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 PowerMacs and the 970MP?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am wondering if the so called 970MP is a Power4 or Power5 derivative? I guess this is all just speculation and we wont know for sure till it will be released but I surely hope this is based upon Power5 because to my knowledge the current 970 line (Power4 derivative) was more of a rush job by IBM and Apple cuz Apple was losing too much ground to PC world in terms of processing power where the Power5 and its Apple derivative was/is supposedly being developed simultaneously which I am guessing will be more significant in performance...
Button Up
Totally off topic--but I'd really like Apple to move to a two-button mouse. Someday. This is the literally the only superior human-interface design Windows has over MacOS/Apple.
I know it'll never happen--but a person can dream.
Back on topic--I'm curious about dual processers for the PB. If they can't get a G5 in there because of heat, how about dual-core G4--I thought one was coming--any news?
sinisterdesign said:Dual core quad 3.0GHz G5
- 1-button mouse
yay!
Totally off topic--but I'd really like Apple to move to a two-button mouse. Someday. This is the literally the only superior human-interface design Windows has over MacOS/Apple.
I know it'll never happen--but a person can dream.
Back on topic--I'm curious about dual processers for the PB. If they can't get a G5 in there because of heat, how about dual-core G4--I thought one was coming--any news?
Dual Cores VS Dual Processors
I had a few thoughts on this debate. While I don't understand fully on a technical level dual processors vs a dual core processor on the business side it seems that this would be a way to decrease the physical size and potentially the cost of a high end Power Mac or XServe G5 would it not?
Personally I'd like to see them move into dual core G4s for the PowerBooks while they deal with heat issues in a portable G5, stick to single core G5s in the iMacs but up the video card power, move the PowerMacs to dual core single processors units at lower price points with maybe one high end dual core dual processor unit both for bragging rights and the super high end users at the current 3K or so.
Out of curiousity does anyone know the cost of manufacture on two G5s vs a single dual core G5?
G4s?
Just curious.
I had a few thoughts on this debate. While I don't understand fully on a technical level dual processors vs a dual core processor on the business side it seems that this would be a way to decrease the physical size and potentially the cost of a high end Power Mac or XServe G5 would it not?
Personally I'd like to see them move into dual core G4s for the PowerBooks while they deal with heat issues in a portable G5, stick to single core G5s in the iMacs but up the video card power, move the PowerMacs to dual core single processors units at lower price points with maybe one high end dual core dual processor unit both for bragging rights and the super high end users at the current 3K or so.
Out of curiousity does anyone know the cost of manufacture on two G5s vs a single dual core G5?
G4s?
Just curious.
Raiden said:
So, basically you think that faster CPU's suck?
If that is the case, then dual-processor-systems are also overrated. Have you told Apple this, they seem to be big on dual-CPU-systems?
Basically, dual-core-CPU would let computer-makers make dual-CPU-systems with only one CPU. Or, they could make quad-CPU-systems with two CPU's. And, like it or not, just about all systems would benefit from multiple CPU's. Just about all systems have several processes/threads running all the time. dual-processor-systems make the whole system seem "smoother", since single app can't hoard all CPU-power.
Dual-core-CPU's are a Good Thing (tm).
joeboy_45101 said:
WOW! That was so FUNNY! Very original and totally not used 1000 times before.
tdewey said:
It has never been shown that two button designs are superior. Also, it has been shown that in many of cases, one button designs are superior - specifically, to force developers to make a sensible and accessible UI in their applications.
Besides, MacOS X supports two button mice, so really, Windows doesn't have this "over" MacOS/Apple.
buttons
A short while ago my microsoft RF wireless optical mouse died and for years I'd beratted Apple for their one button only mouse.
Recently, however, I'd started suffering from some repetitive stress injury in my fingers, mostly due to my addiction to scrolling with the scroll wheel.
When replacing my mouse, I knew I wanted to go bluetooth and alleviate my repetitive stress problems. I purchased Apple's bluetooth wireless mouse where the whole mouse is the button. And to cut a long story short, I absolutely love it.
I really recommend that anyone complaining about Apple's mouse offerings take the time to try the new mouse. It may not be for everyone but I really hope Apple continues to make them.
For anyone interested, I find having to reach over to the keyboard and press the Control key to achieve a right-click is not a problem, especially as I'm also using Apple's bluetooth keyboard that can be positioned just about anywhere.
To each his/her own, but I for one vote in favour of Apple's one button only approach.
~iGuy
tdewey said:
A short while ago my microsoft RF wireless optical mouse died and for years I'd beratted Apple for their one button only mouse.
Recently, however, I'd started suffering from some repetitive stress injury in my fingers, mostly due to my addiction to scrolling with the scroll wheel.
When replacing my mouse, I knew I wanted to go bluetooth and alleviate my repetitive stress problems. I purchased Apple's bluetooth wireless mouse where the whole mouse is the button. And to cut a long story short, I absolutely love it.
I really recommend that anyone complaining about Apple's mouse offerings take the time to try the new mouse. It may not be for everyone but I really hope Apple continues to make them.
For anyone interested, I find having to reach over to the keyboard and press the Control key to achieve a right-click is not a problem, especially as I'm also using Apple's bluetooth keyboard that can be positioned just about anywhere.
To each his/her own, but I for one vote in favour of Apple's one button only approach.
~iGuy
kornyboy said:
Actually, it could run significantly cooler, quieter (less fan use) and give better battery life in the notebook versions. Not all the processing power is needed all of the time. So if you're just sipping at the CPU bar it could ramp down to half speed on one processor (or better yet to 1/10th speed). That is more than enough to handle email, word processing, spreadsheets, most web surfing, iTunes playing, etc. Then when you need more processing capability it could kickup the processor to a higher speed. Need more still? Bring on the second core at half speed, then full speed, etc.
This makes a lot of sense since much of the work of most users doesn't require 3GHz. This would keep the system cooler, quieter and burn less power saving on battery life.
Ideally I would like to see dual core 3GHz processors with sixteen speed reduction levels so the system adjusts to the user's needs very smoothly. That would really shine in a dual-core PowerBook.
i am sure someone already pointed this out....but this whole thing makes sense to me IF what we are talking about here is not a quad G5 PM but rather a dual-dual core PM.
From my limited understanding, a dual core chip could be looked at as two chips...therefore...it makes perfect sense that they would be programing for a quad proc machine.
at any rate...sounds awesome, and i want one. but i would rather have an upgraded iBook right now. I need to be mobile.
From my limited understanding, a dual core chip could be looked at as two chips...therefore...it makes perfect sense that they would be programing for a quad proc machine.
at any rate...sounds awesome, and i want one. but i would rather have an upgraded iBook right now. I need to be mobile.
Express
The real question here is when we will se the Express Buss. Without that, I don't believe that we will see dual processor, dual core (DC) systems.
Then the question is whether Apple will put such systems in the first Express system they make. It might be too much to ask for.
Also, the Express spec's are going to be upgraded sometime late this year, or early next year. Will Apple use the current spec, or will they wait for the next?
3GHz might also be a bit much. With both AMD and Intel saying that their first (at least) DC chips will be at a lower clock rate than their current highest clocked chips, can IBM do any better?
Therefore will we see DC chips at a clock of 3GHz, 2.8GHZ, 2.5GHZ, 2.2GHZ, or even 2GHZ?
Let's get off the cough syrup, and come down from that high until we know better.
Also, many apps will benefit greatly from dual duals. I have been beta-testing Photoshop for over ten years now, and can say that it is written so that whatever number of processors, DC or whatever, are in there, it will take advantage. Not so much in the interface, though that did benefit from dual proc's, but the rendering routines, which look for them. Same with FCP and others.
As for the price,I spent $6,000 on my 950 in '92, plus $189 for the keyboard. That didn't include monitor, or upgrades.
Almost $5,000 for my 9500, almost $4,500 for my 9600, $3,500 for my Digital Audio, etc.
Pro's will pay whatever it costs to get the performance they want. I would pay whatever Apple asks for a high performance, highly expandable X-Station, if one comes out. In the long run it's cheaper than a less expensive machine.
The real question here is when we will se the Express Buss. Without that, I don't believe that we will see dual processor, dual core (DC) systems.
Then the question is whether Apple will put such systems in the first Express system they make. It might be too much to ask for.
Also, the Express spec's are going to be upgraded sometime late this year, or early next year. Will Apple use the current spec, or will they wait for the next?
3GHz might also be a bit much. With both AMD and Intel saying that their first (at least) DC chips will be at a lower clock rate than their current highest clocked chips, can IBM do any better?
Therefore will we see DC chips at a clock of 3GHz, 2.8GHZ, 2.5GHZ, 2.2GHZ, or even 2GHZ?
Let's get off the cough syrup, and come down from that high until we know better.
Also, many apps will benefit greatly from dual duals. I have been beta-testing Photoshop for over ten years now, and can say that it is written so that whatever number of processors, DC or whatever, are in there, it will take advantage. Not so much in the interface, though that did benefit from dual proc's, but the rendering routines, which look for them. Same with FCP and others.
As for the price,I spent $6,000 on my 950 in '92, plus $189 for the keyboard. That didn't include monitor, or upgrades.
Almost $5,000 for my 9500, almost $4,500 for my 9600, $3,500 for my Digital Audio, etc.
Pro's will pay whatever it costs to get the performance they want. I would pay whatever Apple asks for a high performance, highly expandable X-Station, if one comes out. In the long run it's cheaper than a less expensive machine.
Buttons, buttons where are my buttons.
Having over the course of my career used 1-button, 2-button and yes (oh those nutty X-Windows folks) 3-button mice I can assure you that the following equation holds true for all mice:
Optical > Mechanical
Scroll > Non-scroll
2-button > 1-button > 3-button.
That being said, where's my dual-core G4 PB thread. I was sure there was one on this site. It'd be a bummer if they come out with Quad PowerMacs in July and the PBs are left to play at the little table with just another speed bump.
hayesk said:
Having over the course of my career used 1-button, 2-button and yes (oh those nutty X-Windows folks) 3-button mice I can assure you that the following equation holds true for all mice:
Optical > Mechanical
Scroll > Non-scroll
2-button > 1-button > 3-button.
That being said, where's my dual-core G4 PB thread. I was sure there was one on this site. It'd be a bummer if they come out with Quad PowerMacs in July and the PBs are left to play at the little table with just another speed bump.
hayesk said:
ok, how about you & i have a photoshop dueling contest, you w/ a 1-button mouse and me w/ my MS 5-button/scrollwheel mouse and see who finishes first?
i agree about clean UI, but i have 5 fingers on each hand, i like being able to input w/ most of them when doing my work.
hayesk said:
true, but M$ actually PRODUCES 2-button mice...
blitzkrieg79 said:
970 sounds like Power4 to me. That's great, but I'm holding out for Power5/G6! Supposedly the Mac-friendly Power5 variant has been developed alongside the primary Power5s, instead of after the fact as was the case with Power4s/G5s.
But not a peep from rumor sources about it lately.
My Friends... I have read the posts..can I get an Amen!!!
I have read through the post so far, and as a huge fan of multiprocessor machines, I cannot express the shock I am feeling.
Many here believe that more cores equals a guaranteed increase in speed, when in reality, nothing will process faster that that of the base speed of the proc.
Folks, a multi processor system keeps apps from slowing down your machine, it does not in 90% of the cases out there speed up a machine.
Yes, the hard core media apps have been mentioned, and I am sure that they will be optimized to make use of the the four cores, but like 64-bitness, there are things that may never speed up with anything more than 1 core.
An example...
How many people here think that MS Office will speed up with more cores? Safari? Mail? Howbout Terminal, or iTunes?
The reality is, even apps that use multiple threads often use them as a monitor thread. I.e. they wait for something to happen. No matter how many procs you have, more procs will only mean that you will be waiting faster, but not any shorter or longer. Time is finite.
I think for the Power users, this is a mondo machine. I also think that for more than half of the mac users out there, a dual will perform as well as a quad.
Just my opinion.
Max.
I have read through the post so far, and as a huge fan of multiprocessor machines, I cannot express the shock I am feeling.
Many here believe that more cores equals a guaranteed increase in speed, when in reality, nothing will process faster that that of the base speed of the proc.
Folks, a multi processor system keeps apps from slowing down your machine, it does not in 90% of the cases out there speed up a machine.
Yes, the hard core media apps have been mentioned, and I am sure that they will be optimized to make use of the the four cores, but like 64-bitness, there are things that may never speed up with anything more than 1 core.
An example...
How many people here think that MS Office will speed up with more cores? Safari? Mail? Howbout Terminal, or iTunes?
The reality is, even apps that use multiple threads often use them as a monitor thread. I.e. they wait for something to happen. No matter how many procs you have, more procs will only mean that you will be waiting faster, but not any shorter or longer. Time is finite.
I think for the Power users, this is a mondo machine. I also think that for more than half of the mac users out there, a dual will perform as well as a quad.
Just my opinion.
Max.
Quad Dual Power 5 Cores
3ghz each thats 8 cores at 3ghz so (using that other guys math) is 18 Phz (petahertz)
wow i want one
3ghz each thats 8 cores at 3ghz so (using that other guys math) is 18 Phz (petahertz)
wow i want one
tdewey said:
Having used over the course of my life one-button, two-button, three-button, and five-button mice, I can assure you that the following equation is correct:
Optical is non-comparable to mechanical. It will eventually be better, but on the high end optical gets its posterior kicked.
Scroll slightly > non-scroll.
1-button > 5-button > 3-button > 2-button. Seriously, 2-button mice just suck. If you're going to add them, go the whole hog.
~J
maxvamp said:
EVERYTHING in OS X benefits from two CPUs. We'll see what happens with four
A truly dual-optimized app is much preferred of course, but OS X gives ALL apps some benefit from the second CPU: as I understand it, even if an app isn't dual-optimized, the current app gets a CPU all to itself, while the OS and associated processes all run on the other. If you are running multiple apps, the current one still gets a CPU to itself, and the others use the other CPU along with the OS. That's a smart, simple way to make all apps benefit.
Extending that to four... the OS could easily give the top three CPU users their own CPU, while running the OS and other apps on #4. That's not ideal, but it's enough for smaller apps: the kind that don't get optimized.
Also, parts of the OS itself that apps rely on are multi-threaded, and so apps benefit from those components running faster.
Bottom line, I predict: major CPU-intensive apps (the kind that get multiprocessor support) will get the most benefit from quad CPUs. Low-level use, or running just one app at a time, will get less benefit--maybe no better than duals.
But that makes good sense: low-level single-app users are not the market for quad-CPU machines.
This may also encourage app developers to do more with supporting multiple CPUs. The benefits of truly optimizing/multithreading/etc. will now be that much greater.
maxvamp said:
To a certain extent you are correct. But on the other hand you would be surprised at just how many programs will benefit.
I certainly agree that Word would not. It did benefit from two, but more won't matter. If EXcel is compiled for it, it would matter. But that's up to MS. Databases and spreadsheets are perfect candidates for multi-processing. I wonder what Apple has done with Filemaker 7.3. This already works on large multi-processor MS machines.
iTines, however, will. At least when ripping. And that's where it matters. iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, all of these will benefit.
It is to Apples' benefit that they do. Do you know that on a PC iTunes can't use duals? A rip on a P4 3.4 is noticably slower than on a dual G5 2 machine.
Also someone else here mentioned that on a machine that they used having 4 MIPS proc's the speedup was 2.89. That can certainly be true, but if you go and look at the top 500 list, you will see that the efficiency of different chips, and systems varies widely. The MIPS systems fall in the middle of the range. Others are worse, and others are better. A properly designed chip for SMP can perform at about the 4.00 level. It depends.
it is so true
but one should not expect if dualcore 970 are coming to have simply a Tuesday AppleStore update...
such machine will have to be announced during a big event, attracting lot of attention from the Mac users community as well as from the media.
do not forget that Apple needs TV and info channels to be their to enhance the effect of a possible release of the first dual-core-based comsumer-oriented computer
that's correct.ClimbingTheLog said:
but one should not expect if dualcore 970 are coming to have simply a Tuesday AppleStore update...
such machine will have to be announced during a big event, attracting lot of attention from the Mac users community as well as from the media.
do not forget that Apple needs TV and info channels to be their to enhance the effect of a possible release of the first dual-core-based comsumer-oriented computer
Tiger better have some pretty major in the BDS layer in order to use this much power. As it is today, it really sucks at SMP. Mach kernel is great at it, but the BSD is connected to it through funnels. Basically it has one network funnel and an other for the rest.
more on this
Hopefully 10.4 will be based on a newer version of freebsd and have a nicer communication between them.
Hopefully 10.4 will be based on a newer version of freebsd and have a nicer communication between them.
Schweeet! Four CPUs! What power! How could you effectively cool so many? G5s already have a gazillion fans in them. I guess liquid cooling with fans and liquid nitrogen would be your only option.
