Quad G4 Macs

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by bobbyl, Jul 29, 2001.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    #1
    Has anyone heard any more about Apple coming out with Quad processor machines at some point? If so,what timeframe.Thanks,BobbyL
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    evildead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    WestCost, USA
    #2
    I heard something about it

    I know that OS X can support up to 4 CPU's right now. I heard that Apple well be coming out with some Rack mount servers soon. My guess is that those new rack mount servers will have up to 4 CPU's in them. The would need to, to compeet with the sun low and mid range servers. That would be really cool if they did.
     
  3. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #3
    Right now, there server's suck

    Apple needs new server's!
     
  4. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    #4
    Interesting

    My application is music production. I'm wondering if they'll come out with Quad versions of their regular high-end machines as opposed to servers.
     
  5. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #5
    They need server's anyway.

    Apple's server's suck so I hope they will come out with a dual 867 server.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    #6
    hendrix stole my spliff again

    I didnt think the new G4's could be put in quad configs cos of sum MERSI ****.
    or maybe i just made that up 2 confuse myself
     
  7. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #7
    Just how hot would the CPU get?

    With 4 Processors?
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #8
    That brings something up-how much heat do G4's produce relative to the latest Intel and AMD chips? I know they are smaller. Would their lower Mhz make for less heat as well?
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #9
    pleasee.....

    PLease do not use the word LATEST with the word Intel. The Pentium 4 is worse than the Pentium 3. SO actually there is a backturn
     
  10. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #10
    Apple hase lower power consumption so...

    A quad would be like having a normal 1.8 Intel. Apple's processor's use less power = Less heat
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    evildead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    WestCost, USA
    #11
    They use much less Poewer

    The G4 is extremly efficint. They use much less power and give off much less heat. Hell.. the G3 iMac's dont even come with a fan any more!! The P4 is really really hot. One of the windows guys that I work with is runny dual PIII's and he has to leave is case open for ventalation. Or he has problems. He benchmarked it with and without the case. Profromance problems with the case ON!! And it tends to crash a lot and give strange errors with the case one. He has 2 big fans, a huge heat sink, no tower cover and a seperate fan for is Video card. And its still too hot. While the G3... needs not fan at all....
     
  12. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #12
    Kela: The P4 performs less per clock than the P3, true, but it's clocking at 1.8GHz now, vs. 1GHz for the P III. The P4 is not a "worse" chip.


    blakespot
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    evildead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    WestCost, USA
    #13
    Its not worse

    Its not worse... it just doesnt proform as well. Your right that the chip its self is faster.. but the OS doesnt support it yet. So ... its slower than the PIII in some applications. It's only optimized for some Applications. And some hardware too!!
     
  14. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #14
    Still news about Quad mac's are good.

    Quad mac are good, just like dual mac's. Of coarse if the program 'aint written for the quad processor then it's no good.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    #15
    wot is it now baldric?

    Whatever way you see it the P4 is a **** chip, it is unfinished and was released before it was finished, so it couldnt be built to its original design. Also any chip with a 20 stage pipeline is going to touch the monkey bollocks.
    I read an article which said on average a multiprocessing PC only runs 3% faster than a single chip one.... probably because a lack of optimised software....i dont know why i wrote that.
    BTW can software that takes advantage of 2 processors also take advantage of four? or does the software take advantage of multiprocessing no-matter how many processors there are?
     
  16. Administrator

    blakespot

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2000
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    #16
    MrMacman,

    Under OS X, every application will feel the benefits of two (or four, etc.) processors. If an application is written using in an efficient, threaded manner, it will benefit greatly from multiple processors. But even if it is a poorly written, unthreaded app, it will benefit from multi processors under OS X as the OS will run that app on one CPU (all to itself) and handle the (notable) background OS housekeeping chores, and other well-written multithreaded apps on the other processor(s). Even an old Classic app will benefit under OS X as the Classic environ can be run on one processor alone.


    You always win under OS X.


    blakespot
     
  17. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #17
    Will is a signafic preformace added?

    From two processor's to four? And if the program is poorly writen it is given a Small improvment, Not much. It's in programs like Photoshop where the effects are Great. And when multiple Greatly Threaded Programs are used the Preformance is The max it could be. I understand what you are saying.
    Now will there be any quas mac's to come?
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #18
    Some poster....

    Some poster posted a quote saying that Intel will have to face the Megahertz-Myth and combat it when they bring out the itanium chip. How true and How I will laugh at those PC fans that once said, I like my PC ugly and running at 1.8 GHZ. ItS sad but this is the chance for APPLE to grab a lot of market share. JUST IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO. The Itanium comes out at a max speed of 800 mHz. Try telling the PC dumb user to move from a P4 1.8 GHz to a 800 MHz. IT WONT WORK. Then simultaniously, Apple brings out the G5 early next year and as a dual processor running at 1 GHZ each. OH MY GOD. Apple could chew through the PC user market.
    I always knew that those wierd multicolor biohazard suit wearing scientists at intel were very shortsighted.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #19
    Heat

    I run a mac and a PC

    I can tell you G4 processors produce basically 1/4 or less of the heat compared to a Pentium or AMD

    My brothers AMD Athlon 1300mhz has a 10,000 RPM fan on it with is attached with a special metalic (yet non conductive (?)) paste. It sounds like a small aeroplane flying thru my room. Not to mention if you connected any PC chip these days without a cooling device of excessive size your chip would shatter in a matter of seconds (as shown in many PC magazines.

    Yet a G4 733 just has a large heatsink screwed down to it and even after days of use the heatsink doesn't get that warm. I open our one up at work all the time after days of uasge and on the old Dual 450, there was negligable amounts of heat being made.

    IBM's stopped using heatsinks at 90mhz. Macs have never had anything but heatsinks.

    Also, the G4 processor seems to be about 30%-40% smaller then your PC processors and has a smaller micron rating on its dyes.

     
  20. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #20
    True

    Less power usege, True and I have heard to many Pc users say that they have the Biggest Fan! lol Compeating on Fans! And intel is Screwing themselves, lol, Pritty funny. Proving that Mac Chips are Faster then PC chips! And on a unreleated note when will I become higher than a Seinor. On a Super-unrelated Bush Sucks The Idiot made a Bad decision on Stem Cells.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 12, 2001
    Location:
    US
    #21
    Lol Macman.

    HAHAHA! "The Idiot" made a bad decision. I too like your former president more. but hey thats the hawks for you.
     
  22. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #22
    WTF are you talking about!

    Hawks? I'm not Clinton!!! WTF? And PC users do compare, Their Fans!!Itanuim is going to Funk up Pc user's Everywhere! Quad mac's would rule!!!
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #23
    Politics

    Yeah, embryonic's best in the lab, but it has no bearing on medicine: it'd still have to be blood and tissue typed. If you use Stem cells from a given patient: no rejection.

    If ever we had a president running on Windows it's dubyaw. Them big ears heat sincs or what?

    Er, what was the topic?? Oh, yeah : V12 supercharged 1000 HP, 4WD, Fusion powered Macs. Cool thought but it'd require switching to full-time IBM production of chips: Motorolla'd never keep up.
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    #24
    I was under the impression Mac OS X was currently capable of supporting up to 32 processors, but that might be incorrect. 4 does seem a little low for an OS that is supposed to benefit greatly from multiple processors. Either way, 4 G4's would be extremely expensive me thinks. Base price of probably at least 5k, but for people buying servers, that isn't so bad.
    And the more Macs with mulitple processors, the more developers will support them. Even with one config of MP, that is inscentive for developers to make their apps take full advantage of that.
     
  25. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #25
    That is what I mean

    Quad's for server's. Would 4 800's be a bad thing? Nah. Would people buy them? They would buy more cause the server's now Suck. I think apple need's ned server's
     

Share This Page