Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

[iGuy]

yes, and again no...

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 too require a Tower for work similar to that which you describe. I also require a Laptop for other, less processor-demanding creative work that I need to be able to do in a variety of different places.

The more portable power I have, the more processor-intensive types of work I can do mobily. You may like being confined to a studio, but I don't.

Put another way, you're overlooking the fact that there are two types of mobile users: those who write a few emails and surf the web at coffee shops; and those who require a portable workstation that they can set-up at a client site.

That portable workstation needs to be as powerful as it can be. Simple. End of story.

So kindly stop seeing the world through only your perspective or your requirements. In other words, grow up.

You do understand that your narrow-minded perspective makes you as guilty or even more so than those you choose to defame?

~iGuy

 

[AidenShaw]

Put another way, you're overlooking the fact that there are two types of mobile users: those who write a few emails and surf the web at coffee shops; and those who require a portable workstation that they can set-up at a client site.

That portable workstation needs to be as powerful as it can be. Simple. End of story.

Well put.

And I'll wager that many in the "portable workstation" group would gladly accept a 2" thick 12 lb system with 1 1/2 hour battery life if it were twice as fast as a 1"/6lb/4hr system, and especially if it had more ports.

I've often wondered by Apple hasn't made that mobile workstation for the audio/video "on location" crowd....

 

[Bear]

...

Put another way, you're overlooking the fact that there are two types of mobile users: those who write a few emails and surf the web at coffee shops; and those who require a portable workstation that they can set-up at a client site.
...
So kindly stop seeing the world through only your perspective or your requirements. In other words, grow up.
...

jjhny is being narrow minded in some ways, but in one way they have a very valid comment. This is mainly a PowerMac thread (although going against that, the original article did mention PowerBooks at the end) however, people are whining about no PowerBook updates. And it's not only this thread that it happens to. Whenever an update rumor happens, someone asks, well when is so and so getting an update and it goes on from there.

Of course, on the internet, you can't really stop that unless you want overly restrictive moderators on forums like this.

I do agree with you (iGuy) about what some people need and if Apple were to release a dual proc G4 or a dual core G4 PowerBook, I''d probably jump in line rather quickly, however, a nw PowerMac is first.

 

[visualanté]

powerbooks

If the powerbooks are not updated they need to do price drops. What upsets me i apple seems to be consentrating on Ipods/itunes and not the computers. If processors are issues who cares we are comlaing about processors too much, there are other components in the powerbook that I as a designer want in it. LCD is subpar, 256 vcard, faster hd.....i need portable power cuz my studio travels. These elements can b implemented without major design changes....even HP can update better than apple

 

[Bear]

If the powerbooks are not updated they need to do price drops. What upsets me i apple seems to be consentrating on Ipods/itunes and not the computers. If processors are issues who cares we are comlaing about processors too much, there are other components in the powerbook that I as a designer want in it. LCD is subpar, 256 vcard, faster hd.....i need portable power cuz my studio travels. These elements can b implemented without major design changes....even HP can update better than apple

I think you should go find anice Powerbook thread to post this in.

{rice drops are going to be problematic with the current exchange rate considering where the PowerBooks are made.

As for LCD, I don't know how it's supbar to you, but at the current resolutions seem to be quite nice and the LCDs themselves are rather decent.

And as for 128MB vs 256MB of video ram... what the heck are you running that needs so much vram?

 

[blitzkrieg79]

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....

I hear you... I know that performance wasn't the real thing that made Apple to switch to Intel... Performance wise IBMs processors are doing just fine right now... They also have this thing called the CELL...

CELL is a concept, its not ONE processor, people say it would be difficult to adopt, but hmmmmm I found an interesting table from intel developers conference attached below that basically show that the CELL concept is about 5-7 years ahead of its time (ahead of Intel)...

It may be more difficult to program for the CELL but then again if we want real progress, sometimes we need to drastically change things, x86 is over 20 years old, year over year something new is glued in to an old architecture, its a cluttered architecture which needs to be simplified from the beginning...

 

[visualanté]

have you seen a dell display next to a macs...no comparison i have seen them side by side...colors more vivid and better contrast.....v cards is no brainer 256 maybe high now but it wont b for long and many highend win laptops have them available

 

[50thVert]

Memory bandwidth shortage for dual duals

Hey every1,
It seems all the talk about having dual dual-core CPUs has been discussing the way the CPUs talk to eachother directly or through the FSBs and the worries about saturating that bus...

Have we all forgotten the Dual G5's have a SINGLE memory controller running at PC3200, or at a MAXIMUM of 3.2Gbps?

While I agree that a dual-core will have a 50-80% increase over a single core, you will not see the same gains going to dual dual-core unless they implement a second memory controller, one for each dual-core CPU. Otherwise, two of the four cores will be sitting idle waiting for any kind of information from memory. This would require an entire new motherboard, which i doubt Apple would do before the Intel switch. Memory bandwidth could be improved even on the dual CPU G5's with one per CPU/FSB, and thats ideally the way it should have been done from the get go. If they go dual dual-core, memory bandwidth will be streched to its limits.

Also, something to bear in mind is that with 4 cores, the maximum addressable memory would be 16GB. Will 2GB sticks work in the G5 mobos?

-Zach

 

[Flux Harmonic]

What's that water Steve drinks at the keynotes?

 

[technocoy]

thanks iGuy...

and:

OMG WHERE ARE THE NEW POWERBOOKS!!!! HOLY CRAP! I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANY OTHER PRODUCT. IS THERE EVEN ANY OTHER PRODUCT MADE BY APPLE?*WHAT ARE POWERMAC G5s?

seriously,

A: the main article DOES mention powerbooks, which ARE overdue for an update. I am in the market for both a powermac and a powerbook, so the thread seems very relevant to post concerns about both systems.

B: to coincide with iGuy, IMO he is indeed correct. Do not assume that powerbook users are only surfing the web and looking "Cool" as you would spout. I bust my arse everyday doing on site freelance, and i NEED a powerbook that is capable of handling most if not all of my applications. and handling it well. there are many more creative professionals becoming mobile studios, and with that in mind they are all on the edge of a new group that needs near-desktop capability in a laptop. Even Steve touts the powerbook as a "desktop replacement". so, with the laptop seeming by logic to always be behind in power, then it would also make sense for their professional owners to always be concerned about the bleeding edge of the technologies that make them faster.

end section one.


I hope they do pull off this dual core update as it would be nice to have a final squeeze out of the G5 before we all have to deal with the intel transition which i can't imagine being without bugs. I also think that the G5's may be among the later lines to get the intel processors, so it would make sense for there to be one if not two updates before they go intel. IF you can't get us the 3.0Ghz machines you promised, at least get us a machine that is just as fast!

 

[Noiseboy]

Well put.



I've often wondered by Apple hasn't made that mobile workstation for the audio/video "on location" crowd....

The iMac is so close to being that but I remain nervous about flightcasing and transporting a computer that wasn't actually designed to travel so I continue with my PB 17" and wish for greater power.

 

[revjay]

If this were a page 2 rumour, It would certainly come to fruition.

 

[longofest]

Intel already sells dual-core CPUS.

32 or 64 bit.

Plus a dual-core with HT.

That's 2 X 2 on one chip folks.

No, it isn't. HT cannot be considered a separate core, because it can only OCCASIONALLY actually execute two instructions simultaneously. Also, software has to be written especially for HT. Meanwhile, when you have actual separate cores, the OS can handle what thread goes to what core.

Also, note that Intel's HT-enabled chips are not multi-processor capable, so you are stuck at 1 chip. The only x86 chip currently out by Intel that is multi-chip capable is Xeon, and that is not dual-core (yet... its been announced for next year).

AMD is ahead of the game as far as Dual Core goes, and even Intel admits that (see their comments on the Pentium D at the Intel Developer forum). They will catch up, but not yet...

As far as IBM goes, the 970MP is VERY promising because it is 2 cores, AND is parallelizable (multi-chip). Very nice...

 

[AidenShaw]

Hey every1,
It seems all the talk about having dual dual-core CPUs has been discussing the way the CPUs talk to eachother directly or through the FSBs and the worries about saturating that bus...

Have we all forgotten the Dual G5's have a SINGLE memory controller running at PC3200, or at a MAXIMUM of 3.2Gbps?

While I agree that a dual-core will have a 50-80% increase over a single core, you will not see the same gains...

The 50-80% figure is probably average multi-threaded application improvement. Embarrassingly parallel jobs (or two independent applications at once) should be much closer to 100% unless they are severely memory-bandwidth limited.

Also note that the PPC970MP is said to have an L2 cache of 1 MiB per core - that will reduce the stress on the memory somewhat....

...with 4 cores, the maximum addressable memory would be 16GB. Will 2GB sticks work in the G5 mobos?

The number of cores is irrelevant to max memory capacity. Max mem is a function of the memory controller, the number of slots for DIMMs, and the size of the DIMMs. It isn't really a function of the number of cores - increasing the number of cores doesn't increase the number of memory slots.

You can put 64 GiB on a single core 32-bit Pentium III Xeon....

 

[shawnce]

Have we all forgotten the Dual G5's have a SINGLE memory controller running at PC3200, or at a MAXIMUM of 3.2Gbps?

Sorry wrong. The Power Mac G5 memory throughput is 6.4 GBps (theoretical maximum) because it is using interleaved banks, in others words 128 bit wide bus to that PC3200 memory. That is why you add memory DIMMs in pairs of the same size.

The Power Mac G5 computer main memory bus connects the main memory to the U3H IC via the 128-bit data bus. The memory modules are 400 MHz (PC3200) DDR SDRAM DIMMs with a per system maximum of 4 GB or 8 GB, depending on the configuration. (PM G5 Dev Docs)

Also, something to bear in mind is that with 4 cores, the maximum addressable memory would be 16GB. Will 2GB sticks work in the G5 mobos?

Ummm what? You care to explain your logic here? The number of CPUs, cores, etc. does not affect how much memory a system can support. It depends on the bit width of the physical addresses that the CPUs/cores and the memory control support and then how many slots exist in the system for DIMMs. Again it doesn't not depend on the number of CPUs/cores (unless you are thinking some how about it adding more memory independent memory controllers?)

 

[longofest]

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.

Actually, the G5 is derived from the Power4 architecture. The PowerPC 980 was supposed to be from Power5.

Look on IBM's website to confirm. I don't have the time to search for the confirmation link, but I know there are links even here on MacRumors if you need them. Search the Archives...

 

[visualanté]

im avoiding win machines yet im so tempted bcuz hardware is crucial on specs for my portable studio .

The iMac is so close to being that but I remain nervous about flightcasing and transporting a computer that wasn't actually designed to travel so I continue with my PB 17" and wish for greater power.

 

[eme jota ce]

Gateway is selling Pentium D 830(dual 3ghz) systems with 1GB DDR533 , 250GB HD , 16XDVD-+RW , 6-in-1 media reader , XP Media Center 2005 , Mcafree Antivirus , MS Works...other stuff

all this for $999...how is Apple going to compete with that. especially after they make the switch.

I know it's tempting to see all those specs next to $999, but every Gateway I've owned was junk. After a year of frustration and countless lost hours with Customer Support, I needed to get rid of them. Those specs, as an indication of quality, are (1) manipulable, (2) outweighed by other less popular or unreported specs, or (3) not as related to quality as consumers would like to believe.

Apple gives value. I pay more upfront, but a get a machine that performs well for a long time.

 

[maya]

As many have mentioned here, it would seem that the Notebook line is going to receive the first Intel chips come 2006.

We all know that the G4 has surpassed its market life, and since the G5 cannot be place in there yet is a sad thing. The PB and iBook really need a serious update with the eMac and Mac Mini following soon after.

One of the biggest reason for Steve Jobs to move to Intel based chips was not because of the MHz. It was because it was of power consumption per MHz. He was not pleased to move to x86, however it left him no choice since it look embaressing to have a mobile workstation that lingers behind and is using a processor that is years old, while the competition has 64-bit, dual channel memory, larger system bus, etc... Makes the the Apple mobile line over priced for what is offered.

The iMac G5, PM G5 and the Xserve will be the last in the lineup to even sport an Intel chip. So yes there is very little room for the G% based system to grow, a pity really since its a great processor.

Second reason was also that reaching 2.5GHz on the G5 requires a lot of cooling and that system cannot be place in the iMac G5 or Xserve form factor.

All in all the PM G5, will be the LAST on the list. If you plan on buying a PM I would go for it, as the PRO applications will still be fine tuned for the G5 for some years to come while still sporting x86 extensions.


People keep complaining about all this iTMS and iPod news, and Apple is called Apple Computers first and not some gadget or music device company. For starters I believe Apple knows that if they release too many G5 based computers they are going to be stuck with a lot of inventory, considering new users and buyer are looking at they future investment and plan on buying a Mac with an x86 chip in it, rather than a PPC. Macintoshes are expensive to the individual user(s), not to companies since they make the money back in folds. That is why only the Xserve and PM will see updates this year. The iMac G5 will top off at 2.2 GHz which is great, but nothing worth buying if you already have a 2.0GHz 20" iMac 5 now. A slight improvement but nothing to go crazy over.

So stop complaining, buy a Mac if you want since NO ONE is forcing you to do so.

 

[technocoy]

visualanté

i would be willing to bet that the dell LCD you are putting side by side with the apple is in fact the exact same panel. also, I don't know where you had the convenience of having both side by side for the comparison, but take into account the personal preferences of a user and the innability of a representative to set proper color correction and contrast on the monitors. often a monitor is just taken out of a box and sat on the shelf, with no adjusting done at all... also, what you are considering "better contrast" is most likely the infamous brainwashing of the PC world that inclines all their hardware to be set with improper gamma settings. the macs gamma settings are more true to real vision. which, to a designer working with color, video and photography, this is EXTREMELY important.

 

[AidenShaw]

No, it isn't. HT cannot be considered a separate core, because it can only OCCASIONALLY actually execute two instructions simultaneously.

True...where "occasionally" is application-dependent.

Also, software has to be written especially for HT. Meanwhile, when you have actual separate cores, the OS can handle what thread goes to what core.

Untrue - each HT thread looks exactly like a real CPU to software, and multi-threaded or multi-CPU aware code runs fine using all the threads in an HT system.

Maybe what you meant to say is that "for best performance, the O/S scheduler or the application needs to be aware of HT". This is true, and can increase the value of "occasionally".

In fact, Windows 2000 is more than happy to treat both threads of an HT chip as full CPUs. However, XP and 2003 understand that they are logical CPUs and do better scheduling.

Also, note that Intel's HT-enabled chips are not multi-processor capable, so you are stuck at 1 chip. The only x86 chip currently out by Intel that is multi-chip capable is Xeon, and that is not dual-core (yet... its been announced for next year).

Did you mean "Also, note that Intel's dual-core chips are not multi-processor capable..."?

HyperThreaded multi and dual chip Xeons have been out for a long time.

 

[RobHague]

I just had an interesting thought...

A single Dual-Core G5 in an iMac? That would screeeeem. How much extra heat to these things pump out?

I am supprised that its been said there will be no powerbook updates. To upgrade the top end to dual-cores and to leave the lower end out would be dodgy. What about a single dual-core G5 in a PowerBook, it could be clocked 'lower' or the same as the current G4's but still provide a performance boost (and get the PB out of G4 land) and keep the heat down.

 

[hayesk]

have you seen a dell display next to a macs...no comparison i have seen them side by side...colors more vivid and better contrast.....v cards is no brainer 256 maybe high now but it wont b for long and many highend win laptops have them available

Uhm... no. WinXP uses super saturated colours in their desktop, title bars, etc. that make them look more "vivid". In reality they distract the users' eyes from the actual work - the content inside the super bright window frames. Combine that with the shiny gloss PC laptop makers seem to want to put over their screen (prone to glare), and cram as many pixels into it as they can (1600x1200 at 15" - come on!) and you fool the common consumer into thinking it's a higher quality screen.

In reality, the desired screen is one with accurate colour and a wide viewing angle - Apple's screens are great for that.

 

[maya]

I know it's tempting to see all those specs next to $999, but every Gateway I've owned was junk. After a year of frustration and countless lost hours with Customer Support, I needed to get rid of them. Those specs, as an indication of quality, are (1) manipulable, (2) outweighed by other less popular or unreported specs, or (3) not as related to quality as consumers would like to believe.

Apple gives value. I pay more upfront, but a get a machine that performs well for a long time.

Apple has had an advantage till they announcement to the transition to x86, since no other made a PPC based system that can run Mac OS X.

Now Apple has to compete on hardware wise and software wise, then again I believe they will do fine since there are other music players on the market and yet the iPod line still is doing well. As you mentioned in your post, its quality and customer service that will bring Apple ahead. Even though some of us have had some bad days with Apple CS. One of Apples main rivals will be Dell, since the only thing that makes Apple stand apart from Dell is they much more flashy designs OS, and software.

This might also lead to much reduced Macintosh systems, and people will have little to nothing to worry about, other than, "there is not enough software for Mac's."

Apples image is getting cheapened, not sure if I like this. (apologizes if this sounds like an elite-ish comment).

 

[visualanté]

well i had them side by side....the settngs were sim and same program but the color dif was drastic...apple lcd is washed out not accurate

i would be willing to bet that the dell LCD you are putting side by side with the apple is in fact the exact same panel. also, I don't know where you had the convenience of having both side by side for the comparison, but take into account the personal preferences of a user and the innability of a representative to set proper color correction and contrast on the monitors. often a monitor is just taken out of a box and sat on the shelf, with no adjusting done at all... also, what you are considering "better contrast" is most likely the infamous brainwashing of the PC world that inclines all their hardware to be set with improper gamma settings. the macs gamma settings are more true to real vision. which, to a designer working with color, video and photography, this is EXTREMELY important.