Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

[nomad01]

Why should it be?

Hmm... well, thinking in layman's terms, why shouldn't it be? I have no idea what impact/benefits come from dual cores.

I just thought that having dedicated processors rather than two cores "crammed" into one processor could be better.

Thanks anyway.

 

[aegisdesign]

Hmm... well, thinking in layman's terms, why shouldn't it be? I have no idea what impact/benefits come from dual cores.

I just thought that having dedicated processors rather than two cores "crammed" into one processor could be better.

Thanks anyway.

On the G5 duals you've a front side bus per CPU so in theory you get greater throughput through a dual CPU system compared with the single bus on a dual core CPU. Think of it as being as a dual lane road going to two toll booths instead of a single lane road going to two toll booths. No matter how fast the toll booths are, if there's a speed limit on the road leading to them, you're going to need more roads.

On the flipside, the 970MP has a 1MB L2 cache and the two cores can communicate with each other without having to go through the front side bus so they can handle multi threaded applications better without having to touch the bus.

Having two 970MP processors with a bus each and well threaded applications would rock of course but if you're like me, even running single threaded applications, of which there are very few these days, benefit from more than one CPU as I've often got 5 or 6 apps on the go at once.

 

[deadfrog]

I might be getting this wrong, but when they say the dual core version has a 50 - 80% speed increase compared to the single core version are they comparing it to dual processor macs or just one of the single processors in current power macs... The way they have worded it, it sounds like they are just comparing on chip.

I was always under the impression that there really wouldnt be that much speed increase between dual core versions and dual processors. The only major difference would be if they did the dual dual core, but as its been mentioned this would come with a hefty price tag....

can anyone shed some light on this?

 

[50548]

They are referring to single core chips...dual cores don't work as fast as dual chips, especially since app optimizations rarely share the threads in a clean manner...so the improvement is over single chips...don't expect something amazing, unless Apple releases DUAL dual cores...then we're gonna have THA real bomb once more...

 

[deadfrog]

ok, thanks.

so what im guessing is they may realease a top model that is dual dual core, but others will be single dual core machines....

otherwise these puppys will cost the price of a small house and will also give the intel macs something huge to beat especially running in emulation...

would seem odd to be taking a bit of speed decrease compared to the current line though..

 

[SiliconAddict]

no powerbooks till next year. that's a big ouch.

But it makes sense. Apple is prob going full throttle with the x86 transition on the PowerBook.

 

[broken_keyboard]

Dang... I was hoping the reason there had been no dual core PM was because they had found a way to expedite the Intel PM. Guess not...

 

[deputy_doofy]

The Powerbook arguments are useless because:
* The Powerbook sucks because they aren't getting updated for another x amount of months
OR
* The Powernook sucks because it gets updated, but goes from 1.67GHz to a whopping 1.7GHz. MAYBE it gets a 200GHz fsb, but more likely, it stays at 167MHz - making the fsb less than 1/10 of the processor speed.

The only real benefit to the miniscule update would be that it's the same price point (though less would be better).

I am going to wait until Pentium-Ms come our way for the PB. I have patience in this case (as if I had any other choice).

 

[nomad01]

Think of it as being as a dual lane road going to two toll booths instead of a single lane road going to two toll booths. No matter how fast the toll booths are, if there's a speed limit on the road leading to them, you're going to need more roads.

Excellent. Thanks for that. I was thinking along those lines but a good analogy was escaping me.

As for multi-threaded apps, I can't really think of anything I currently use that would benefit so I think I'll cope with a dual-processor.

Thanks again. Just the info I was looking for.

Steve

 

[jjhny]

Sick of Powerbookers

Some of us out here need the raw speed that only a tower will EVER provide. In this case we do broadcast TV work. And it is with nothing but RELIEF that I hear there will be faster Powermacs. We need them, especially for rendering, video, HD, etc.

But everywhere is the murmuring powerbook contingent freaking out about the powerbooks. They post EVERYWHERE about their powerbook disatisfaction - and it is so irritating.

If you are on any laptop it is not for speed, it is for portability, so you will never be cutting edge. And how fast do you need to run your web browser anyway?

I am also sick that whenever any other machines gets an upgrade you have to chime in and whine how you "don't care," and then speculate about the powerbooks on a news story that ISN'T about powerbooks!

Guess what, a lot of us don't give a damn about powerbooks - AT ALL!

Sheesh!

 

[deputy_doofy]

Some of us out here need the raw speed that only a tower will EVER provide. In this case we do broadcast TV work. And it is with nothing but RELIEF that I hear there will be faster Powermacs. We need them, especially for rendering, video, HD, etc.

But everywhere is the murmuring powerbook contingent freaking out about the powerbooks. They post EVERYWHERE about their powerbook disatisfaction - and it is so irritating.

If you are on any laptop it is not for speed, it is for portability, so you will never be cutting edge. And how fast do you need to run your web browser anyway?

I am also sick that whenever any other machines gets an upgrade you have to chime in and whine how you "don't care," and then speculate about the powerbooks on a news story that ISN'T about powerbooks!

Guess what, a lot of us don't give a damn about powerbooks - AT ALL!

Sheesh!

I agree with what you're saying. There are more people upset that they can't have bragging rights than people who actually need a Powerbook for Power. Most people who need power get the G5 desktop. I'm not saying some people don't have a genuine need for it, but it seems the majority here just WANT a cool Powerbook, not need it.

I, for one, WANT one, which is why I don't voice complaints too much. Apple is doing what they can, when they can.

 

[AidenShaw]

Thanks for bringing that up

(comments on thread starting https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1740048/)

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 fact, the Developer Transition machines are using 64-bit CPUs with SSE3.

That's one more argument that says that Dothan is coming - Apple is telling devos to "dumb down" and not use capabilities of the test machines.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/jun05/060805.html

Info on the Mac X86/Pentium 4 Development system

They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*.

___________________________________________

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.

True for Windows and Linux, but Apple has no legacy x86 code to support. Apple could have simply said that "All MacIntels will have SSE3". That would remove any problem with testing for SSE2 vs SSE3 - if it's a Mac, it has SSE3.

Apple didn't, though, Apple says:

http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/sse.html
What we are calling SSE in this document was actually delivered as three separate vector extensions to the IA-32 ISA, which appeared (in order over time) under the names SSE, SSE2 and SSE3. Each builds on the extension that went before it.

The first two are defined to be part of the baseline hardware requirement for MacOS X for Intel. SSE3 has been recently introduced (first in the Prescott family of Pentium 4 processors) and may or may not be available on a machine running MacOS X for Intel.

(I recommend that page to anyone who wants to understand how similar SSE is to AltiVec.)

I also agree with you for hand-tuned assembly code - one would probably want to use SSE2 to be able to use the same assembly code across platforms.

However, everyone can put -msse3 on the compiler commands, and let the compiler use SSE3 instructions automatically.

Note that Intel is recommending that SSE be used for all floating point - SSE2/3 have a "scalar-on-vector" feature that treats the 128-bit vector register as a single float (32-bit) or double (64-bit) number. This improves performance because the SSE unit has more general purpose registers and a better interface than the old x87 FPU instruction set. (Apple's compiler default is -mfpmath=sse to use SSE2 for all floating point.)
_____________________________


Note that I'm not trying to say that making SSE3 optional is bad, I'm just saying that to me it proves that Apple plans on introducing Dothan-based systems. (OSX86 being 32-bit means that Yonah and/or Dothan are coming, but SSE2 means that Dothan is coming.)

It will be fixed in a year or so, when Apple asks everyone to port their OSX86 code to 64-bit x64 - Apple can include an SSE3 requirement in the x64 hardware. Time for "even fatter" binaries, with two sets of Intel code streams in addition to PPC....

 

[Bear]

All these updates are pointless in my opinion. I know they can't just stop selling Macs until the Intel Macs are out, but to the informed consumer these updates are not going to matter.
...

Business don't stop needing replacements machines for old machines that have died. Businesses also hire new people who need systems.

Home users don't stop needing replacement machines for old Macs.

And what about the stream of people who are converting from Microsoft to Apple?

Remember your needs and wants are not necessarily the same as the next person or a business. You said you were going for the Intel Mac Mini as soon as it is released. Some people may not have that option as the applications they're running may not have been ported yet.

Different people, different needs. <i>Think Different!</i>

 

[Bear]

Dual Dual Fool Fool ...never going to happen

This would put the G5 in a whole new price bracket. we are talking about a $3500 PowerMac. very Likely it will be a single dualcore cpu which will save Apple money ..let them keep prices as they are and make an even bigger profit due to the fact that they don't have to make any more expensive dual socket motherboards or the additional cost of a 2nd CPU. It will still be AGP 4X Trash cheese grader.
...

A $3500 price point versus $3000 is not a big deal for someone (or especially a business) that has the desire or the <b>need</i> for such a powerful machine. Yes, for the lower end PowerMac it could be a single dual-core processor, but on the high end, Apple will go for a dual dual-core setup.

And as for the AGPP bus, all the G5s have an 8x AGP bus. I think you need to do better fact checking as well as a reality check. The reality check is making sure you don't ascribe your needs and ability to pay for a system to other people and entities.

 

[AidenShaw]

what about the pumps?

(comments on thread starting https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1740048/)

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.

Maybe you've noticed that the PowerMac is already sucking up so much power that it has a water cooling system? What's a few more watts among friends?

This is the kind of emotional reaction that I implied with the "eating crow" comment.

Dual dual Xeon systems would make a lot of sense as a transition system...

• Apple could continue to sell PPC970 and PPC970MP PowerMac G5's alongside the quad Xeons
• The quad Xeons would be very useful for developer systems - how's anyone going to port and code 3D apps and games against the embedded graphics on the DTK? Give them real PCI Express x16 graphics and PCI Express I/O slots! (And Apple could *sell* these to any developer...)
• Quad Xeons would give the companies who have ported their high end apps a high end market to sell to, instead of having the x86 ports sitting on a shelf (or not being ported).
• The development costs would be tiny - like the DTK systems, Apple could put a standard Intel workstation motherboard into the PMG5 case - there's plenty of room.
• The quad Xeons would be good for developers who are working on the 64-bit port to x64 - Apple can't wait for 64-bit Pentium M systems to *start* the x64 porting process. They can *sell* the systems to developers now.

Just like Apple had a transition period where some Macs could boot both OS9 and OSX, Apple will need a transition period where it sells PowerMacs that can run both CPU architectures.

 

[VanMac]

Anyone who buys the Rev. A of these MP models is a nutcase, BTW.

Well, call me Skippy cause I'm in the market, and I'll be buying the next update whatever it is

 

[VanMac]

The rapid updates to the Mac desktop lines are de-valuing the older systems at a quicker pace than what is traditional for Apple hardware. On one hand, that's fine - because it means they're pumping out the upgrades at a rate more in line with the rest of the computer industry. But it also means I'm less likely to fork out the money for an upgraded system.

Technology such as computers should not be seen as an investment. It is a tool. Buy some stock in Apple if you want to invest.

BTW....if they NEVER updated their line, your computer would be worth nothing, as they would be out of business.

 

[gkhaldi]

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....

CORRECTION: G5 has nothing to do with IBM's Power5 processor. The G5 is a straight decendant of the IBM PowerPC line which was initially developped for scientific purposes.

 

[VanMac]

Wifi always makes sense.

Agreed.

Most consumers are settting these up in their homes. Just cause it's a workstation, does not mean wifi is not applicable. Why should I have to string cat5 cable around to connect my workstation to network? I dont need 1GB ethernet....just something to share files and hook up to my broadband.

 

[Bear]

CORRECTION: G5 has nothing to do with IBM's Power5 processor. The G5 is a straight decendant of the IBM PowerPC line which was initially developped for scientific purposes.

Mostly accurate. The IBM 970 series processor that Apple calls the G5 uses Power4 technology as well as adding Apple G4 features (Velocity Engine for example).

 

[Lacero]

Why should I have to string cat5 cable around to connect my workstation to network? I dont need 1GB ethernet....

You ever tried shooting a 30 GB video file over wi-fi?

 

[VanMac]

You ever tried shooting a 30 GB video file over wi-fi?

I would probably use firewire. Also, if you need 1GB ethernet, then you can string the cable. Most wont need it....

 

[Bear]

Anyone who buys the Rev. A of these MP models is a nutcase, BTW.

This won't be a Rev A machine. It will be more like a Rev D PowerMac G5 that has a new processor.

What you're saying essentially implies that whenever Apple releases an update with a new processor the machine becomes a Rev A again. For example the Titanium PowerBook has had a couple of processor models in it (and that's ignoring the different processor speeds).

You're probably calling at least 100,000 people nutcases. More actually since not all machines are purchased on a single persons decision.

 

[MikeAtari]

Home users don't stop needing replacement machines for old Macs.
<i>Think Different!</i>

So True, I need a new machine now.
I'd even take a minimal update to the PowerBook's now.
Anything. Apple, Anything...

 

[Bear]

You ever tried shooting a 30 GB video file over wi-fi?

Remember the original poster said they didn't need the wired ethernet. They were pointing out that different people have different needs and desires.

And actually yes, I have moved 30GB of data over WiFi (Airport Extreme) and it wasn't much worse than 100 megabit ethernet would've been. Gigabit ethernet would've been a lot faster, but it's something I'm not currently sey up for.

So, yes, you need gigibit ethernet, the other person doesn't. Apple is catering to both of your needs.

The posters other point was to point out why Apple should make sure the machine supports WiFi as a comment to someone who didn't see the need at all.