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.
Inside iPod Video, iMac G5, and PowerMac G5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Any single threaded app would still see a big boost if it uses OpenGL or any other software subsystem for any "heavy lifting", because those systems DO take advantage of multiple processors. For example, one app I worked on was single threaded, but could consume 130% of the CPU during certain OpenGL operations. I've seen iDVD and iMovie hit 130% also.shamino said:
That said, I'd be really surprised if anybody was buying a dual dual that didn't have multi-threaded apps that they run often, whether its a programmer running XCode, an artist running Photoshop, or a movie person running Final Cut Pro (suite). I'd bet that iDVD and iMovie run faster on the 2.5 DD vs the older 2.7 (fast enough to notice, but not the 40-60% as with other apps), as their subsystems probably can take advantage of more processors.
So, while I agree that a "mainstream" user wouldn't see much of a difference between the 2.7D and the 2.5DD, I just can't believe there's too many of them out there plopping down $4K for such a system
shamino
macrumors 68040
Well, $3300. The base configuration for the DD is quite useable, even though some people may want more memory/disk.mcdawson said:
As for who would buy it, I suspect the exact same people who were buying the dual 2.7GHz boxes last week. The new model is almost the same price.
(FWIW, the high end PowerMac has been selling in the range of $2800-3300 for many years now. This new model is not unusually high priced, all things considered.)
~Shard~
macrumors P6
Liske said:
Not according to Mr. Blake. 😉 And myself too, for that matter. 😎
I try to experience as much as I can in life, hence being excessive. I love learning, trying new things, and becoming more aware of everything. I'll try almost anything. Although I also believe "everything in moderation", I do have a desire to experience all of what life has to offer "in excess", since there's so much of it. It's what makes me as well-rounded and experienced as I am, and I wouldn't have it any other way. 😎
Now, back on topic...
ogun7
macrumors regular
Remember the problems that Apple had with overheating with the previous two models. Macmod and Macbidouille both have articles that deal with the different approaches to the issue.aafuss1 said:
Good write up by Ars. I was holding off for 6 months because the 3G/4G did feel the same like my old 2G mini (RIP) 🙁 but I love how the form factor reminds me of myiMac 😀 Definitely picking up a 60 GB when they arrive in Jax. They had about forty 30GB whites in stock on Wednesday, but I didn't impulse because iTunes is at 23 GB and on the rise fast.
Not sure if this has been mentioned but does anyone think that they will integrate Front Row directly into an iPod? Maybe with the extra capabilities of that Broadcom chip, it can run pretty smooth on any TV (all of course after buying iLife '06, universal dock and remote 🙄 )
Not sure if this has been mentioned but does anyone think that they will integrate Front Row directly into an iPod? Maybe with the extra capabilities of that Broadcom chip, it can run pretty smooth on any TV (all of course after buying iLife '06, universal dock and remote 🙄 )
Lollypop said:
Huh? Ars Technica has the best reviews and articles I have ever seen! I wonder what it takes to make you guys happy 🙂?
BTW: for same level of greatness on 3D-field, I suggest reviews and articles by beyond3d.
One first non-Apple benchmark of the quad:
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717
17s for the quad vs. 38s for a dual 2.5 GHz.
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717
17s for the quad vs. 38s for a dual 2.5 GHz.
PPC, and in paticular the G5
I just don't quite understand how Apple is going to just ditch this chip outright, I really don't. Look at Apple's site and how well they talk that chip up then look at the current offerings from Intel that are dual core and 64 bit- they're lame. Whatever that they have up they're sleeve better be a quantum leap improvement. Like handing Opteron chips their arses in real-world performance kinda improvement.
Sure, I suppose it's as easy as just start putting Intel motherboards into our cases.
I'll never quite be able to get over this, I really wish Apple would continue to offer PPC servers/workstations even if they are limited in quantity and high in price.
PPC doesn't deserve to be pushed aside by Intel's corporate girth just like Alpha. (Neither did Alpha, btw.)
I just don't quite understand how Apple is going to just ditch this chip outright, I really don't. Look at Apple's site and how well they talk that chip up then look at the current offerings from Intel that are dual core and 64 bit- they're lame. Whatever that they have up they're sleeve better be a quantum leap improvement. Like handing Opteron chips their arses in real-world performance kinda improvement.
Sure, I suppose it's as easy as just start putting Intel motherboards into our cases.
I'll never quite be able to get over this, I really wish Apple would continue to offer PPC servers/workstations even if they are limited in quantity and high in price.
PPC doesn't deserve to be pushed aside by Intel's corporate girth just like Alpha. (Neither did Alpha, btw.)
ltgator333 said:
It is. Intel has some very cool stuff coming up. Their current CPU's suck ass. P4 and Xeon are crap, and Itanium is a disaster. They do have one CPU that is very, very good. And that CPU is Pentium M. And, as it happens, their future CPU's will be based on that chip.
Imagine a dual-core 64bit Pentium M, with about 2MB of L2-cache per processor, and maybe large shared L3-cache and around 1GHz bus, running at between 2-3GHz, along with lots of architectural improvements.
Pentium M....
... the lone star in Intel's sky. Yes, I know.
I suppose it's a question of will you trade your 970MP for a beefed up Pentium M? And I'll give you it's no chipshot decision to keep the PPC considering the amount of 'beefing up' that Intel is going to do to the Pentium M- TRUE dual core as opposed to Intel's kinda dual core, hyperthreading, massive caches, higher clock rates, new FSB, EM64T, built in DRM, and down the road processor 'partitioning'- all to come for that good old dirivative of the Tualatin-core Pentium 3.
So yes, I know Pentium M is nice and will be a lot better shortly, but we're allowed to have preferences, and I think it is a matter of preference that we've gotten into here with the decision between the two chip families.
I just really think it is sad that Apple is going to deprive us of that choice shortly.
... the lone star in Intel's sky. Yes, I know.
I suppose it's a question of will you trade your 970MP for a beefed up Pentium M? And I'll give you it's no chipshot decision to keep the PPC considering the amount of 'beefing up' that Intel is going to do to the Pentium M- TRUE dual core as opposed to Intel's kinda dual core, hyperthreading, massive caches, higher clock rates, new FSB, EM64T, built in DRM, and down the road processor 'partitioning'- all to come for that good old dirivative of the Tualatin-core Pentium 3.
So yes, I know Pentium M is nice and will be a lot better shortly, but we're allowed to have preferences, and I think it is a matter of preference that we've gotten into here with the decision between the two chip families.
I just really think it is sad that Apple is going to deprive us of that choice shortly.
iMac internals
I've never seen the inside of the Rev B 2.0 G5 20" iMac and I was wondering does it have passive liquid cooling like the new Rev C?
Thanks,
iReilly
I've never seen the inside of the Rev B 2.0 G5 20" iMac and I was wondering does it have passive liquid cooling like the new Rev C?
Thanks,
iReilly
shamino
macrumors 68040
The big issue isn't performance. Jobs even said so at WWDC when he announced the Intel switch.ltgator333 said:
The big deal is power consumption. IBM's high-performance chips draw a lot of power. And their low-power chips can't come close to the clock speeds people need.
Some of Intel's current crop, and most of their future chips do much better than this. High performance and low power. The Pentium-M is the first such chip, and the future promises to be much better than this.
A recent press release from Intel describes a new manufacturing process that reduces current-leakage (that is, wasted electricity) by 99.9%. This means much lower power consumption and much lower heat production for the same level of computing performance. I'm absolutely certain that this is what Intel showed Jobs last year, which made him choose Intel (and not a less expensive Intel clone, like AMD's Opteron).
How about equal performance, while consuming only 5W or something? This will be a huge thing for laptops. Also for systems that are massively clustered (like Xserves). (If you can reduce the air conditioning needs of a machine room, you can save a huge amount of money. Or you can cram more servers into the cluster for the same cost.)ltgator333 said:
You may have some kind of religious attachment to an architecture (or a hatred of Intel), but the rest of us just want the most bang for our buck. If it runs the apps acceptably fast and doesn't cost too much, most people won't care who makes the chips.ltgator333 said:
shamino said:
Because you can buy an Intel chip ANYWHERE, been that way a long time, will be that way for a long time. Apple is the biggest PPC vendor for home systems out there by far, and there will be nobody who will sell machines at the volume they do using PPC, probably ever again. PPC in run of the mill consumer machines will fade away without Apple, quicker than IBM will admit.
Look at my profile, I don't (personally) even own any IBM chips as is. I've always had that choice to just say the heck with it I'm buying a Dell or in my case building my own system with Intel Inside (or AMD). Haven't you been paying attention to the cute little Intel stickers everywhere?
Lastly- and hey who says that Apple can't improve and not stick you with one or another, Sun supports Solaris on SPARC and Intel and say what you like but LOTS groups/individuals use Solaris on either platform for mission critical applications- it HAS to be stable, more stable than anything most of us use matter fact. Apple's giving us Intel, great- but lock us into it like everyone else.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Not in a Mac.ltgator333 said:
And you can't get a PC with anything other than an x86 chip (Intel or an Intel clone.)
No computer buyer has a choice of CPU architecture. Your choice of application dictates your choice of operating system which dictates your choice of CPU.
And they've been trying to dump the Intel version for years. The only reason it still exists is that several large corporate buyers have promised to stop buying new SPARC hardware if the Intel version of Solaris is dropped.ltgator333 said:
Which is why they eventually decided to dump it on the open source community. Because this is the closest they can come to getting rid of it without putting themselves out of business.
"No computer buyer has a choice of CPU architecture. Your choice of application dictates your choice of operating system which dictates your choice of CPU."
whaaaaat??? (you gotta be kiddin me..) I can run my OS of choice on .. well go check out www.freebsd.org, or heck a more popular choice pick you Linux distro. Oh let me guess- "open source home users are a minority".
Oh, and IBM supports Linux on PPC and x86, btw for another example of the 'you can support multiple CPU's' thing. And really, if there was a company that could do it sucessfully it'd be Apple.
whaaaaat??? (you gotta be kiddin me..) I can run my OS of choice on .. well go check out www.freebsd.org, or heck a more popular choice pick you Linux distro. Oh let me guess- "open source home users are a minority".
Oh, and IBM supports Linux on PPC and x86, btw for another example of the 'you can support multiple CPU's' thing. And really, if there was a company that could do it sucessfully it'd be Apple.
Hardly. With Solaris 10, the amd64 port is a first-class port. Sun put a lot of effort behind it, because Opteron-based servers are becoming very good sellers for them.
shamino
macrumors 68040
And when you pick the applications you need to use, that will dictate what processor your must run them on. Regardless of what's theoretically possible, software developers do not compile and release their code for every processor architecture ever made.ltgator333 said:
While you can install FreeBSD on an MicroVAX or a Mac Quadra, that in no way means you will be able to find someone selling your applications for that platform.
Sure, if you are one of those people who refuses to run anything that's not open source, then you can download the sources and compile everything for yourself. But this is something very few people - even UNIX geeks - want to do.
I stand by my assertion. Your choice of apps dictates your choice of hardware architecture. The fact that you can come up with some contrived counterexample that nobody would seriously consider does not change this.
vassillios
macrumors 6502
In the beginning, ltgator333 came on and commented that he didn't see how Apple could just outright drop a chip, the PPC970MP, that they (Apple) seemed so optimistic about, and is proven to perform so well, given what they are going to is currently doing, and we all know that talk is very cheap (see Motorola AND IBM) until you got an actual chip.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, SHAMINO
Apple CAN AND SHOULD continue to offer PPC based solutions for they're customers that still want them. They're decision to NOT do this alienates certain customers (see Virginia tech, for example.). If there was a company that could do this and still make money doing it, it WOULD BE Apple. And as I have pointed out (two examples), and rhashem, there are other companies that do it and do it well.
The company that has innovated as many times as Apple can surely figure that out.
Now, far as I'm concerned the only come back you have for what I have stated is that there's not a big enough customer base to continue doing this, and which case I say that's a matter of your opinion. Whether I have a choice of ISA or not is also a matter of your opinion, that I do not share as I have 3 different ISA's within 10 feet of me right now, all have their place and are chosen for a reason.
I have spoken, and I am done now, period.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, SHAMINO
Apple CAN AND SHOULD continue to offer PPC based solutions for they're customers that still want them. They're decision to NOT do this alienates certain customers (see Virginia tech, for example.). If there was a company that could do this and still make money doing it, it WOULD BE Apple. And as I have pointed out (two examples), and rhashem, there are other companies that do it and do it well.
The company that has innovated as many times as Apple can surely figure that out.
Now, far as I'm concerned the only come back you have for what I have stated is that there's not a big enough customer base to continue doing this, and which case I say that's a matter of your opinion. Whether I have a choice of ISA or not is also a matter of your opinion, that I do not share as I have 3 different ISA's within 10 feet of me right now, all have their place and are chosen for a reason.
I have spoken, and I am done now, period.
Power....
Just curious - with your setup, are you considering upgrading? Do you max out the 2.3?
I'm on a 733 G4 and am about to upgrade to something beefy and am wondering if the quad is worth all that, especially with the PCIe only design...
vassillios said:
Just curious - with your setup, are you considering upgrading? Do you max out the 2.3?
I'm on a 733 G4 and am about to upgrade to something beefy and am wondering if the quad is worth all that, especially with the PCIe only design...