If I were to buy an old dual 500 or 533 graphite, and then purchase two of the Powerlogix Dual 1ghz upgrade cards, and slide a dual into each slot.. Would osX recognize the quad system? Would it even work? Has anyone ever seen it done? Just an idea... thanks!
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.
Quad CPUs
- Thread starter cr2sh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
is it possible
i have been asking if tri or quad processors are wve possible for the last three years and have never got a straight awnser. I would love to buy a single or dual g4 or card and have spaces left open for future g4,s. this would make osx and os9 multi processor apps fly and could sale relatively cheaply with 1 or 2 processor. then i could add later. my music apps, i.e. cubase logic,itunes, plugin effects, plugin instrument and multi open apps in osx would just be too ggod even with the thruput limitation. does anyone know.?
i have been asking if tri or quad processors are wve possible for the last three years and have never got a straight awnser. I would love to buy a single or dual g4 or card and have spaces left open for future g4,s. this would make osx and os9 multi processor apps fly and could sale relatively cheaply with 1 or 2 processor. then i could add later. my music apps, i.e. cubase logic,itunes, plugin effects, plugin instrument and multi open apps in osx would just be too ggod even with the thruput limitation. does anyone know.?
sweet....
If this were at all possible, and I don't see why not, my life would be so much easier. Video editing and renderign time would be a thing of the past. I'd love some info on this idea too!
If this were at all possible, and I don't see why not, my life would be so much easier. Video editing and renderign time would be a thing of the past. I'd love some info on this idea too!
I'm afraid the little man on your motherboard who takes care that all CPUs share the same RAM and the same bus (but not at the same time, thus pulling the brake for each other all) is not ready to deal with four of them.
Powerlogix mention on their site that you can only replace a dual cpu module with another dual cpu module, not add one cpu and another one later and certainly not add 4 cpus.
Even apple use 1 card for either dual or single cpus, the card has the cpu(s) and L3 cache(s), the 1 slot on the motherboard is where the card plugs into.
It's a shame really because it would make upgrading macs far simpler and cheaper if you didn't have to buy both cpus at the same time.
Even apple use 1 card for either dual or single cpus, the card has the cpu(s) and L3 cache(s), the 1 slot on the motherboard is where the card plugs into.
It's a shame really because it would make upgrading macs far simpler and cheaper if you didn't have to buy both cpus at the same time.
Re: i wish
Yeah... damn, I wish I could upgrade my 2-CPU Mac to 4 CPUs without changing motherboards like I can with my Pentium.
Re: i wish
macs upgrade very easy - obviously you've never put in an upgrade card on a mac before.....it actually quite painless. Now as for expense, well, that's what happens when there is less of a need for Mac upgrades, naturally the prices are higher because the demand just isn't there.
D
macs upgrade very easy - obviously you've never put in an upgrade card on a mac before.....it actually quite painless. Now as for expense, well, that's what happens when there is less of a need for Mac upgrades, naturally the prices are higher because the demand just isn't there.
D
Re: Re: i wish
I have upgraded four macs the latest being a biege g3 while technically easy hardware wise software can get real crazy. if quads were avaiable demand would skyrocket!. and you can bet even with the slow bus and mem it would be a major boost for my music apps amd mac osx.
No, what we need is 16 cpu powermacs using 1.3Ghz Power4 chips for the high end, 32 cpu 800Mhz G4s in the midrange and 64 cpu 200Mhz 604e based Powermacs in the entry level.
Running a superthreaded version of OS X to take full advantage of the cpus and they should have a 12Gb/s system bus of apple's own design using proprietory memory.
Don't forget the iMac, that should move to a 100 cpu 32Mhz 68030 just to keep the cost down. The added size for the extra cpus should make the entry level iMac small enough (with Johnathan Ive's design skills) to only need a minimum of a 22" widescreen display built in
and for the elitist in the group...
This was not a thread about me wanting a quad mac, or dreaming about a quad mac (although at some point it may have become one), it was however a question about an idea I came up with while sitting on the crapper. You guys seem pretty intelligent so I thought I'd let it fly... I'm pleased to say that to the short lists of adjectives that decribe you, mnkeybsness, we may also add snobby.
This was not a thread about me wanting a quad mac, or dreaming about a quad mac (although at some point it may have become one), it was however a question about an idea I came up with while sitting on the crapper. You guys seem pretty intelligent so I thought I'd let it fly... I'm pleased to say that to the short lists of adjectives that decribe you, mnkeybsness, we may also add snobby.
why not?
this is a valid discussion and thread if you dont like it start a single cpu thread.
I am all for it. but would be satisfied with a dual 867 with two open slots for 2 more cpu. simple. ijust wanted to know if it is possible for the currently released towers to be upgraded to more then 2 processors. no one seems to know. just hink dual 1.25 low end tri 1.25 midrange, quad 1.25 high end.Originally posted by barkmonster
No, what we need is 16 cpu powermacs using 1.3Ghz Power4 chips for the high end, 32 cpu 800Mhz G4s in the midrange and 64 cpu 200Mhz 604e based Powermacs in the entry level.
Running a superthreaded version of OS X to take full advantage of the cpus and they should have a 12Gb/s system bus of apple's own design using proprietory memory.
Don't forget the iMac, that should move to a 100 cpu 32Mhz 68030 just to keep the cost down. The added size for the extra cpus should make the entry level iMac small enough (with Johnathan Ive's design skills) to only need a minimum of a 22" widescreen display built in
this is a valid discussion and thread if you dont like it start a single cpu thread.
actually xlr8 (remember them} had a dual processor upgrade that you could buy with 1 processor and then add a diffent faster or slower processor later.
if they could do it so could powerlogix but then everyone would get the single processor model and it would hurt profits, thats the only reason powerlogix does not allow it now. those penny pinchers
Re: why not?
Anyway the bandwidth that would be needed for Quad G4s really isn't there, the current duals can suck data far faster than they can be fed right now anyways.
Speeding up the data flow would improve things a lot more than throwing more MHz or CPUs at the machines anyways.
The PPC 604s were designed to handle Quad configurations, the current crop of G4s are not able to do it as well - better left with singles or duals.
Anyway the bandwidth that would be needed for Quad G4s really isn't there, the current duals can suck data far faster than they can be fed right now anyways.
Speeding up the data flow would improve things a lot more than throwing more MHz or CPUs at the machines anyways.
It wasn't 2 cpu sockets on the motherboard, it was 1 card plugged into the slot on the motherboard with daughter cards added at a later date so you could upgrade in stages.
I don't understand why other upgrade companies can't manage this but price could make it pointless.
for instance, the sonnet duet 500Mhz dual G4 upgrade is £939.94 but the sonnet encore ST 800Mhz single G4 upgrade is £428.88
Both are way overpriced.
due to the way computers are made, i dont think tri cpus are possible, but quad certainly is... just not by adding upgrade cards to your mac.
100% garuntee what you are thinking of WON'T work...
100% garuntee what you are thinking of WON'T work...
I stand corrected. i just saw 2ghz athlons and P4 in the $50-$200 dollar range in quanities of one and the new 3gigP$ with hyperthreading in only $600 in I believe 1000 Qty's
exatly what does ibm and yo moto charge for the 1 GHZ chips.
Does anybody know.
ya well... so i dont feel like spellchecking...
but still... trying to stick 4 CPUs in a dual cpu computer is like.... trying to put another engine in a car or somthing...
Re: Re: why not?
So there is only one way to find out for sure. my money is on the theory that a 4 processor 1.25 would be much faster than a 2 processor 1.25 maybe not double but close to it on milti processor aware apps.
But of course i could be wrong.
If the duals we have right now cant be fully utilized with the current motherboard than why should yo moto make any faster processors without a new motherboard, it would be a waste right?
Technically you are right, however i just looked at some dual shootouts on www.barefeats.com and a dual 9600 and biege g3 stood neck to neck with the 100MHZ based dual 500 g4s.
So there is only one way to find out for sure. my money is on the theory that a 4 processor 1.25 would be much faster than a 2 processor 1.25 maybe not double but close to it on milti processor aware apps.
But of course i could be wrong.
If the duals we have right now cant be fully utilized with the current motherboard than why should yo moto make any faster processors without a new motherboard, it would be a waste right?
Point blank, has anyone done it? The answer seems to be no.
Has anyone tried it? The answer seems to be no.
Will it work? The answer seems to be "I can't spell and I haven't tried it, but I know it will not." That's just not convincing enough for me.
As for the argument that it's just not economically feasible, I disagree. The bandwidth argument I like, but I also like my 15,000rpm SCSI drives.
I don't know and I respect your guys' ideas so I thought I'd ask... maybe I'll try it this winter. Thanks.
Has anyone tried it? The answer seems to be no.
Will it work? The answer seems to be "I can't spell and I haven't tried it, but I know it will not." That's just not convincing enough for me.
As for the argument that it's just not economically feasible, I disagree. The bandwidth argument I like, but I also like my 15,000rpm SCSI drives.
I don't know and I respect your guys' ideas so I thought I'd ask... maybe I'll try it this winter. Thanks.