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

Quad PowerMacs?

Re: Re: Re: ultimate multitasking?

Originally posted by ffakr
I'm pretty sure Daystar got up to quad 225MHz. It was called an MP900 or some such thing. I lusted greatly after one. :)

on a totally unrelated note... having an on die mem controller for a quad machine would require 4 banks of descrete (yet interlinked) memory, like the quad opterons. It would also mean extra HT (or HT like) links built into the CPU. It would be the best move for performance, but it would make the mac Much more expensive and it would make the motherboard much larger. Apple could, as an alternative, put in a quad channel (256 bit) memory interface, like you can find in bigger PC servers, and it would have lots of bandwidth. It'd also be a lot cheaper to design, build, and populate with memory.
Click to expand...

mmmmmmmmmmmmccNUMA

:)

Dharvabinky
 
Originally posted by Rincewind42
At the very least it is interesting because it makes it cheaper to make Dual processor boxes (think consumer dualie). For pros it would be the best way to get quad CPU performance levels as well. The POWER5 based PPC is rumored to be dual core, so along with symmetric multithreading a pair of the chips could appear to be 8 CPUs to the OS, which could give some huge performance improvements.
Click to expand...

I might be misremembering this, but isn't the power 4, the processor the 970 is based on, already dual core. just because the super expensive server chip is dual core really had no bearing on the consumer lines necessarily. If it occurs on the consumer chip lines, its going to come down to price and power consumption probably, not technical reasons. Dual core is not new technology. I think its pretty much garaunteed that the power5 will be dual core.
 
Originally posted by Ge4-ce
I'm in 3D animation..
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too.

I could see this technology being great for schools and studios, but not really for home use.

When was the last time you actually rendered 5 minutes of animation at once? I dont know about you, but when I finish a scene (usually under 30 seconds worth of animation) I just render it overnight and voila. Check it in the morning.

But hey, if they want to make dual core dual processor servers for renderfarms, more power to em.
 
i'm no wiz either, but the thought occured to me that if you get the cpus to work together, would it not be possible to get very powerfull systems for less money? since they could use smaller/slower (ie: cheaper) and put them together, so you get the power of a g5, but for less cost? i dunno, sounded good though.
 
Originally posted by strider42
I might be misremembering this, but isn't the power 4, the processor the 970 is based on, already dual core. just because the super expensive server chip is dual core really had no bearing on the consumer lines necessarily. If it occurs on the consumer chip lines, its going to come down to price and power consumption probably, not technical reasons. Dual core is not new technology. I think its pretty much garaunteed that the power5 will be dual core.
Click to expand...

Your right, the POWER4 is dual core. But I was referring to a future chip in the PPC space - the 980 or some such that was rumored to be a dual core chip as well. Should that come along next year in another year afterward it would probably be feasible to use it in a consumer machine. And your right, dual core is far from new, as it was on IBMs road map for the G4 before Motorola & Altivec more or less put IBM out of the G4 PPC business (for better or worse).

And the POWER5 IS dual core - I only mentioned it because the successor to the 970 is based on POWER5, so it should have SMT & may have a dual core design.
 
Originally posted by mrsebastian
i'm no wiz either, but the thought occured to me that if you get the cpus to work together, would it not be possible to get very powerfull systems for less money? since they could use smaller/slower (ie: cheaper) and put them together, so you get the power of a g5, but for less cost? i dunno, sounded good though.
Click to expand...

Not likely. The problem with lots of slower CPUs is that the other costs associated with stringing together multiple CPUs out weight the cost of using a single very fast CPU. Assume for a moment than a 1.5Ghz G5 cost $125 each, vs a 2.5 Ghz G5 that cost $300 - so put 2 in a box for $250 right? But then all the other costs associated with getting them talking to each other than puts you over the $300 the single 2.5 cost you - so you've saved no money and may or may not have a faster machine.
 
I think this is one of the dumbest rumors I've heard in awhile... On the other hand, I think future G5 processors should have hyperthreading like P4s...
 
lets see 4 2.5 ghz G5s would make ... oh my .... 10ghz!!!

I think the boys at intel are going to 'soil' themselves if this rumor comes true. Even if it happens in 12-18 months.
 
Originally posted by wPod
isnt there some technology comming out where the chips have a dual core. . . thus you could get 4 procesors out of 2 chips? so that might be feasable. . . but the question would be why? are there really enough people who would buy that kind of power? or even use that kind of power?
Click to expand...

The Power4 processor line, from which the PPC970 is derived, has dual cores. This functionality was eliminated for the PPC970 to allow a reasonable cost and a low heat profile.
 
Re: ugh..

Originally posted by Some_Big_Spoon
Just because you have 4 processors in a machine doesn't mean it's any faster, and, in truth, the dual processors really make a deifference when the software is dual processor aware..
Click to expand...
Just from my personal observations, Apple seems to be coming on strong (again) in universities and other technical areas (e.g., physics, bio-informatics, etc.). In these areas "workstations", not just personal computers, that can seriously crunch data has a lot of value, and much of the software can take advantage of multiple processors.

Also, software in graphics, from 3D animation to film processing to photoshop, can probably take good advantage of multiple processors.

In short, many of the areas where Apple already enjoys a fair amount of support are well placed to support a four or more processor workstations.

Still, I am not inclined to believe this rumor at this time.
 
better video

rather than more procs or even more gigahertz I'd prefer to see better video cards in Macs. A comparison review in the most recently available (in the U.S.) issue of Digit poo-pooed the dual G5 for one reason, poor video performance.
 
This report **could** just be a misunderstanding.

I've heard reports (not online but via friends who would know) that a dual core PPC (in the 9xx family) is being worked on - who knows if it's destined for Apple but none the less it is being worked on...

So if you take that into account and add to it a liberal dose of imagination... Take a dual core 9xx cpu in a dual cpu box configuration and you'd pretty much have a 4 cpu box. (for all the tech geeks I repeat "pretty much")

Then again this report **could** also be someone just having some fun...

Either way.. 4 individual single core CPUs (todays 970 class CPUs that is - not the stuff used in the daystar boxes from how many years ago...) in a single box just ain't gonna happen. A 130nm 970 or even a 90nm 970 is just too large and hot to pack 4 in a box... A 9xx class 65nm CPU available sometime in the next two/three/four? years... okay maybe... But not a chance 'today'.

Just my .02 cents

Dave
 
The more and more I see rumors like this and the cool X-Serve and X-serve apps coming out, I think Apple should try their hands at developping a render farm.
 
Not going to happen

Anything beyond two processors will be in the shape of an xServe cluster. If people want to add horsepower to their machines, Apple has clearly indicated xServe modules as the answer. Add as many as you like/need...

It doesn't make sense to have a quad processor desktop when 2 decently-clocked PowerMac G5's are faster than anything in the PC world.
 
Originally posted by DaveGee
This report **could** just be a misunderstanding.

I've heard reports (not online but via friends who would know) that a dual core PPC (in the 9xx family) is being worked on - who knows if it's destined for Apple but none the less it is being worked on...

So if you take that into account and add to it a liberal dose of imagination... Take a dual core 9xx cpu in a dual cpu box configuration and you'd pretty much have a 4 cpu box. (for all the tech geeks I repeat "pretty much")

Then again this report **could** also be someone just having some fun...

Either way.. 4 individual single core CPUs (todays 970 class CPUs that is - not the stuff used in the daystar boxes from how many years ago...) in a single box just ain't gonna happen. A 130nm 970 or even a 90nm 970 is just too large and hot to pack 4 in a box... A 9xx class 65nm CPU available sometime in the next two/three/four? years... okay maybe... But not a chance 'today'.

Just my .02 cents

Dave
Click to expand...

This sounds much more plausible. I've heard of the 976's being dual core and they will certainly be used as the "G6".
 
Originally posted by vpalvarez
lets see 4 2.5 ghz G5s would make ... oh my .... 10ghz!!!

I think the boys at intel are going to 'soil' themselves if this rumor comes true. Even if it happens in 12-18 months.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very well.
 
The fact that the "source" claims Apple is reviving the Quadra name is enough to push this onto page 3.

Honestly. What would be next? A Power Macintosh G5 IIvx?

Maybe an LCiMac?

How about a Powerbook Portable?

Of course, a quad Processor machine would be a workstation worthy of a high-end graphics card. A Quadro in a Quadra anyone?

Puhleaze.
 
Please, people, Think Different!

I'm amazed at the apparent lack of creative thinking here. Faster computers have tons of applications for consumers. More performance leads to new technologies like accurate, real-time voice recognition (without speaking loudly or slowly), or advanced image analysis (imagine an option in iPhoto to "find all photos of this person" in a library).

People who say we don't need more or faster processors are as short-sighted as Bill Gates saying nobody needs more than 640k of memory. And on a Mac message board, too. For shame. ;)
 
Originally posted by agreenster
This is incorrect. Adding another processor (or three) doesnt increase the overall mHz of the machine. Thats a misnomer.

A dual 2 gHz G5 is not a 4ghz machine. It is a 2ghz machine that can multitask very very well.
Click to expand...

I learn something new everday! Thanks for the info
 
the need for...

I'd shell out big bucks for a faster machine. How could this possibly be a bad thing? This thread reminds me of all those people on this board who say we should be happy with the speeds of the latest PowerBooks and why on earth would we want a more powerful machine? Well, because I do a bit more than just post 3 pg messages comparing my Apple to a spiffy BMW or Mercedes, that's why.

-Angry Mac Fan
 
Render farm in a box...

Originally posted by agreenster
I guess I just dont see the need for 4 processors. Maybe I'm wrong, but unless you are wanting a renderfarm in a box, there's really no need.
Click to expand...
Yes...yes...let me say it again myself..."Render farm in a box..."

Excellent.

I'll take two.
 
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