Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quad CPUs

Re: i wish

Originally posted by Bradcoe
I wish mac's upgraded like x86 boxes. CHEAP AND EASY.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make the cheap assumption. Upgrading some Dell workstations from top speed stock chips to anything faster (2.0 to 2.8) requires a new motherboard ($500 on top of the chip price) to allow use of the chips and controllers due to chip redesign. Ease of upgrade doesn't seem much different among current Macs and many Intel boxes.
 
Actually, this represents a unique possibility for Apple. Quad-CPUs are the next stage when the PowerMacs went to all dual-processing, so planning ahead never hurt anyone.

Apple could offer a PowerMac of speeds 1GHz-1.5GHz in dual-configurations. The motherboards would sport a convenient slot for the addition of two processors.

The PowerMacs would sell as usual, but an additional option for the PowerMac would be the extra two CPUs. Apple could sell dual-1GHz cards for maybe $800, dual-1.25GHz for $1000, and dual-1.5GHz for $1200 or so, and start raking in some real money.

Heck, if the average PowerMac consumer purchased a dual-1GHz system for $1699 and later spent $800 or so on an upgrade card, Apple can increase it's short-term income.

Now, many would suggest, "But this will hault new PowerMac sales as users can simply upgrade!" To this I offer that the motherboards should be limited in their potential multiplier (thus requiring a user to update regurlarly). Besides, this is something that investors have been looking for over a long time.
 
Re: Re: Re: why not?

Originally posted by cr2sh
I think Intel would disagree with you, they're beating us with MHz alone.
Click to expand...
I meant you'd get more from doubling bandwidth than you would from a similar increase in either CPUs and/or MHz - because the system bus on the Macs is so bottlenecked.

A doubling in bandwidth on a dual G4 1.25 should yield a bigger percentage increase than either a dual G4 2.5 or a quad G4 1.25.

The MHz race is a race the winner will lose eventually, the increase in MHz comes with a longer pipeline (increased chance on pipeline flush), increased power requirements, increased cooling system complexity, and if the increase in MHz isn't backed up by increases in bandwidth the increases in MHz yields smaller and smaller increases in performance.

But the bandwitdth boost should come with the switch to 64-bits and/or the Hypertransport/RIO system bus.
 
The G4 has been used in quad configs before, but only for industrial systems, none for the consumer.

1quadg4.jpg
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
Check out this table...

http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/compatibility/powermacg4/index.html

It lists DUAL cpu cards as being compatible with DUAL cpu systems...

On a side note, just over $3k would set up a quad 1GHz system... you could get a graphite dual 450 on ebay for $800, the cards go $1200 a piece...
We still haven't seen bench results of these cards though.... who knows.
Click to expand...
How do you get a Quad system, who makes them?

Oh yeah, thats right there are still some Daystar Quads floating around with the 604s in them.

The CPUs are on a daughter card with either 1 or 2 G4s.

All the G3s upgrade cards are single CPUs due to lack of support on the G3 for multiple processors.

And there is only 1 connector on the motherboard for a CPU daughter card.
 
Check out this compatability info...

http://www.powerlogix.com/products2/pfdualg4133/index.html

Compatibility:

These upgrades require MacOS 9.2.1, 9.2.2, or Mac OS X 10.1 (or higher.)

One note of clarification: if your PowerMac G4 came from Apple as a dual processor machine, it has a single card with two processors on it. This dual CPU card is removed and the PowerForce G4 card replaces the Apple card and *both* CPUs .It is not possible to install two PowerForce G4 cards to replace the two processors in your machine; only one card is required.
Click to expand...
 
I guess that ends it then... I get props for originality though. I wonder if this was the case for all dual systems...
 
Re: Re: Re: why not?

Originally posted by cr2sh
I think Intel would disagree with you, they're beating us with MHz alone.
Click to expand...
Not just MHz. But in bandwidth as well. Their processors are once again changing FSB from 533 MHz to a WHOPPING 800 MHz--already! Wonder how high the FSB will be before the PowerPC 970 comes out, hmm? Only got 100 MHz to beat the 970 @ 1.8 GHz.
 
Sort of sucks that the Mac will probably never have a DDR system bus, hopefully skipping skipping directly from SDR to Hypertransport/RIO.

And remember that 800 MHz bus on Intel is Rambus technology, so you still have to compare bandwith (GB/s) and not MHz.

Rambus vs DDR is a good matchup, but 800 MHz Rambus vs 166 MHz SDR is instant bandwidth roadkill.
 
Originally posted by Sun Baked
And remember that 800 MHz bus on Intel is Rambus technology, so you still have to compare bandwith (GB/s) and not MHz.
Click to expand...
Yes, higher MHz == more bandwidth. I'm not sure about exactly the GB/sec, But IIRC it's 5.3 GB/sec w/ 533 MHz... maybe just dividing by 100 == the GB/sec, I dunno anything about that, so if anyone knows, please post.
 
533mhz fsb.... 800mhz fsb....
I don't give a **** about what intel claims their fsb is. dont give a **** about how they calculate this new "fsb" cuz I know its total bull****. I consider DDR to be a total waste of my time, its the quiters solution. Rambus is fast, but there is also some trickery involved in calculating the "fsb." Call me a cynic, but everything that comes out of intel is media-spun, stupid-consumer logic, bull****....
I want solid mhz bus increase, not this tacking on a multiplier bull****.
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
533mhz fsb.... 800mhz fsb....
I don't give a **** about what intel claims their fsb is. dont give a **** about how they calculate this new "fsb" cuz I know its total bull****. I consider DDR to be a total waste of my time, its the quiters solution. Rambus is fast, but there is also some trickery involved in calculating the "fsb." Call me a cynic, but everything that comes out of intel is media-spun, stupid-consumer logic, bull****....
I want solid mhz bus increase, not this tacking on a multiplier bull****.
Click to expand...
I do give a crap because it's meaning that Intel is getting faster and faster.

Macs currently have horrible hardware bandwidth yet the PCs go for gigabytes of throughoutput.

What do you mean by trickery anyway? So the XServe/Power Mac DDR solution isn't trickery? Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back