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

Quad PowerMacs and the 970MP?

That's some news! Imagine a Dual-core Quad processor 3GHz PowerMac G5 :eek: I hope this will be reality soon! :eek: And I also hope it will perform as well as it sounds :D
 
iPlm said:
That's some news! Imagine a Dual-core Quad processor 3GHz PowerMac G5 :eek: I hope this will be reality soon! :eek: And I also hope it will perform as well as it sounds :D
Click to expand...

Zoot. I just got my tax forms back from my preparer.

Blasted IRS.

No Quad for this boy.

:(
 
iPlm said:
And I also hope it will perform as well as it sounds :D
Click to expand...

Me too, but I think even if it didn't, I'd be too excited to notice :p


I'm pretty sure a dual-core dual-proc 3ghz G5 in 2005 would give Apple a dominating lead in the high end desktop/workstation arena. Bring it on!
 
edesignuk said:
I suppose we wait an see, quite exciting though, that would be one system to be reckoned with!
Click to expand...

Don't forget that they'd have to write software to take advantage of the power, and you can expect there wont be much that will utilize it straight away... because surely it wont just work out of the box, right ?
 
Yvan256 said:
Maybe they could keep the Radeon 9200 but give it 64MB? The PowerBooks would still have a better GPU. And push the 12" iBook to 1.25GHz (50MHz upgrade), if only to make it equal to the Mac mini. Make them 512MB by default, and maybe bigger HDs (since PBs are still better with 5400 RPMs instead of 4200 RPM HDs).
Click to expand...

Yeah, you've got an idea there. Just a little correction, pushing the 12" to 1.25 GHz wouldn't happen because iBooks have a 133 MHz system bus and Mac mini's have a 167 MHz one. They go in steps of 133 MHz or 267 on iBooks, like 800MHz->1 GHz (the 1 GHz is actually 1.067)->1.2 GHz->1.33 GHz.
Edit: Well, unless they do boost the FSB to 167 MHz.
 
samh004 said:
Don't forget that they'd have to write software to take advantage of the power, and you can expect there wont be much that will utilize it straight away... because surely it wont just work out of the box, right ?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I was thinking that anything that already was dual processor aware would work - anyone know for sure?

Lightwave3D should be able to run using all 4 processors - and I'm sure the Apple apps, FCP, Motion (which really needs a speed boost anyway), Logic will all work seamlessly with quad processors.

D
 
Later in the year...

I just bought a dual 2.5 and a 30" display - a pretty sweet combination right now, and fast enough for pretty much anything I do. I can't see them *shipping* one of these machines until much later in the year at best, but it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised - we have some dual gen 1 dual 2Ghz machines, and it would be great to update them to something radically better at the end of their two-year life-cycle (that's our general upgrade pattern).

Here's hoping (as usual).
 
Mr. Anderson said:
Hmm, I was thinking that anything that already was dual processor aware would work - anyone know for sure?

Lightwave3D should be able to run using all 4 processors - and I'm sure the Apple apps, FCP, Motion (which really needs a speed boost anyway), Logic will all work seamlessly with quad processors.

D
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure, but I think that most dual-processor aware programs should also be multi-processor aware. The only reason I see that it wouldn't be is if it was specifically designed to be chopped into two pieces rather than a bunch of small pieces for processing, so to speak.
 
COULD BE AMAZING

If true it would explain why the new PM has been so long in coming.

Motherboard re-design would be a pain and writing software to use it would also not be easy.

Which would explain Tiger taking as long as it does.

As i'm looking to buy a G5 in mid 2006 wonder what will be avaible then?
 
Well if these Dual core cpu's come.

Will there be any chance that the iMac will get one so, Dualie iMac :D
 
Just some things I noticed when looking through the CHUD Tools:

  • The CPU-number dropdown field has a default length of four. While it can be extendend dynamically (it is shortenend dynamically on all computers with less than 4 CPUs), it looks like no eight cpu systems will come anytime soon
  • There is a CPUPrefs.searchTerms file in the bundle. Looks like this file contains the keywords for the search feature in Tiger's System Preferences. I don't know whether that file was there before, but it looks like there will be no more updates for the CHUD Tools before Tiger. So they are clearly not meant to be for the short term and there could still be some time till we see the quad-cpu-macs.
  • The badge where the number of CPU's is displayed is available in three widths (the number itself is probably generated at runtime), leaving space for at least two digits. 99 G5s anyone? Edit: Macbidouille found this before I did.
  • While there are references to 970MP and the 970FX (and the original 970, of course), I could find no reference whatsoever to the rumored 970GX which was featured on that IBM page about Altivec
  • Is Apple currently using the G4-variant 7448? I heard they are not. Anyhow, there are references to this processor in

    /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/CHUD.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/CHUDCore.framework/Versions/A/Resources/com.apple.CHUD.shortcuts.plist

    and maybe somewhere else, too (I did not really look for it).
  • The framework headers contain no reference to any 970MP, but to nearly every other CPU Mac OS X runs on. Either it's hidden or the 970MP-based Macs are not imminent.
  • They do, however, contain a reference to an "unknown" variant of the IO-Controller found in G5s in

    /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/CHUD.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/CHUDCore.framework/Versions/A/Headers/chudInfo.h
  • The frameworks also have other references to Tiger (nothing really interesting, just that it exists)

The implications of some of these points contradict each other. E.g. the .nib-File shows that we won't get more than 8 CPUs while the badge shows we could get many more than that (or the badge is used for something else). But the fact that the 970MP is nearly everywhere is quite interesting.
 
Platform said:
Well if these Dual core cpu's come.

Will there be any chance that the iMac will get one so, Dualie iMac :D
Click to expand...

i sure hope not. i'd be happy with a less expensive, less hot, less noisy single core 2.3 GHz 23inch iMac. :D

but if the dual core 2.3 gHz imac is released i'll order one. of course. :D
 
new specs

Dual core quad 3.0GHz G5
  • 256MB RAM
  • 64MB nVidia
  • 1-button mouse

yay! :rolleyes:

kidding. it would be AWESOME to see steve drop a monster like this on us.
 
sinisterdesign said:
Dual core quad 3.0GHz G5
  • 256MB RAM
  • 64MB nVidia
  • 1-button mouse

yay! :rolleyes:

kidding. it would be AWESOME to see steve drop a monster like this on us.
Click to expand...

My two office mates are looking at me like I'm handicapped. That made my day - thanks! :D

32MB VRAM
128MB RAM
56K Modem

LOL
 
What would be nice is dual-core CPU'each with multithreading. That way single CPU could handle 4 threads at once (as opposed to 1 thread right now). dual-CPU system could handle 8 threads. Throw in a integrated mem-controllers in same style as Opteron does (which mean that mem-bandwidth goes up as the number of CPU's increses) for significantly reduced memory-latencies and better bus-bandwidth (Apple wouldn't even have to keep on increasing the FSB as the CPU gets faster).

That machine would absolutely, positively kick ass!
 
samh004 said:
Don't forget that they'd have to write software to take advantage of the power, and you can expect there wont be much that will utilize it straight away... because surely it wont just work out of the box, right ?
Click to expand...

[Disclaimer: I've not done anything involving multi-processor software development, but I am a coder...]

Making a piece of software use the potential of multiple processors/cores is really architectural rather than procedural. You don't really explicitly tell the code to use multiple CPUs. Rather, you just make sure your program's written so that there's no nasty interactions where parts of your code assume other parts are/are not no longer running.

So, assuming your program runs well when the OS is scheduling its parts across 2 cores, it'll run even better on 4 or more.

From what I've heard, the services OS X provides to applications (math, graphics, input-output libraries) are also nicely multi-processor aware. So the OS itself will also be good on 4 cores. The only area which I can see might need a bit of tuning for the extra CPUs is the Darwin kernel's process scheduling algorithms. Improvements there will automatically filter up through the rest of the software environment.

So, these new machines will be pretty sweet by the sounds of things :)
 
God people. Enough with the bitching about the 3ghz promise.

WAHHHHHHH!!! I didn't get my 500Mhz. Oh boo hoo. :rolleyes:
At least mobile users have something to bitch about. You desktop users are riding on a competitive architecture.
 
Mr. Anderson said:
Hmm, I was thinking that anything that already was dual processor aware would work - anyone know for sure?

Lightwave3D should be able to run using all 4 processors - and I'm sure the Apple apps, FCP, Motion (which really needs a speed boost anyway), Logic will all work seamlessly with quad processors.

D
Click to expand...

Well, true, I imagine they will work but the larger issue is how well will they take advantage of the hardware (sure, put this great hardware in a computer, but if its not being utilized......). Programs that are written for/optimized for a mac with dual processors will seem like they on twice as fast of a machine as the same program that's just ported over or not optimized at all (plus there is still the whole 'taking advantge of 64bits' issue still).

For better or worse, if this comes out in a few months, I'm sure it will generate speed boots but it won't be seeing full potential for a loooong time i'm sure (except for maybe Apple developed software). Even a program like Lightwave which uses both processors still isn't taking real advantage of 64bits, oh wait they announced they are but alas, only for windows/linux (amd) machines. Well optimized software would be amazing on this machine though, i'm sure.

Once again it appears macs are just too cool for their own good (or just not enough of a $$ maker for 3rd party developers...comparitvely speaking).
 
When is the WWDC thingee?

Was in the market for a new mac, wondering if i should wait for this. Anyone have recommendations, guesses of when a new PM is coming? Apple seems to be dumping a lot of the "old" refurbs on the Apple store. Wondering if i should take advantage or wait for what's down the way.

And someone please reaffirm for me that this post, is in fact 100% useless. :confused:
 
PretendPCuser said:
Was in the market for a new mac, wondering if i should wait for this. Anyone have recommendations, guesses of when a new PM is coming? Apple seems to be dumping a lot of the "old" refurbs on the Apple store. Wondering if i should take advantage or wait for what's down the way.

And someone please reaffirm for me that this post, is in fact 100% useless. :confused:
Click to expand...

So if your posts are useless the why did you post :confused:
 
Many apps will take advantage of a quad CPU

Just open up the Activity Monitor app. It shows all the processes running, and how many threads they have going. If it shows more than 2 threads, it may speed up on a quad CPU Mac. And TONS of apps have multiple threads! You might be amazed. My copy of Safari shows 20 threads going! Mail 9, Finder 3. The kernel task shows 38 threads! Login window 6, mysql 9, windowserver 3.

Apple has done an amazing job making it easy for programmers to use threads. And it has been in the system for a long time, so tons of software use them.

Quad CPU WILL make things fly.
 
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