OMG....Dual Dual Opteron 275's Break 1000 in Cinebench...Hurry up Apple

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
meh, my 876MHz powerbook is plenty fast for me, but thats my opinion....not saying i wouldnt want an upgrade though....
 

mad jew

Moderator emeritus
Apr 3, 2004
32,194
6
Adelaide, Australia
I'm gonna grab one! :D But it's gotta have iLife pre-installed...

Seriously though, they are mesa-impressive machines. I doubt the dual-core G5 (if ever it gets here) will be up around 2.6GHz either. :(
 

James Philp

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2005
1,494
0
Oxford/London
From skimming the post, it seems to me that the test machines were not really consumer units/products? (One didn;t even run from the mains!)
Do you not thing that somewhere in an apple lab, a couple of guys are doing this sort of thing for the future of the PowerMac? C'mon!
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
From what I understand AMD will stop releasing new single core Athlon 64 after the Venice(3000+,3200+,3500+,3800+ lower vcore/SSE3+/improved Memory Controller/SOI) chips come out next month. The Athlon 4000+ is the last Single core Athon 64 and they will all be Dual core , However AMD will continue to Produce the FX series as a High end Gamers Chip until it hits 3.0-3.2ghz :eek: in 1Q 2006. All Athlon X2's are based on the Venice core , they just call it Toledo since it's DC , and San Diego on the FX since it has 1MB L2.
 

Bigheadache

macrumors 6502
Mar 1, 2004
271
0
jiggie2g said:
All Athlon X2's are based on the Venice core , they just call it Toledo since it's DC , and San Diego on the FX since it has 1MB L2.
Not sure where you get that impression that they are 'based' on anything. Some of the dual core A64s have 2x 1mb cache, some have 2x 512kb cache, but all are Toledo cores. A venice is just a single core with 512kb cache.
 

jiggie2g

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 12, 2003
491
0
Brooklyn,NY
Bigheadache said:
Not sure where you get that impression that they are 'based' on anything. Some of the dual core A64s have 2x 1mb cache, some have 2x 512kb cache, but all are Toledo cores. A venice is just a single core with 512kb cache.

I base it on the fact that Venice chips will arrive 1st, feature SOI, SSE3, the new Memory Controller ,and AMD's 2nd gen 90nm. Toledo has the exact same features , In fact it's the exact same core but they have to change the name because they are on 2 different roadmaps , same as with the FX-57 Core will be called San Diego.

Just like the new Socket 754 Sempron 3100+ and 3300+ are based on Athlon 64 Winchester core but it's called Palermo. They just have 1/2 the cache and 64bit executions tuned off.

Or better yet Intel Pentium D's are just 2 Prescotts stamped together but they call it Smithfield.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,094
3,397
Twin Cities Minnesota
Great numbers!

I am still happy with my slow (by comparison) Dual 2.0 G5 chips. I can't keep up with them as it is.. having something THAT fast would be a waste of power..

I should be good with my G5 for 2 more years, and I am sure I still won't want the "fastest" chip in the world by then.

840
40 mhz man :)
 

noel4r

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2002
661
0
Los Angeles
Apple should have gone w/ AMD rather than IBM for their processors. Just imagine how much more intense OS X would run w/ one of these....
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
Don't worry. All the current intelligence indicates that Steve has large stockpiles of 3Ghz dual core Powermacs and is capable of deploying them in 45 minutes :eek:
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,326
379
Boston, MA
noel4r said:
Apple should have gone w/ AMD rather than IBM for their processors. Just imagine how much more intense OS X would run w/ one of these....

just a speculative idea:

couldn't apple have a deal with amd where amd produces chips for apple. those chips would be essentially identical to the standard chips but have one feature more. just a few transistors or so.

that would make the chips apple proprietory, OSX would only run on those chips. Hence apples hardware sales would be protected from competition.

but apple would be directly linked to the speed increase in the pc world.

on top of that apple machines could run OSX AND Windows. dell machines would only run windows.

what prevents apple from a move like that?

andi
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland
Lol Jiggie, you don't have to be so extreme.

When I get excited is when the X2's are actually for sale on mwave/newegg/zzf--i.e., they are mainstream. Heck, X2's aren't even being "launched" until June, so until that day comes, I'm not getting too excited.

The 275's are $1299 EACH. Yes, combine two together you get quad for an amazing price of $2600 (no other hardware). So as you can see, Opterons are nice and dandy but who's actually buying on here?
 

~loserman~

macrumors 6502a
toontra said:
Don't worry. All the current intelligence indicates that Steve has large stockpiles of 3Ghz dual core Powermacs and is capable of deploying them in 45 minutes :eek:

You are right....

He jumped into his "Reality Distortion Field" and picked up a couple million of these processors from the year 2010 at only $50 ea
 

Xeem

macrumors 6502a
Feb 2, 2005
905
9
Minnesota
840quadra said:
Great numbers!

I am still happy with my slow (by comparison) Dual 2.0 G5 chips. I can't keep up with them as it is.. having something THAT fast would be a waste of power..
As a gamer, though, I'll need that much power just to keep up. I don't have to be able to play, let's say, Doom 3 with resolution maxed,full anisotropic filtering, full antialiasing, and so on, but I want to be close.
 

Orlando Furioso

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2005
345
0
Bezerkeley
Xeem said:
As a gamer, though, I'll need that much power just to keep up. I don't have to be able to play, let's say, Doom 3 with resolution maxed,full anisotropic filtering, full antialiasing, and so on, but I want to be close.
I dunno. Everyone complains about poor Doom 3 performance, but my G5 runs the game well at full res, and all options turned up to their highest settings (with the exception of antialiasing; it runs great at 8x, but my system will hiccup with 16x). [Dual 2.0, 2Gigs of ram, Radeon 9800XT 256MB. It is a lot of power and holds it's own. However, it is not the most advanced Mac configuration either.]
 

Les Kern

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2002
3,063
76
Alabama
toontra said:
Don't worry. All the current intelligence indicates that Steve has large stockpiles of 3Ghz dual core Powermacs and is capable of deploying them in 45 minutes :eek:
Steve Balmer recently got up in front of the XP Family of Users conference in New York and said tht Apple is INDEED holding back, and produced this startling evidence.
 

JCheng

macrumors newbie
Feb 20, 2005
28
0
jiggie2g said:
Or better yet Intel Pentium D's are just 2 Prescotts stamped together but they call it Smithfield.
Not sure if anyone noticed this but the single Dual-Core Pentium 4 DID beat the single Dual-Core Opteron in Cinebench (although it got trashed in just about everything else).
 

vouder17

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2003
826
1
Home
If apple released Dual core now it would just seem .....late. If you ask me. Apple has been known to have the first of everyting...64bit, Firewire etc. So if they would implement Dual core it wouldn't give that same effect as if they would have released it first IMO....

Well i still would be happy they did release it..c'mon apple...
 

Platform

macrumors 68030
Dec 30, 2004
2,881
0
noel4r said:
Apple should have gone w/ AMD rather than IBM for their processors. Just imagine how much more intense OS X would run w/ one of these....
Yes.........apple how about you change to AMD and get speed increases more than 200Mhz a year ;)
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
Les Kern said:
Steve Balmer recently got up in front of the XP Family of Users conference in New York and said tht Apple is INDEED holding back, and produced this startling evidence.
Haha, excellent graphic!
:D
 

calyxman

macrumors 6502a
Apr 17, 2005
610
0
No offense to you Mac defenders, but Apple is the one that invited all this scrutiny into performance. From the "world's most powerful computer" slogan," to the "breaking the gigaflop barrier" and the "megahertz myth," you're gonna get some people who will challenge these assertions. And they're doing the right thing because we all realize the emperor has no clothes, however a few of you are not willing to admit that. None of us wants to see Apple fail; instead Apple should pull its head out of its a$$ and realize the competition is not sitting like a bunch of ducks in a pond.

Another thing you're missing on is that these processors are being introduced at a steep price for some of our pocketbooks, but time can also be our best friend and by Q4 2005 to Q1 2006 you'll see price reductions on these chips as they become more prevalent and early sales help recoup R&D and other sunk costs.

Prices go down, but at the same time we see more performance in newer products. Something Apple has been doing a poor job at.

All I'm saying is that all of this stuff is relevant to Apple, and to ignore it would be a big mistake.
 

gekko513

macrumors 603
Oct 16, 2003
6,302
1
I really don't understand why some of you get so worked up about this. You all agree that it's a great chip, it seems better than the dual core P4EE, too.

And IBM can't be far behind, they have after all manufactured dual core Power 5 processors for some time, so Apple has less to fear than Intel & co in my opinion considering that Intels current dual core option can not be used in a dual processor configuration and the server version that can will not be ready until 2006, according to the roadmap.