Correct me if I'm wrong but there is a difference between dualcore and dual processor, of course in the obbvious sense and also the sense in which in a dualcore processor the seperate cores can commmunicate together and share cache ect... which has its advantages. I think it was intel that procuced a "a dual core" cpu in which the physical chip contained 2 seperate cores which was more like "dual processor" and was scrutinized in the tech community ... since which they have created a true dualcore processor
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.
Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AidenShaw said:
Wow, thanks Aiden - don't know what else I can say, but excellent information and comments there. I always seem to learn something from you, so thanks for that.
The AMD Athlon X2 dual core processor is compatible with Socket 939. This means that most anyone with a Socket 939 motherboard can upgrade to the dual core processor (with only BIOS upgrade). As such, existing motherboards and chipsets become forward compatible.
The Intel Pentium D, however, requires a new chipset (hence a new motherboard).
As for the PPC 970MP, I don't know how compatible it is with existing 970FX sockets and designs, but if it is in fact compatible, then the PowerMac's motherboard design could be largely carried over. Perhaps some firmware revision here and there will be required, but not a dramatic redesign, hence minimizing the incremental cost of going to dual dual core (4 cores).
The Intel Pentium D, however, requires a new chipset (hence a new motherboard).
As for the PPC 970MP, I don't know how compatible it is with existing 970FX sockets and designs, but if it is in fact compatible, then the PowerMac's motherboard design could be largely carried over. Perhaps some firmware revision here and there will be required, but not a dramatic redesign, hence minimizing the incremental cost of going to dual dual core (4 cores).
bigwig said:If they were, while you're upgrading the PowerMacs you could also upgrade the iMac
heat is the devil my friend and the imacs need to repent.
AidenShaw said:
Seems like a good move to get the intel switch happening. I think 10-11 months is an ok wait since the last updates if thats what they do for new PBs. I also expect to see some new stuff in the new PBs with a new form factor.
External LCD would be nice for wifi detection, weather, alarms etc - if thats actually realistic.
I still wonder about that patent for an iPod that slots in below the PB keyboard - with the nano that would be doable.
Ah, and in built GPS would be tasty as well for new mobile tech apps/widgets.
New Powermacs for Paris
TS article makes sense.
Why would S.J. hold a formal keynote to present the advantages of an IBM PowerPC chip if the move to Intel has already been decided....kind of a marketing thingy.
Still I think there could be new PM's in Paris.
TS article makes sense.
Why would S.J. hold a formal keynote to present the advantages of an IBM PowerPC chip if the move to Intel has already been decided....kind of a marketing thingy.
Still I think there could be new PM's in Paris.
Why not buy Rev. A of dual core G5s?
Please explain why that is? More details?
Cheers Daniel
iGary said:
Please explain why that is? More details?
Cheers Daniel
riversky said:
The iPod Mini was selling extremely well but Apple decided to invest and make the Nano.
True, they are selling well but "state of the art"? I don't think so. There's much to be improved with the current PB line up. Especially when it come to the 12" PB, which doesn't have a HighDef screen. I do think that in terms of esthetic design and function, yes the PBs are awsome but under-the-hood, not "state of the art", I'd call it "state of what's available" for Apple. I'd buy a last gen PB w/ a 7448 or 8641D over a first gen Intel anyday.
riversky said:
My prediction:
- Powerbook will stay metal
- iBook will come in two colors: white and black. The Nano is a hint
.related to the thread: I do not think that there was a real reason for dumbing G5 for Intel. There is quite a bit IBM/Apple could have done to to really improve the G5 (if they did make these changes, I would call it G6):
G5 is based on POWER5. POWER5 has an integrated mem-controller, and G5 could have one as well. This would seriously reduce memory-latencies and increase effective bandwidth. And dual-processor machine would double the mem-bandwidth, since each CPU would have dedicated mem-channel, and they could access other CPU's memory as well.
IBM already announced that Future 970's have 1MB of L2-cache. That would boost performance nicely. And combined with the integrated mem-controller, it would really boost G5's performance on integer-calculations (as you might remember, Intel was leading the G5 a bit on integer, back when G5 was announced).
The Altivec-unit of the G4 is actually better than the one on G5. If they revamped Altivec on G5 to match that of G4, they would really boost floating-point-performance. And if they wanted to, why not add secong Altivec-unit there
?Now, they could replace the G5 with this G6 across their entire product-line. the iMac would get single-core versions, and PowerMacs would get dual-core cersions. They could (for example) have 1x 2GHz DC (dual-core) G6, 1x 2.4GHz DC G6 and 2x 2.8GHz DC G6's. Also, PCI/AGP would be replaced by PCI-Express.
With these changes (mem-controller, 1MB L2, changes to Altivec), I would say that single G6 would be about 10-60% faster clock-for-clock that G5 is (depending on the app, if the app is sensitive to memory-subsystem, the improvement could be close to 60% IMO). the 2x DC G6-model would be A LOT faster than the current 2x 2.7GHZ G5-machine (better CPU's, a bit higher Mhz, and twice as much mem-bandwidth)
The prices of PM's could be kept still (or maybe increased slightly), but specs could be boosted a bit (besides CPU). on 1x DC G6-models, the standard RAM could be boosted to 1GB, while on 2x DC G6-model, the standard RAM could be 2GB (remember, these are pro-machines, and tghe hi-end G6 PM would be REALLY hi-end!). The vid-card could be replaced with a modern PCI-E vid-card. And the PM's could have dual vidcards (like NVIDIA's SLI).
But, they are not doing that (at least in the long run, since they are switching to Intel), so this is just pointless rambling....
Peel said:Excellent bit of annalysis there!
Or maybe a bit too ambitious...
Maybe Apple is not insisting on SSE2 code, they just tell them to use SSE2, because the chip in the DevPowerMac sports only a CPU being capable of SSE2...
How do you want to optimize code for SSE3, when you don't even have a machine to run your code on?
In addition hardly any big software company is using SSE3 so far, because it is relatively new. SSE3 code doesn't run on machines that only support SSE2. They would have to put redundant code into their programs in order to support both versions. Something that is very unlikely for standard apps and will be only done for high-end apps that really want to squeeze the last 2% of performance out of the CPU...
SSE2 is still state-of-the-art. This way many developers can take advantage of the optimizations they already did for the Widndows version of their software.
By the way... this is also the reason why Apple didn't make the DevPowerMac a thrilling high-end machine! When the first IntelMac hits the market the specs will be probably the low-end of what will be released next year. This way you can gaurantee that developers will have optimized the code in a way that makes it suitable even for the smallest IntelMac that will be released.
groovebuster
AidenShaw said:
IIRC, Paxville is based on NetBurst-architecture (Pentium4). So forget it. It sucks up power, has uber-long pipelines and all the other things that make P4 suck.
The stuff Apple will be using is based on Pentium M.
Yeah, sign me up too. I've been waiting for a dual-dual. Pity the good news in this thread got jacked by the PB wailing tho'greenmonsterman said:
What is Apple's history on pricing for updates? Will the dual PoweMacs (if released) be priced as the current line-up?
riversky said:
State of the art? HA! That's a good one. Of their entire line, I'd say the PB's are in most need of an update. And a big one at that. They're suppost to represent their "Power" line of computers, but the PB is hardly that. Apple should just rename them MediocreBooks.
If Apple isn't planning to update them until next year, then they should at least discount them by at least $200. Hate to say it, but anyone who buys one at current prices is being ripped off.
riversky said:
And they need software too. Pointless upgrading to Intel if you still have to run PPC software in emulation.
If they do indeed come out with a dual 970MP based PowerMac, any Intel PowerMac they come out with is going to have to be blazingly fast to beat a dual 970MP too, even with native Intel software. Intel so far has traditionally limited it's desktop chips to running only single CPU motherboards. You have to buy 'workstation/server' class CPUs like the Xeon to run more than a single CPU. Those carry a premium. But I guess we'll have to wait to see what Apple/Intel can come up with to challenge their own PowerMac as it's not obvious where the performance chips are coming from in Intel's roadmap yet that would match up with a PowerMac.
riversky said:
There is. The 7448. Drop in replacement for the 7447A, lower power, twice the L2, out of order AltiVec, 200Mhz FSB. Been sampling since at least February at speeds over 1.5Ghz and Apple usually gets faster chips than the embedded market specs.
Perhaps Freescale have production problems or maybe Apple are just dragging their heels. I was hoping for the 7448 in the iBook update where a lower clocked version would make a lot of sense.
riversky said:
Because it's such a minimal change that would keep the Powerbooks up there with the Pentium Ms that it's a no-brainer.
riversky said:
Oh, the irony. Just as IBM/Lenovo announce widescreen titanium laptops, Apple do horrible boring conservative black.
Somehow I doubt Apple will do Black Powerbooks or even iBooks, which would be more in line with the nano's market. It'd be interesting to see if the black/white thing is different in America to Europe. I can't imagine many people wanting black in Europe. Black was so 80s though I guess it's better than beige.
kalisphoenix said:
Not on a PowerMac it doesn't *always* make sense.
Gigabit ethernet v 54Mbps 802.11g wifi is quite a difference when it comes to transferring huge media files.
But chucking it in for free with Bluetooth too would make sense for those PowerMac users that don't need to share files.
lokey said:
And coincidentally, G3 800Mhz speeds is the alleged speed target of the Rosetta emulation on the new Intel Macs so it'll be like you've never upgraded for you're old software.
Dm84 said:
Many will probably disagree, but I think this is something Apple could already do only if they already had fast Intel processors many months ago. Fast apps are the major issue right now, but remember that everything works "fast enough" already, and AFAIK Tiger works "perfectly" or as good as it does on any Mac. What Apple needs to port to x86 right now are their own apps including the FCP suite, Shake, Logic, etc. and they need Adobe's apps. I think a large percentage of the pro users would be happy enough with running those apps at full speed to get an x86 PowerMac.
I'm about to stump up for a new PowerMac... the dual 2.0 or more probably the dual 2.3.
In theory, wouldn't a Mac with two dedicated 2.3 processors be quicker than a Mac with a single dual core 2.3 processor?
Or is there something to be gained from having a dual core?
Steve
In theory, wouldn't a Mac with two dedicated 2.3 processors be quicker than a Mac with a single dual core 2.3 processor?
Or is there something to be gained from having a dual core?
Steve
nomad01 said:
Why should it be?
Well, the CPU's could talk to each other faster. No need to go through the Northbride, since both cores are on the same die. Also, price is lower, since there's only one CPU-package, instead of two. And routing on the motherboard is simpler, sine you don't need two buses for the CPU's.
hexagonvex said:
Yes.. I also think this could be right. Jobs not giving a keynote about a (finally) good PPC product-update seems likely. The move to Intel is obviously something definite and there is no need to make a keynote about a good PPC product anymore when the whole Apple line will begin switching to x86 as early as the first half of 2006.