4-6 Processor Macs?

[arn]

MacBidoulle (English Translation) reports on a rumor of the upcoming Rack-Macs:

They clalim that the video will be average (as appropriate), but with lots of processing power... 4-6 CPUs.

[Beej]

More OS X on x86 arguments...

--

I'd love to see 4 or 6 processor Macs release Monday (wouldn't everyone), but I am very doubtful.

I hope to be eating my words in a few days time.

[sjs]

Crazy thought, but: based on the photo of the motherboard we recently saw, is there any evidence or possibility that next week we could see AMD chips in servers??

Nah...that would be the biggest shock since...what?

[arn]

Originally posted by Beej
More OS X on x86 arguments...

--

I'd love to see 4 or 6 processor Macs release Monday (wouldn't everyone), but I am very doubtful.

Based on the rumblings... I think it'll be duals, and then quads...

arn

[eyelikeart]

the quad processor Macs have been a wet-dream for many for a while now...

I'm excited to see what we're gonna get (even though I've no use for a rackmount server presently)...

[G4scott]

I don't think that you'll see more than 4 processors in these new servers. Apple's here to make affordable and powerful computers, not supercomputers (although they allready do ). They really can't make an affordable 6 processor server. Even 4 processors is expensive. If you want tons of power, go with clustering...

And the AMD idea is stupid...

[jelloshotsrule]

it's funny how we heard about 4 processors a long time ago.... and here we are, not sure if it'll actually happen..

let's just hope it does!

[Catfish_Man]

...that Opteron hasn't been released yet (and won't be until 2003), I don't think it's real likely that we'll see the rackmounts on the 14th using it. Depending on the size I would expect either dual or quad G4s with DDR.

[Rower_CPU]

My vote's for quad G4s as well...but G5s would be a nice surprise!

[mc68k]

Dual g4's. Apple's not trying to rival their proffesional line, just trying to complement it in a rack configuration. If they want more power (argh…argh…argh) then they can cluster those mo-fos. 4 CPU's is way overkill, but still plausible.

[j763]

It's about time for Apple to drop Motorola and use AMD. This isn't the whole x86 debate again -- just make it so that the OS always looks and checks that it's got the correct chip in it... It would be quite possible.

[The Bender]

The Bender would love to see at least on quad config, even if way overpriced, just for the tongue-out-of-mouth factor. Entering a new matrket, particularly this one (Boldly Going Where No Apple Has Gone Before), Apple could do much worse than whipping up a media storm. Who cares if nobody will actually need it?

As for the X86 rumor, The Bender thinks it is well past it's bedtime.


And as an aside, The Bender would like to know where his post suddenly disappeard to a few minutes ago when he thoughtfully typed a few lines that vanished before his eyes before he could get to the 'post' button... wait a minute... it appears The Bender is confined to his work Intel box.

[The Bender]

It has also become embarrasingly apparent that The Bender could do with some typing practice.

Less haste, more speed, Bender.

[foniks2020]

AMD could be incorporating a PPC into their chip fab lineup... maybe they are buying Motorola!!! and will soon give us all that DDR/533mhz frontbus goodness! ...well they could ya know ;-p

[The Bender]

Originally posted by foniks2020
AMD could be incorporating a PPC into their chip fab lineup... maybe they are buying Motorola!!! and will soon give us all that DDR/533mhz frontbus goodness! ...well they could ya know ;-p

The Bender has information from top sources in Mossad that AMD has always secretly been the parent company of both Apple and Motorola, and their X86 chip lines were just a sideline to weaken the MS-Intel Alliance Of Evil. Now you know what the A and M really stand for, what's the D? And where does IBM come into it?

The Bender has also heard rumors that Bill Gates is smuggling millions of dollars worth of diamonds into the US so he can blast them into space, build a massive laser, and burn Infinite Loop to a crisp. He must be stopped. The Bender is getting on the next rocket. This rumor will only be confirmed if he fails in his mission.

[Beej]

Beej finds it rather strange when people start talking about themselves in the thrid person.

[The Bender]

Originally posted by Beej
Beej finds it rather strange when people start talking about themselves in the thrid person.

The Bender is quite sure he has no idea what you are talking about. And so is The Bender.

In any case, The Bender never made any proclamations about the existence or non-existence of strangeness. Maybe you know too much already.

[Brent Turbo]

There will bo no quads.

1) Apple has never, and will not, overshadow their pro line with another system. And again, what's the purpose of a rack server in the first place? Small, efficient, inexpensive, scalable.

2) A quad processor G4 would cost somewhere in the ballpark of $3,499 (if not much more) and offer the performance of rack servers costing half that.

3) The current revision of the G4 chip has questionable, if not downright unstable performance in anything higher than a 2 chip configuration. Motorolla has yet to bring the chips into full compatibility with multiprocessing standards, much to Apple's shagrin.

[deejemon]

Was I the only one wondering who the "waiters" are?

It took maybe 4 instances of "waiters" before I worked it out.

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Brent Turbo
There will bo no quads.

1) Apple has never, and will not, overshadow their pro line with another system. And again, what's the purpose of a rack server in the first place? Small, efficient, inexpensive, scalable.

In the Intel world, most servers are more powerful than the average PC. Have you ever seen a Desktop Xeon? They have processors just for servers.

I'm not betting on a quad machine, but I believe that if Apple could do it, that they would. A rack machine has a ton more room, even at 1RU than a desktop. Some of our Dell servers are 29 inches long

The OS is ready for quad procs, I am not sure about the CPU's. I completely disagree with the "inexpensive" part above. Rack servers cost way the hell more than the equivalent in a tower config. Look at Dell's Servers and compare. Rack servers are the laptops of servers. You pay for the extra engineering it takes to add all the features that people want in the servers.

[peterjhill]

Oh yeah. Apple, If you are going to put on a quad ethernet board in this puppy, make for freakin sure that it can do etherchannel! If I want a router, I'll buy a Cisco box, not a computer. (refering to the OSX server)

[Dr. Distortion]

Originally posted by peterjhill


In the Intel world, most servers are more powerful than the average PC. Have you ever seen a Desktop Xeon? They have processors just for servers.

Yes, at our department on university they have two dual 1.5 ghz. Xeon PCs... with both 1 gig of RD-ram...

I'm sure you can find more info about those at the Dell website...

Edit: here's the link: http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/produc..._precn_530.htm

-Dr. D.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by j763
It's about time for Apple to drop Motorola and use AMD. This isn't the whole x86 debate again -- just make it so that the OS always looks and checks that it's got the correct chip in it... It would be quite possible.

OK, let's assume for the moment that Apple has been working on getting OS X onto the x86 platform. Why would anyone think that OS X would work better on a 2Ghz x86 chip than on a Dual 1Ghz G4? Here's a fact, Linux runs better on a PPC chip than on an x86 chip (I read this somewhere - I think it was the Register). So I ask again, would OS X run faster on x86 or PPC?

Originaly posted by foniks2020
AMD could be incorporating a PPC into their chip fab lineup... maybe they are buying Motorola!!! and will soon give us all that DDR/533mhz frontbus goodness! ...well they could ya know ;-p

Are you kidding???? AMD couldn't buy Motorola any more than Apple could. Perhaps, Motorola would be interested in liscensing Altivec to AMD, but I highly doubt that. Motorola doesn't want any competitors in their quest to supply G5s to Cisco.

Do I see AMD making PPC chips? Absolutely NOT. Why would they want too? They're doing quite well in taking away market share from Intel. I don't think they want any distractions to their primary goal. Especially not for the 3-5% market share that Apple represents.

[barkmonster]

I reckon they'll have 16 100Mhz 601 chips.

Also they'll use SIMMS.

Okay my stupidity is over now, What I really think they'll be is just bog standard G4s with less stuff on the motherboard but dual CPUs. No Firewire, No audio and a limited video card such as an modified Rage128 with ADC and Vga connectors. Maybe they'll be designed to disperse heat with the case design and won't have fans either.

I don't have clue, honestly.

I'm more interested in whether it uses that DDR motherboard or not.

[drastik]

Everybody seems to be talking about a new chip. Why not just a speed bump on the G4. I think apple has made a deinite statement that they still like the G4 (iMac, dual 1G) as a top of the line processor. Maybe we'll see a 1.4Ghz G4 (or 4 ) that has gigabit clustering ability. The casing could take the heat, the price would be high, but you could buy two instead of eight. I work with eight hundred other suckers and we use Dell Servers. (I live in Dell country, I actually saw that Steven Dude guy, but my friends girl, who works for Dell, wouldn't let me hit him.)
Anyway, we have a room of servers and believe me, space is at a premium. We're on a T3, so moving isn't that great an option either. The more room the better.