in with a 35-40% performance boost at the same power consuming fury of the 970 -- for a psuedoquad, but not 4 of them.

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2004, 05:58 PM
[Delete me] :eek:

ddtlm
Jul 14, 2004, 11:45 PM
wrldwzrd89:

Because there are still only 2 CPU "units" (each containing 2 CPUs), Apple doesn't need to make significant design changes to the G5 to accomodate the new chips.
This is true, and its not a new idea. Intel has been talking about dual core hyperthreadeed P4's (and presumbly Xeons) already.

Only two system buses would be required, further simplifying the design.
System busses? IBM needs to follow AMD's lead and go on-die memory controllers.

Assuming that SMT gives you 130% of the performance you'd get without it, 30*4=120, so this quad-CPU design will perform like it has over 5 CPUs.
SMT is probably not worth that much, and even if it were in some cases, it would get progressively harder to benefit from as the number of real CPUs increases. I don't know of anyone still making a quad CPU workstation, let alone quad SMT processors. Even "power users" will have a hard time keeping so many CPUs busy (unless they are doing distributed computing, but then I would wonder why they don't save money and just get a dedicated machine for that).

Sun Baked:

The 970 @ 2GHz is near the top of that and the 2.5GHz 970FX near the low end of the 100-120W, why would a 3.0GHz chip that's 20% larger than the FX and clocked higher be much lower power consumer on the same process (it probably wouldn't).
Hold on there, those power specs have never been released. It's almost certain that no shipping PPC970 have ever breached 90W of dissipation, based on the "typical" ratings. A more reasonable estimate on the 2.5ghz 970fx is probably 70W peak.

It's true that IBM's PowerX chips dissipate a lot, but thats two cores per die and they've never been fabbed at 90nm, yet.

Freg3000
Jul 14, 2004, 11:47 PM
Fuel to the fire:

The Quad Power are going to be announced at Apple Expo Paris, according to multitude of sources found deep in the grape vine( 67.7% reliability). Rumors previously stated that the Quads featured 4 3.0 GHz processors but now sources say that 2.8GHz Quad PowerMacs also exist.

This is a breaking story, please stay tuned for details and sketches.


67.7% I love this site. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Duff-Man
Jul 14, 2004, 11:54 PM
Fuel to the fire:



67.7% I love this site. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Duff-Man says....check out todays postings...he's got a "prototype" G5 Powerbook...uh huh...Duff-Man wants some of what he's smokin'....oh yeah!

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 15, 2004, 06:19 AM
Fuel to the fire:



67.7% I love this site. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

From some of what i have been reading over there, I would not want to hang out with these guys. I like my life and limbs in one piece :)

They seem too accident prone.

Sun Baked
Jul 15, 2004, 07:45 AM
Hold on there, those power specs have never been released. It's almost certain that no shipping PPC970 have ever breached 90W of dissipation, based on the "typical" ratings. A more reasonable estimate on the 2.5ghz 970fx is probably 70W peak.Are you basing the reasonable on Motorola's typical being about 75% of Maximum or Apple's marketing releases which put the maximum at twice the typical?

The 2.5ghz 970fx is right about where the 1.8ghz 970 was about 100W -- and the 2.0ghz 970 was about 10-15W more on the typical side.

Doubling typical brings the numbers close to the middle of the range IBM/Apple are stating. IBM says a little less than double and Apple a little bit more than double.