If PowerMacs become G6, it should follow that iMacs, Powerbooks and current PowerMac G4's will be G5. For eMacs and iBooks pump up the G4's but don't loose too much sleep. They are low end, after all.
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 PowerPC 970s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Problem is it's easy to confirm or kill this rumor by doing sysctl -a in 10.4 and seeing if it turns up two values, specifically the number of physical and logical processors.ddtlm said:
This is along the lines of seeing the PowerMac 7,3 and PowerMac 8,1 in the last OS update.
I happen to think both rumors are fine. I do think Apple will be utilizing SMT in a future Powermac that ships during Tiger's reign. I also believe dual core is the way as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Tiger is enhanced to support SMP systems better. Whether that comes from SMT enabled CPU or dual core is irrelevant.
Tiger is enhanced to support SMP systems better. Whether that comes from SMT enabled CPU or dual core is irrelevant.
Calling it a G5 or G6 is all a marketing ploy. Jumping up to a new generation could backfire on Apple or work to its advantage. I don't know which one, but I rather see it stay G5. Jumping up a generation after only a year or so makes it sound like the G5 was a mistake. Make it a G6 and it's only a gimmick.
Does dual core really mean it's exactly like two processors on one chip? I haven't see any of our tech experts correct us, yet. Just checking.
Does dual core really mean it's exactly like two processors on one chip? I haven't see any of our tech experts correct us, yet. Just checking.
Sorry, can't help it.
Ahhh a real fighting machine. I myself would prefer a dual dual G5.AoWolf said:Cool imagine a duel duel g5
Actually 2 dual core processors would require the 4 way smp code.iris_failsafe said:I would like to draw attention to the 4 way smp that Apple has committed to. A 4 processor multi-core machine.
Earth Simulator here we come
Remember each core looks like a processor to the OS.
I don't know about everyone else but I am just stoked to get some fresh rumors through here. Seems like its been a real dry spell lately.
And no colored ipods are not considered a good rumor.
And no colored ipods are not considered a good rumor.
fluidinclusion said:
That is Dilbert type of marketing - in other words, the bad kind going with 970 because "it seems more powerful."
I think the public is feed up with the numbers game. In my area local tv stations got in to it just before the year 2000 when they all upgraded their weather system computers. Channel 2 decided to name their's "weather center 2000" - very short sighted given 2000 was only a year a way. Channel 7 thought tried to one up, falling short several times until they really out did channel two by creating "storm tracker 7000." Come on, where does this hype/c*@p end?
I like the G4, G5, G6 naming. Very elegant, simple, easy to understand (a G5 is better than a G4, etc) and catchy to say/think. Think about it, what do you do when 990 doesn't "sound powerful enough?" Go with the powermac 1000? Then how does that compare to the Dell Dimension 2400? What about the PowerMac 9600, is the 9600 a better machine? No thank you, stick with the G series.
I do hope Apple doesn't remove the dual processor. I would prefer the dual-dual option. Talk about super computer options!
Even if Apple implements this chip "sometime in 2005" I doubt they will brand it as a G6. The G5 hasn't been out for that long relatively, even when next year rolls around, and I don't think a processor change like this would really warrant a name change like that. Save the "G6" moniker for something truly big - maybe "The G6 in '06"...
ddtlm said:
And that is exactly why IBM needs to steal an idea from AMD and put the memory controller on chip. That lowers latency by a fair amount from what I have read.
nuckinfutz:
It is possible that a G5-dual could occupy the market for a year or more before being replaced by a Power5-lite. There are some questions there, I'd wonder if going from true dual core to SMT would be a step backwards, and also I wonder why Apple would be designing for SMT already.
Lemme give you a secret to estimating the feasibility of a rumor relating to a large R&D investment: you need to establish that the people spending on R&D are going to recoup that cost. For years now I've used that simple rule to correctly predict the non-arrival of crasy things that everyone else seemed to swallow hook, line and sinker. Apply that rule to the idea of there being both a 970-dual and a Power5-lite. When I apply it, I see that the two chips aim at the same market, harming profit. Note, neither chip is aimed at the market that will be increasingly held by the 970fx, so I see no conflict there.
It is possible that a G5-dual could occupy the market for a year or more before being replaced by a Power5-lite. There are some questions there, I'd wonder if going from true dual core to SMT would be a step backwards, and also I wonder why Apple would be designing for SMT already.
If this new technology is implemented in new powermacs... in say... WWDC '05 then the G5 would have been around for two years. I'm not saying that it will be a G6 by next June, but the G5 won't still be the new kid on the block like it is now.
Dual Dual and more ...
I think this dual core technology is the new trend. Intel is using it already (what they call HyperThreading) and I just read an article in Dr Dobbs (August) explaining that Intel is struggling with the old Pentium arch to win Mhz and the only think that saves them is the dual core tech they have.
This confirms what S. Jobs explained when he spoke about not reaching 3Ghz for the G5. The CPU frequency is harder and harder to improve, if the processor gurus don't find a solution to this problem, I'm sure multi CPU (logical/physical whatever) will be the future of personal computers (not only for server / pro-desktops)
That's why I bet on the dual core dual CPU G5 (with dual dual link and two 30in displays please, some kind of a dual dual dual dual ...)
As for the Gx name, I kind of like it, it's simple and says what it needs to: xth Generation PowerMac
Are we really going to drop this megahertz myth now ?
I think this dual core technology is the new trend. Intel is using it already (what they call HyperThreading) and I just read an article in Dr Dobbs (August) explaining that Intel is struggling with the old Pentium arch to win Mhz and the only think that saves them is the dual core tech they have.
This confirms what S. Jobs explained when he spoke about not reaching 3Ghz for the G5. The CPU frequency is harder and harder to improve, if the processor gurus don't find a solution to this problem, I'm sure multi CPU (logical/physical whatever) will be the future of personal computers (not only for server / pro-desktops)
That's why I bet on the dual core dual CPU G5 (with dual dual link and two 30in displays please, some kind of a dual dual dual dual ...)
As for the Gx name, I kind of like it, it's simple and says what it needs to: xth Generation PowerMac
Are we really going to drop this megahertz myth now ?
FlatMac:
Intel has spoken about dual-core Prescotts... dual SMT cores, kinda like a Power5 in that regard.
Actually Hyperthreading ("SMT") is not the same thing as dual cores. SMT is one processor pretending to be more than one, dual cores is two genuine processors jammed into one package.
Intel has spoken about dual-core Prescotts... dual SMT cores, kinda like a Power5 in that regard.
I agree. If anything the 970MP pretty much shelves the idea of a P5 Lite for at least a year. I'm thinking Apple ships Powermacs in 2005 with single socket 970MP systems. This cuts down on motherboard complexity and obviates the need for dual FSB so the memory controller gets simplified. All these "efficiencies" go right to the bottom line and Apple keeps this up for next 14 months with one refresh in between.
That gives them the ability to really hype the P5 Lite up the right way with ondie memory controller and SMT along with dual cores. I figure 14 months from now IBM and Intel will be talking about moving to 65nm which makes sense for the P5 Lite.
ddtlm said:
Yeah thanks, my mistake.
In fact Intel is also scheduling dual core for 2005 : http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040610151158.html
Another question: what is the pentium M exaclty? because they have lower frequency than P4, I think they are closer to the G4 than the old P4
In the DDJ article I mentioned earlier, they said current apps run faster on 64 bits processor, I don't see why but that's good news for you lucky G5 owners
FlatMac:
The P-M is something of an enhanced P-3 that is designed for laptops.
When AMD went to 64-bit they took the time to fix some of x86's problems and so they gained performance, however since PPC didn't have those issues, there really isn't an automatic gain. Some PPC programs can benefit if redesigned for 64-bit but generally its not a real big deal.
L2 cache
According to the original article, it says each core has its own 1MB L2 cache. It means 2MB per die, 4 MB per machine, if they will be "dual duals", if I got it right. What a dream...
musicpyrite said:
According to the original article, it says each core has its own 1MB L2 cache. It means 2MB per die, 4 MB per machine, if they will be "dual duals", if I got it right. What a dream...
~Shard~ said:Even if Apple implements this chip "sometime in 2005" I doubt they will brand it as a G6. The G5 hasn't been out for that long relatively, even when next year rolls around, and I don't think a processor change like this would really warrant a name change like that. Save the "G6" moniker for something truly big - maybe "The G6 in '06"...
With IBM seeming to be plowing forward quite rapidly (recent problems excepted), why not change the name? This isn't Motorola we're talking about here.
mac_head101 said:But if apple doesn't ever design macs for gaming they can only realistically gain 30 to 40 percent market share, as 70%
And this BS statistic came from where?
In my experience, while indeed it is likely that 70% of all home PCs are used for (among other things) games, it is incorrect to say that 70% of all PCs are sold for gaming. You miss:
1) Corporate PCs. I can guarantee that these aren't bought for games, and indeed the fact that they can be used to play games is often a negative factor (corps tend to opt for smaller disks and less-powerful video cards for just this reason, even if said options actually cost *more* than the stock machine would).
2) While 70% of home PCs are used to play games on occasion, a good fraction of those are "puzzle" games (the dominant genre of computer games amongst women), "strategy" games, or "popular" games. Puzzle games exist in droves for the Mac; most strategy games are ported over fairly quickly, and "popular" games are tending more towards near-simultaneous release. The ones that never get the Mac lovin' are the second-string FPS games, and the knockoffs of previous hits. Granted, there are notable exceptions, but the trend is fairly clear.
3) While 70% of all PCs might play games, it is a purchase-determining factor in only a small percentage of those. Face it: a $200 Playstation/GameCube/XBox investment will tend to provide a much better gaming experience for most people out there than the extra $500 you spend on a PC to make it the biggest baddest gaming albatross on the street.
Gamers are a vocal and young bunch, which tends to keep this "games are the lifeblood of any computer" meme alive and kicking despite complete lack of reason or evidence in support. That doesn't make it true.