Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Quad-processor G4s" - MORS
- Thread starter Mr Jobs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
You are Mr. Jobs, you should at least know jack ****. 
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
According to Motorola's numbering scheme, the 7500 should BE the desktop G5...which would mean a G5 in less than a year.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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/Open...00945231&m=9010915074&r=6260982425#6260982425
The rest of the thread is interesting but this guy is quite entertaining.
I warn you it's REALLY LONG.
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/Open...00945231&m=9010915074&r=6260982425#6260982425
The rest of the thread is interesting but this guy is quite entertaining.
>(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.
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.
>http://arstechnica.infopop.net/Open...00945231&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...
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...
The need for speed........
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.....
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.....
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 .
.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
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.
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
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.
right and there shure is a market for very expensive highend machines. like all the people who buy or bought >10k$ sgi workstations.