"Quad-processor G4s" - MORS [Archive]

King Cobra

Jul 29, 2002, 05:17 PM

You are Mr. Jobs, you should at least know jack *****. :rolleyes: :p

I'm impressed with the Quad rumor, but I am most impressed with the fact that it will become affordable. I assume that this means under $3500. Because it was only a year or so ago, I think, in which even a Quad 733MHz machine cost around the same price. I'm pretty sure that the price has dropped since then, and I would be happy to see a future Quad 1.2GHz machine.

I also noticed the iBook and Powerbook rumors...very disturbing. We have to wait a long time for certain upgrades. Why can't the iBook just move up a G? I mean, the tech should be right there to make something affordable and cool enough to run in the enclosure. Heck, I'd be happy with a 500MHz G4 iBook.

Mr Jobs

Jul 29, 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by mnkeybsness
people have been crying for quad processors for over a year now...but no one actually needs quad processors...and if they have the money for a machine like that, they would just buy servers and run render farms

I need Quad processors, before you ask, FCP and Photoshop are my main application useage, there faster i can render and the more realtime effects i can get from FCP the better. Same with photoshop...remeber man time is money and those render seconds add up

Mr. Anderson

Jul 29, 2002, 05:28 PM

Cool, but this is also interesting

the PPC 7500, is purported to be less than a year away with its 500MHz RapidIO bus

That means that the G5 won't be around for quite some time - if they're already looking at a replacement to the 7470 in less than a year? Damn, not good. If this rumor is true, the life expectancy of the G4 is much longer than I ever expected.

D

rice_web

Jul 29, 2002, 05:36 PM

I don't know why people have been whining about the G4s inability to scale... it started out at 350MHz, and is now expected to reach around 1.3-1.4GHz. Granted, the architecture of the chip has changed, but the G5 has come to represent 64-bit computing.

Anyway, a Quad-G4 computer would be a great idea. Because it would sport four processors, there would be no need for it to run the fastest G4s available, so it could sport four 1GHz G4s. However, I do hope that the 7470 brings a faster system bus AS WELL AS faster, and DDR, memory.

So, based on what I said above, here is what Apple could be leaning to:

iMac
The fastest G4s available whenever possible. However, only available in single CPU configurations.

PowerMac
Slightly slower clockspeeds than the iMac, but two processors in every model.

Quad-G4
Oh yeah, baby: Four Processors! Each chip might be slow in itself, but with four processors working away on independent buses, the Quad-G4 cooks, eats, and cleans up everything in its path.

szark

Jul 29, 2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
Cool, but this is also interesting

the PPC 7500, is purported to be less than a year away with its 500MHz RapidIO bus

That means that the G5 won't be around for quite some time - if they're already looking at a replacement to the 7470 in less than a year? Damn, not good. If this rumor is true, the life expectancy of the G4 is much longer than I ever expected.

D

According to Motorola's numbering scheme, the 7500 should BE the desktop G5...which would mean a G5 in less than a year.

Mr. Anderson

Jul 29, 2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by szark

According to Motorola's numbering scheme, the 7500 should BE the desktop G5...which would mean a G5 in less than a year.

I was basing my comment on the Motorola Roadmap (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230) which doesn't have a 7500 on it but the 8500 is in the G5 catagory.

Am I missing something?

D

barkmonster

Jul 29, 2002, 06:00 PM

From numerous tests on barefeats you can get a good idea of how much real benefit dual CPUs actually have in photoshop.

A Dual 1 Ghz G4 is 51% faster than the single cpu 933Mhz model at the action file covering both dual aware and single cpu plug-ins.

From this you could say that the dual 1Ghz G4 gains 41% extra speed over a theoretical single CPU 1Ghz G4, all factors being equal.

Another way of putting it would be that if quad cpus had the same 41% performance increase over duals as dual cpus have over 1 processor, a quad cpu G4 would only offer a 98% speed boost in photoshop over a single cpu model of the same clock speed.

Obviously these estimations are only based on the results for the dual Ghz model running PS7 under OS X. As OS X is so much better at handling multiple CPUs than OS 9, It's not the performance gains in photoshop that would make a quad mac good for design, it's fact you'd have a screamingly fast mac that could tear though filters in photoshop while working in Illustrator and Indesign at the same time and absolutely flying in all 3!!

Also just for those people who love PC vs Mac shoot outs, there's hints of a new test page with a dual Athlon 1900+ MP on the barefeats site, it smokes the dual Ghz G4 by 45%. That suggests that a dual 1.4Ghz G4 with DDR would almost match the Athlon. The most appealing thing about these new benchmarks are the pitiful performance of the 2Ghz Pentium 4, It doesn't even match the results of the 933MHz G4 and until the full page is up on barefeats with all the details and I can only assume it's a Northwood aswell.

szark

Jul 29, 2002, 06:06 PM

Actually, I know this has been an often-debated topic in these forums.

The 7500 was on the older version of the roadmap in the G5 category, along with the 8500. (The old roadmap doesn't seem to be on their site anymore, but I'm almost certain I have a copy at home...) It disappeared when they made the current roadmap.

So, either they will now be using the number 7500 for a G4, or they will be making it a G5 and just don't want to tell us...

Either way, I'll be happy.

A Quad-G4 system would be nice, though! :)

mnkeybsness

Jul 29, 2002, 06:13 PM

you'll need to remember that the programs would need to be written for multiple processors...you can't just put in more processors into a machine and expect it to go exponentially faster...os x would take advantage of the quads...not the software you want to use...and by the time that a quad machine would be released for purchase, the software companies would need to write software to take advantage of quad chips, which could take about a year or so for that, we could have faster single and dual units available...processor evolution...it's a great thing

mnkeybsness

Jul 29, 2002, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
I assume that this means under $3500. Because it was only a year or so ago, I think, in which even a Quad 733MHz machine cost around the same price.

and where did you find this system for sale?

Beej

Jul 29, 2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by rice_web
Quad-G4
Oh yeah, baby: Four Processors! Each chip might be slow in itself, but with four processors working away on independent buses, the Quad-G4 cooks, eats, and cleans up everything in its path. Oh sweet. But does it make coffee?

Quad procs... hmmm. That could explain the insane cooling inside the new G4s.

I'd love to see Apple come out with these babies. What most of you are saying is right: slow(er) G4s would probably be used. But I'd love to see Apple release a quad version of its fastest proc. I don't care how much it is, it can just be a show pony... kind of Apple's "look what we can do" machine. The one they use in benchmarks. Yummy.

I'll take 6.

Sun Baked

Jul 29, 2002, 06:42 PM

If you really want some wild speculation on G4s read what this guy says.

I warn you it's REALLY LONG.

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9010915074&r=6260982425#6260982425

The rest of the thread is interesting but this guy is quite entertaining.

King Cobra

Jul 29, 2002, 07:14 PM

>(mnkeybsness)and where did you find this system [Quad 733MHz] for sale?

Don't make me search for it. I cleary remember that there was an old MacOSRumors article from a long while back. I can't remember the exact words, but I think it was stating that IF Apple came out with a Quad 733MHz computer the price tag would go up to $3499, or something like that.

Take my word for it. I know I saw it somewhere.

But that was 2001. Now being mid-way 2002 there would probably be lowered prices on Quad models. Such possible proof would be all these upgrade cards for GHz chips and such for the Cube.

King Cobra

Jul 29, 2002, 07:26 PM

>http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9010915074&r=6260982425#6260982425

A note about the site...there is some profane language. You've been warned.

I like the guy's facts on the G5...but what really got to be was the little blurb about there being 4 machines running Apple's servers in Quad CPU model. This has to tell us something about Quad CPUs. They're coming... :eek:

prewwii

Jul 29, 2002, 10:38 PM

I think the growing consensus is that Apple is down on overall performance compared to what is available in the market place. Just about every rumor site has more than one thread discussing the lack of Apple system performance.

The Apple / Motorola alliance does not seem to be the solution as even the rumored 1.6ghz with DDR would only get back to par in some areas. I would bet cranky ole Steve is getting pretty testy when the best rabbit in his hat at trade shows lately has been some cool software for a digital hub. Software that neither improves professional graphic performance or everyday office performance in an era when Apple is spending a ton on the "Switch" program. More and more bench marks are being posted that show Apple's best box 3rd best at doing their strong suite, graphics.

Apple didn't just get behind in performance they have been that way for more than one generation of PC hardware. I am betting that Mr Jobs is getting tired on selling cute, cool software that runs on third fastest hardware available.

There is nothing so hard as software and nothing so soft as hardware. Apple and it's software suppliers have spent a ton on getting software to execute ALTIVEC so I think that is painting Apple into the Motorola corner. Unless Apple can buy the technology and get some other chip source to step up to the plate it's going to be hard for Apple and performance leader to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Storm clouds are forming. Time is money for professionals and ease of use is not enough to offset raw performance for much longer. Switching hardware systems at this time for a professional is not expensive because a lot of graphics professional are still using OS 9.x. Whether they move to the PC or upgrade to OSX the cost are going to be similiar as they will need both new hardware and software for either choice.

The darkside is known to have driver problems, but then so is Apple with their latest operating system. If both companies solve the driver problem about the same, Apple is still down on performance with a poor record of being able to keep up.

There is a need for speed.....

G4scott

Jul 29, 2002, 11:00 PM

I spoke with an Apple employee at a band convention, and he said to expect new PowerMacs, up to 1.4-1.5 Ghz, DDR, and all that juicy stuff sometime in August... Of course, he may get his info the same place we get ours... I didn't get any new info out of him :p .

Cappy

Jul 30, 2002, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by G4scott
I spoke with an Apple employee at a band convention, and he said to expect new PowerMacs, up to 1.4-1.5 Ghz, DDR, and all that juicy stuff sometime in August... Of course, he may get his info the same place we get ours... I didn't get any new info out of him :p .

People keep throwing around the 1.5 Ghz number. I don't see it happening if we use some common sense. The frontside bus is likely to be 133Mhz so if we figure what multipliers the G4 allows, you will see that 1.5Ghz just is not going to happen. 1.4 is certainly doable and so is 1.6.

Now there have been a couple of rumors throwing around possible 166Mhz bus speeds. Those haven't always been real clear on how that applies...likely just ram. If it was the frontside bus then we could see 1.5Ghz.

dongmin

Jul 30, 2002, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by mnkeybsness
you'll need to remember that the programs would need to be written for multiple processors...you can't just put in more processors into a machine and expect it to go exponentially faster...os x would take advantage of the quads...not the software you want to use...and by the time that a quad machine would be released for purchase, the software companies would need to write software to take advantage of quad chips, which could take about a year or so for that, we could have faster single and dual units available...processor evolution...it's a great thing

Well, considering that Apple now develops Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, and DVD Studio Pro--all of which could stand to benefit from multiple processors, it makes a lot of sense. Now, if they can get Maya and maybe Photoshop to be adapted to support quad processors, Macs could be the ultimate software and hardware solution for heavy-duty multimedia processing jobs.

dongmin

Jul 30, 2002, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by King Cobra
I'm impressed with the Quad rumor, but I am most impressed with the fact that it will become affordable. I assume that this means under $3500. Because it was only a year or so ago, I think, in which even a Quad 733MHz machine cost around the same price...

Don't make me search for it. I cleary remember that there was an old MacOSRumors article from a long while back. I can't remember the exact words, but I think it was stating that IF Apple came out with a Quad 733MHz computer the price tag would go up to $3499, or something like that.

Dude, what are you talking about??? You say it with so much confidence but all it really is is some fantasy MOSR cooked up. This is a fantasy on so many levels, it's not even funny.

Beigean

Jul 30, 2002, 01:55 AM

People keep throwing around the 1.5 Ghz number. I don't see it happening if we use some common sense. The frontside bus is likely to be 133Mhz so if we figure what multipliers the G4 allows, you will see that 1.5Ghz just is not going to happen. 1.4 is certainly doable and so is 1.6.

Cappy, 133x11.5=1,529.5, which could be rounded off to 1.5GHz, or 1.53 like an Athlon.

LethalWolfe

Jul 30, 2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by dongmin

Well, considering that Apple now develops Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, and DVD Studio Pro--all of which could stand to benefit from multiple processors, it makes a lot of sense. Now, if they can get Maya and maybe Photoshop to be adapted to support quad processors, Macs could be the ultimate software and hardware solution for heavy-duty multimedia processing jobs.

But how long is that going to take? By the time all that software is "quad-ready" how fast will x86 procs be? 4 or 5 ghz? Unless you'll have software quad-ready when quad machines are launched it's pointless. Any, quad procs to me sounds like a desperate gimmick. Apple needs FASTER procs, not MORE procs.

Lethal

rice_web

Jul 30, 2002, 03:07 PM

The greatest thing about MORE processors, is the ability to multitask. Even if applications only utilize two processors, that means one can have two programs open running pretty darned fast. It would be a great tool for those that need to render a project while working a program such as Photoshop.

trilogic

Jul 30, 2002, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Well, considering that Apple now develops Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic, and DVD Studio Pro--all of which could stand to benefit from multiple processors, it makes a lot of sense. Now, if they can get Maya and maybe Photoshop to be adapted to support quad processors, Macs could be the ultimate software and hardware solution for heavy-duty multimedia processing jobs.

right and there shure is a market for very expensive highend machines. like all the people who buy or bought >10k$ sgi workstations.

G4scott

Jul 30, 2002, 03:48 PM

I'm sure that Apple's made quad processor Macs for testing, and other stuff. I am pretty sure that there will be a G5 within a year, though.

ddtlm

Jul 30, 2002, 04:14 PM

There is an unfortunate lack of understanding here of the problems associated with a quad G4, or quad anything really.

Sure, a quad G4 may even be possible, and it could happen, but lets look at some problems:

1) The FSB. Right now the dual G4 systems share their FSB, and as far as I know a quad would have all four sharing. Now when I say sharing, it's like kids and fancy toys share. Sometimes they play nice, sometimes there is some crying and fighting.

By this I mean that if you think G4's are held back by RAM now, imagine doubling the number of G4's expected to share! Ow!

2) Other than endless rumors that people repeat as fact, there is no reason to believe that there is a new revision of G4 with DDR support coming next month. I maintain that it is too soon, seeing as how the Apollo was just released like 6 months ago, and seeing as how Apple's fancy new Xserve chipset is brand new (and uses a SDR FSB, not a DDR one).

3) While Apple could implement multiple busses for their chips (like AMD with their dual Athlons), this is no small task. You can't just take out the marker and draw it on the motherboard, it would take a lot of time and money to design and test and custom mobo and custom chipset, and worse, it would not be a part shared with other products anywhere in the world. This is just far too expensive for Apple. They can't make wacky custom chips for a small slice of their tower line... not at that rumor-as-fact $3500 that got tossed around.

4) Performance: Quads are not gona blow you away. I'm happy to see this is generally realized in the thread, but consider this: Going from one chip to two increased performance on a *specially* *coded* task by 50% or less. Lets be nice and assume we can get another 50% by doubling again, to quads. 4ghz of chips doing only twice (or so) the work of a single 1ghz chip. Sheesh. This is worse efficientcy than an uber-clockspeed chip like the P4, and I know how much people love that chip around here! Hows that for perspective?

Oh, and that only works if the app is specially optimized, unlike the situtation for the much-reviled P4. Owch.

Don't bother giving me the multitasking line either... lets see how far you can get with four chips sharing a bus. I am guessing it won't be far.

rice_web

Jul 30, 2002, 04:23 PM

I don't know think you realize something: the only way that a quad-G4 system would ever be released, was if dual or even quadruple system buses were in place (which would mean a new motherboard and some tricking the processors). Maybe dual-133MHz system buses or dual-166MHz system buses (as in the case of the rumored 7470s) would provide ample bandwidth.

Edit: Remember the rumors of the NForce2? The NForce2 has dual-channel DDR support. Though I think it's unlikely we'll see NVidia chipsets, it's some food for thought.

As for jumping from the Apollos... what makes you think that we couldn't use the Apollos in the iMacs, and the 7470s in the towers? That would extend the life of the Apollo significantly.

AmbitiousLemon

Jul 30, 2002, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
There is an unfortunate lack of understanding here of the problems associated with a quad G4, or quad anything really.

Sure, a quad G4 may even be possible, and it could happen, but lets look at some problems:

1) The FSB. Right now the dual G4 systems share their FSB, and as far as I know a quad would have all four sharing. Now when I say sharing, it's like kids and fancy toys share. Sometimes they play nice, sometimes there is some crying and fighting.

By this I mean that if you think G4's are held back by RAM now, imagine doubling the number of G4's expected to share! Ow!

2) Other than endless rumors that people repeat as fact, there is no reason to believe that there is a new revision of G4 with DDR support coming next month. I maintain that it is too soon, seeing as how the Apollo was just released like 6 months ago, and seeing as how Apple's fancy new Xserve chipset is brand new (and uses a SDR FSB, not a DDR one).

3) While Apple could implement multiple busses for their chips (like AMD with their dual Athlons), this is no small task. You can't just take out the marker and draw it on the motherboard, it would take a lot of time and money to design and test and custom mobo and custom chipset, and worse, it would not be a part shared with other products anywhere in the world. This is just far too expensive for Apple. They can't make wacky custom chips for a small slice of their tower line... not at that rumor-as-fact $3500 that got tossed around.

4) Performance: Quads are not gona blow you away. I'm happy to see this is generally realized in the thread, but consider this: Going from one chip to two increased performance on a *specially* *coded* task by 50% or less. Lets be nice and assume we can get another 50% by doubling again, to quads. 4ghz of chips doing only twice (or so) the work of a single 1ghz chip. Sheesh. This is worse efficientcy than an uber-clockspeed chip like the P4, and I know how much people love that chip around here! Hows that for perspective?

Oh, and that only works if the app is specially optimized, unlike the situtation for the much-reviled P4. Owch.

Don't bother giving me the multitasking line either... lets see how far you can get with four chips sharing a bus. I am guessing it won't be far.

Ah, you had to come out and say it didnt you. The nagging little voice of reason in the back of all of our minds. Most of us (myself included) hase pretty much come to expect a huge upgrade in august, but the things you mention in your porst have been nothering me as well. It certainly seems odd that the xserve's lack the ddr fsb. when i first saw it i immediatly assumed apple would take the same route with the new powermacs. the response to this thought has been that raw processing power in a server is less important than memory access, and so the xserves can get away with a slower fsb as long as they have ddr ram, while the powermacs rely on their raw processing power more, which has been hindered for some time by the slow fsb. im not sure if i buy the retort or not, and although all logic seems to indicate that you are right about a more conservative release come august, my only hope is that no matter how much we think we know apple does tend to be good at surprises. the g4 lcd imac, is a great example. sure we all basically knew we would get a 15" lcd, but only the crazies thought there would be a g4 in it as well. but sure enough apple pulled it off and shocked us all. im hoping apple will be able to again meet the expectations of the crazies, because it is a sweet song they sing.

ddtlm

Jul 30, 2002, 05:18 PM

rice_web:

Dual-channel DDR RAM does not equal dual front side busses. The nForce cannot run dual Athlons because it only has one bus (and Athlons can't share) even though it has two channels of RAM. On the flip side, the 760MP chipset can run dual Athlons cause it has two busses, but it only has a single DDR RAM channel.

All other chipsets for the Athlon have one channel for RAM and one FSB, but they could have made some with dual FSB's and dual-channel RAM at a high cost (and for a small market).

I rate it a vitrual impossibility that Apple will roll out an expensive custom chipset with multiple FSB's in a month, or ever, given their current target audience. G4's are chips that naturally share a FSB, and doing otherwise would a mess, although stranger things have been done for P3-Xeons and Xeons. Of course, notice that those custom setups are very expensive and used only in servers.

AmbitiousLemon:

I wouldn't buy those excuses about the Xserve... plenty of people want to use them for very intensive tasks such as render farms. I think the problem is that Moto does not have a G4 that supports a DDR FSB, so Apple did the best they could.

In any case, I think that DDR FSB or no, in many many tasks the G4's are not yet using up their full memory bandwidth, because in many tasks my PC133 1.53ghz Athlon is much faster. If I was in the market, I would definately consider a dual G4 with SDR FSB and DDR RAM, hopefully at > 1.2ghz per G4.

G4scott

Jul 30, 2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
2) Other than endless rumors that people repeat as fact, there is no reason to believe that there is a new revision of G4 with DDR support coming next month. I maintain that it is too soon, seeing as how the Apollo was just released like 6 months ago, and seeing as how Apple's fancy new Xserve chipset is brand new (and uses a SDR FSB, not a DDR one).

Even some Apple employee's who are sworn to secrecy (I'm not talking about the sales people at the Apple stores, but true Apple Reps who are pretty high up on the information ladder at Apple) are not arguing with the rumors about 1.4-5 Ghz G4's with DDR RAM. I asked one of these guys recently, and he just said to expect something in August with the 1.4-5 Ghz G4 and DDR, and a G5 sometime in the middle of next year. It seems that he just looked at the rumor sites, and just repeated what he saw there, but I talked to another Apple guy who was there (not as high up on the info ladder. He actually tries to pry info from this other guy, but he's cool...) and he said that the guy I talked to does know about future Apple products, and that he's probably used them and seen them before. Probably the only reason that he was able to say what he did, was because those specs were already plastered all over the rumor sites, and it wouldn't hurt him to tell, but that's all he said. Of course, If you were in his position, you wouldn't say much either, at the sake of losing your job...

But, I do imagine that quad's are a pipe dream, for now...

Sun Baked

Jul 30, 2002, 06:43 PM

The thread I posted before was Explanation needed: XServe DDR really that bad? and talks about DDR and how the FSB may still be a choke point when going to DDR memory.

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9010915074&p=1

Of course real world test should prove/disprove whether there really is a block to DDR memory.

They also show this on the third page

jadam

Jul 30, 2002, 06:47 PM

quad G4s are an utter waste of apples time, there is no marktet for them. How much of apples market do the Dual 1ghz take up??

plus, hmmmmmmmmm MOSR... what happened to the Dual G4 TiBooks they rumored before???????/hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

porovaara

Jul 30, 2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
Going from one chip to two increased performance on a *specially* *coded* task by 50% or less. Lets be nice and assume we can get another 50% by doubling again, to quads. 4ghz of chips doing only twice (or so) the work of a single 1ghz chip. Sheesh. This is worse efficientcy than an uber-clockspeed
[/B]

All of your other points are good, but this is just flat out wrong. The only reason you are seeing such horrid numbers as 51% increase per cpu on the macs is because the bus is abosulutely atrocious. A single 1Ghz G4 is aleady starved for memory bandwith on the current motherboards apple is using. If apple had a real bus behind it you would see near linear scaling as CPUs were added. No you would never see 100% but with a decent bus (see Alpha/AMD) you can get upper 80s out of another CPU and a degneration of 1-2% on each additional CPU on the bus.

The G4 is fine. The current bus being used by Apple is what is killing everything. Go over to Arstechnica and read some of the posts by BadAndy or if thats too much trouble check out the peformance specs on dual 450s vs dual 500s vs dual 800s vs dual 1Ghz... the curve goes down horrible fast on gain from performance... much more so than if you compare single g4s.

A 4-CPU 1Ghz g4 on something like HyperTransport would see something along the lines of relative 3.36Ghz performance when lined up against a single 1Ghz cpu.

syco

Jul 31, 2002, 11:04 AM

Hey guys, my name is Steve, but I go by Syco. A friend of mine directed me to this website. I've been interested in getting a new computer (I have my eyes set on the Dual 1GHz G4 with a GeForce4 Ti :D ) once I get the money scrounged up. However, these rumors of Quad-processors has really set my eyes ablaze. With OSX's symmetric multiprocessing, having 4 G4s would be an amazing thing to play WarCraft 3 on. However, I'm not the biggest genius when it comes to computers, so I have a few questions regarding multiprocessing altogether.
1) Would it be feasible to, maybe, include 16 100MHz processors into a computer? Heat-wise and cost-wise? If this is possible, it would make the system more efficient if OSX did what they do with memory - denote which apps get which processors to fulfill their speed need.
2) Why doesn't Apple test their Dual 800 MHz G4 with their 800 MHZ SP G4 to test the advantage of DP? Even showing benchmarks of 933MHz SP to Dual 1GHz has the discrepancy.
3) How does MP support for X have an effect on apps that already support MP in their own way? For instance, the program SNES9X, which is a SNES emulator, uses one processor to handle the ingame processing, and the other is used to apply the ingame video modes. How would MPing affect the program in that sense?

Thanks for your time, and sorry if I sound like a total newbie.

ftaok

Jul 31, 2002, 11:30 AM

Here's my take on what the next PowerMacs will be with a bit of ftaok-logic thrown in.

Apple didn't release a new PowerMac at MWNY because (a) the double (or quad) pumped bus designed to work with the 7470 G4 was not ready, or (b) the bus is ready but Motorola wasn't able to get satisfactory yields for the 1.6ghz chip, or (c) Motorola doesn't have a chip that's faster than 1ghz and Apple hasn't been designing a new bus.

Being the optimist (and Motorola supporter) that I am, I'm inclined to say that it's either (a) or (b). So when the rumored August date rolls around, the PowerMac that will be intro'd will have the following specs:

Dual 1.6ghz 7470 (with 2 or 4MB of L3)
333mhz effective bus speed
Support for lots of DDR RAM
Big Hard Drives
FireWire2 - maybe
USB 2.0 - only if Firewire2 is there

plus 17in & 19in Cinema Displays to go with the 22 and 23in jobbers.

Oh, and built-in Bluetooth.

Joshlew

Jul 31, 2002, 01:27 PM

Quad 1.6Ghz G4 = :D :D :D :D :D :D

scem0

Aug 3, 2002, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by ftaok

Dual 1.6ghz 7470 (with 2 or 4MB of L3)
333mhz effective bus speed
Support for lots of DDR RAM
Big Hard Drives
FireWire2 - maybe
USB 2.0 - only if Firewire2 is there

Oh, and built-in Bluetooth.

--

warning - I am typ i ng on a u nfamiliar key board in an i nternet cafe in Bali (i ndonesia) ri ght now, and this stupid PC keyboard is deciding to put spaces everywhere for me :confused: ) - warni ng

I think that you are t oo optomistic. But I would be VERY angry if apple di dnot i nclude USB 2 on th ep owermacs. P ro users need th e newest technology, and USB 2 is hardly new technology. I will not be mad at apple if they di dnt i nclude FW2/gigawire, but I would like it :D . I am mad at apple fo r fall i ng b ehi nd in speed, but i guess it is motorola i should be mad at. I really hope apple goes with IBM's scaled down Power4. Then we would go fr om the g4/5 to the P4. That might get co nfusing with pentium 4 and stuff tbet that is irrelevant.

I quad p roc essor is useless, 2 is the only ammount of processo rs that is worth the extra co st. And 16 100 MHz pr ocessors would not wor k. Quad procesors would be a bad mood. Apple needs megahertz. That is the only thing p eople look at, and they will never gai n any mar ket share u nless th ey are competing with the Wintel processor speeds.

:rolleyes: i find my s elf co ncludi ng i n half my posts that apple needs to start concentrating on speed, because the iApps wo nt make up for their lack of speed in the lo ng run...:(

Nipsy

Aug 3, 2002, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by scem0

But I would be VERY angry if apple did not include USB 2 on the powermacs. P ro users need th e newest technology, and USB 2 is hardly new technology. I will not be mad at apple if they didnt include FW2/gigawire, but I would like it.

I think this statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Pro users use the fastest technology, with the greatest reliability. Pro users aren't complaining about the IDE bus speeds since they use U160 SCSI. Pro users aren't complaing about USB 2.0, because there are no devices capable of saturating FireWire 1, let alone USB 2 of FireWire 2. Anyone silly enough to build a FireWire RAID, and complain about saturating the bus is a gadget freak, not a Pro. Pro users are further silent on the matter, because very few Pro devices are released which take advantage of a SERIAL bus. Furthermore, the FireWire bus was designed for speed + ease, and USB was designed for ease only. USB 2.0 is an attempt to turn a SERIAL bus into a storage bus. USB was designed for keyboards, cameras, MP3 players, semi-pro shuttles, speakers, mics, etc. FireWire was designed for digital video, CDRW, DVDRW, etc...hmmm

I am mad at apple for falling behind in speed, but i guess it is motorola i should be mad at. I really hope apple goes with IBM's scaled down Power4. Then we would go from the g4/5 to the P4. That might get confusing with pentium 4 and stuff but that is irrelevant.

Everyone would like to see more speed from Apple hardware, but I am seeing Pro users considering the platform more than ever before. When data/security/reliabilty/licensing flaws can cost a Windows box 10 days/year of operation, a Mac looks much better. Furthermore, linux and unix users are seeing OSX as filling a void that Linux could not fill. The Xserve, and future hardware, regarless of processor, will help prove Apple as an enterprise solution (for the first time in a long time).

Apple needs megahertz. That is the only thing people look at, and they will never gain any market share unless they are competing with the Wintel processor speeds.

Speed in MHz is what consumers look at. Professionals look at things like productivity, TCO, reliability, licensing & support costs, etc. Ask yourself why Sun powers 60% of the web, even though the UltraSparcIII is on par with the G4 for MHz. Even the Itanic II is not MHz driven. CTOs, and IT pros don't look at MHz. Professional end users value MHz less than you might think. Consumers think the sun shines out of the MHz hole.

i find myself concluding in half my posts that apple needs to start concentrating on speed, because the iApps won't make up for their lack of speed in the long run

Again, while everyone would like to see a faster Pro line, a professional looks at the iApps as cute toys for the kids. PhotoShop matters. Oracle matters. FCP matters. Pro audio software matters. Apache matters. Exchange support (sadly) sometimes matters. Networking matters. iApps waste drive space.

scem0

Aug 4, 2002, 12:32 AM

Well, that is all true, but pro users arent what apple needs more of, because there are more regular consumers, then pro consumers. They need megahertz if they want more market share. They need a better company if they need more megahertz, because motorola isnt pulling their weight. I think IBM or AMD are good choices, but that is just an opinion. While it is true that a true pro consumer doesnt need USB2, a lot of pro users would like it because of its ease. I would want it on my computer because most CD burners out right now require USB2, and firewire devices arent being made as much now, with FW2 coming out (hopefully).
Yes, you are correct - to a professional, iApps waste space. But that is the reason that they wont make up for lack of speed.

I agree with everything you said though. :) pretty much:D