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

Quad PowerMacs?

Dont expect it to be cheap $10k-$15k, and also it wont be a consumer machine. More likely it will be used for the Xserves not for the Powermac destops. I should also note QUAD CPU Opteron with AGP is shipping March 1st 2004 from Appro its not a consumer machine though.


Quote "This server is ideal for compute-intensive graphics application such as mechanical and engineering graphics simulation and rendering, scientific visualization, digital content creation and more"

Link http://www.appro.com/product/server_4145h.asp

and ship date.
 
oh please

please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, did i say please.
 
well, the Dual 2Ghz G5 blew a few people's minds - maybe they will release a quad 2.5Ghz as the top of the line option. Or BTO, 2 or 4 Processors.
 
I don't buy it. It'll likely require significant new chip work on Apple's end, and there are much higher priority items on their list right now (PowerBook G5, iMac G5). It would be cool, and I have no doubt that they'd sell some of them, but given the difficulty they seem to be having producing timely updates to the core product line, I'd hate to see them divert significant resources to something focused on so narrow a market.

I know Apple has multiple teams of engineers, but this is something that would require a lot of work.

Of course, if this rumor really refers to the future availability of dual processors with either dual core or hyperthreading, then that I believe (and I do think we'll see that next year sometime.)
 
If the rumor is true the QUAD machine will be for the xserve not the desktops. A quad machine with an AGP slot has only been attemped by AMD and the OEMS only now are finishing the boards off.
 
Bitchin! This would be great. Yes, the average consumer wouldn't need or care but where time is money, I know people who do 3D, if the machines were priced at $10,000 and the cost of getting a frame done could be halved they'd pay for themsevles.

And think if Apple could make OS X multithread to four, who, and I think it's snappy now on my G5 1.8 DP! Aha, another point, I test drove a 1.8 SP vs. a 1.8 DP, I didn't necessarily need two processors was my line of thought, my primary apps are Illustrator and Photoshop. I did some home backed tests to find the 1.8 DP machine was quicker in everything, not just DP aware apps. In some cases only a smidge faster, in some cases quite a bit. This even in Illustrator (actions) which, to my knowledge, AI isn't a DP aware app, it just was quicker becauese with two processors you machine can focus on more tasks easier.
 
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...

Sounds like someone has been rereading some of the old rumor sites.

I remember reading a rumor about a multiple core PowerPC when IBM and Motorola were still friends.
 
Re: Not going to happen

Originally posted by Frobozz
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.
Click to expand...
It makes sense for some applications that are multithreaded but need access to shared memory.

Databases and web-servers are two examples.

Quad Xeon servers usually cost from $15000. If Apple made a Quad G5 Workstation/Server in the $5000-$15000 range, they could do very well.
 
Originally posted by Photorun
Bitchin! This would be great. Yes, the average consumer wouldn't need or care but where time is money, I know people who do 3D, if the machines were priced at $10,000 and the cost of getting a frame done could be halved they'd pay for themsevles.

And think if Apple could make OS X multithread to four, who, and I think it's snappy now on my G5 1.8 DP! Aha, another point, I test drove a 1.8 SP vs. a 1.8 DP, I didn't necessarily need two processors was my line of thought, my primary apps are Illustrator and Photoshop. I did some home backed tests to find the 1.8 DP machine was quicker in everything, not just DP aware apps. In some cases only a smidge faster, in some cases quite a bit. This even in Illustrator (actions) which, to my knowledge, AI isn't a DP aware app, it just was quicker becauese with two processors you machine can focus on more tasks easier.
Click to expand...

Actually the DP 1.8 machine is noticeably faster than the SP 1.8 for one main reason... the hard drive used. The hard drive in the DP 1.8 (and probably the currently shipping DP 2.0 machines) is no longer the Seagate Barracuda.

I lot of people were stunned when they benchmarked the DP 1.8 and the DP 2.0 and the DP 1.8 edged it out in some tests since the hard drive was actually a lot faster.
 
Re: Render farm in a box...

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Yes...yes...let me say it again myself..."Render farm in a box..."

Excellent.

I'll take two.
Click to expand...
Me too! What you really want is the PowerNode G5!
powernode_small.jpg
 
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...
That's not necessarily true. What you say is only true for non-MP-aware apps. If you're running MS Word, then yes, you have a 2 GHz machine. But many high-end apps can take advantage. Cinema4D, for example, can get over 180% performance on a dual G5 as on a single, so if that's your main app, then you do have, for all intents and purposes, a 3.6 Ghz+ PowerMac. You'll rarely see 200% efficiency from a single app, but some can come close to it. Not only that, but Mac OS X itself is pervasively multithreaded and MP-aware, giving you better than 2 GHz performance for some tasks.
 
Re: Please, people, Think Different!

Originally posted by wHo_tHe
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. ;)
Click to expand...

That has to be the most inteligent thing I've ever read on here, and there are some bright people on this board!
 
Must squash bad posts

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...

This is absolutely not true. The OS is already multi processor aware. It is true that anything that isn't MP aware only uses 1 CPU, but you can get two non-MP apps running simultaneously thanks to the OS. So your statement is wrong. It will be faster just not by a factor of 2.

With SMP [t]here is a 3-10% overhead for coordinating EACH CPU. So 2 processors does not equal 2x as fast, but at worst maybe 1.9x as fast. There is a limit of diminishing returns. This is why you pay big bucks for 1024 CPU devices from IBM.

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 wel
Click to expand...

This is also misleading. You are right in your last statement, but two processors at 2 GHz is why we can keep up with faster clocked intel P4s. There is no way a single 2GHz G5 can keep up with a single 3.2 GHz P4.


DharvaBinky:
Macs are, now, traditionally 2way smp (symmetric multiprocessor)... The IBM PPC 975 (or 976?) is suppsed to have SMT built in (what intel people call Hyperthreading). SMT presents a single processor to the OS as 2 virtual processors (the operating system can't tell the difference), and by mixing the instructions from 2 virtual processors you can keep the chip busier more of the time.
Click to expand...

The dual core technology from IBM is absolutely NOT hyperthreading. It is the real deal. Dual core is just that, two identical single cores on the same dye. Hyperthreading is just clever ordering of the commands sent to the cpu done through software. Traditionally, there are wasteful "bubbles" where clock cycles are wasted. Hyper threading fills the bubbles, and give the appearence of a second CPU without any computational benifit (<5% the last time I've seen numbers).


DharvaBinky:
With this in mind, it seems that what they're talking about is a Dual PPC 975 system that has 4 virtual processors. I have Dual Xeon servers at work that appear as quads to windows. Same thing, I bet.
Click to expand...

You may be right about 4 processors being a two dual core 975 system, but, again, it is not the same as the smoke and mirrors win-tel technology. It is the real thing.

MSCONVERT

Mac user since OSX.1
 
Originally posted by agreenster
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I usually work like that too ofcourse, but it's just a matter of speaking... I could also have said "with a Quad G5 I could consider radiosity as an option" but then the ones not familiar with 3D wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about..
 
Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes.

No really; you have dual core technology coming so a quad processor will be childs play.

As to why that is also simple, the Mac OS has developed to the point where it has the ability to manage thousands of threads and processes. Having real processors available to run those real tasks makes the machine much more responsive. Even for the user that only makes use of a one or two applications at a time will benefit as the vast amjority of the applicaitons being writen for the MAC are now multithreaded.

There certainly are enough people available to buy that power, especially if that power is delivered in a desktop machine at desktop prices. But that is today, in the future when just about evey program will be heavily threaded there will be huge advantages to having four or more processors in your machine. I forsee a huge explosion in the capability of games for example. The increased computing resources and the additional memory cpability will present us with a whole new generation of games.

Yes people will use that sort of power. There are many a scientist and researcher that may not be able to afford a cluster but can afford a desktop. Just in this catagory there would be huge demand. On top of that and the games previously mentioned, just about any machine functioning as a server would benefit. Anybody running Java apps would benefit .

It amazes me that people seem to thinke that we have reached some sort of performance summit that no one needs to scale over. We are a long ways from the end of the climb.

Thanks
Dave


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...
 
Re: Must squash bad posts

Originally posted by msconvert
This is also misleading. You are right in your last statement, but two processors at 2 GHz is why we can keep up with faster clocked intel P4s. There is no way a single 2GHz G5 can keep up with a single 3.2 GHz P4.
Click to expand...

Well, a single 2Ghz G5 does keep up with/spank a 3.2 Ghz P4 for quite a few things :D. Not all, but quite a few.

Hyperthreading is just clever ordering of the commands sent to the cpu done through software. Traditionally, there are wasteful "bubbles" where clock cycles are wasted. Hyper threading fills the bubbles, and give the appearence of a second CPU without any computational benifit (<5% the last time I've seen numbers).
Click to expand...

Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT - but the P4 does a really poor job at it, with as you say generally <5% benefit. But if it were done in software you wouldn't see any benefit at all :).
 
Originally posted by Rincewind42
If necessary was the dominant force in the computer industry we wouldn't have machines as fast as they are now. The reality is that there is an ever present top end that always needs more speed - and they are what the industry builds toward. And the faster machines get, the more they want to do and the more they need even faster machines.
Click to expand...

I meant neccesary from apples perspective.
 
Originally posted by FlamDrag
If they priced them at $200 they would fly off the shelves. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.
 
Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT
Click to expand...

What I should have said was on chip but external to the core and not software. Yes it happens on the chip, so I will give you hardware.

Again, this is very subtle. BUT HT is not SMP. On a single CPU machine there are bubbles in the instructions sent to the core. With Hyperthreading, "software on the chip" evaluates the priority of threads and changes the order of which set of instructions need to be performed. When a bubble is anticipated, the instructions from another thread are stuck in to the space of the bubble. In some cases, HT will even delay the main thread to take advantage of the bubble caused by the secondary thread. So now you get two threads moving throught the ONE CPU at the same time.

So, you get to keep you speed of the single CPU and you gain a processor with the speed determined by how INEFFICIENT the original CPU instuction ordering really was. This is why it is only 5% - the average rate of bubbles sent to P4s.

With true dual core SMP, similar choices are made about the most efficient way to process threads being sent to the "core", but the extra core is at the full speed and not the size of the bubble. Again, this is why Dual G5s perform nearly 95% faster than single G5s, where P4w/HT only get 5% than P4w/oHT.

MSCONVERT
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.
Click to expand...

Sure you can! (see Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft). Apple would just have to charge a $150 license fee for each piece of software you buy to run on it...

But heck a quad G5 would fly off the shelves at $4K-$5K, there are just some people that would buy power at any cost (no, I don't think a quad G5 would be $10K+). But there are also a good number of people that would settle for the low end at the same time. Me? I'd love to have any G5 right now (being broke sucks) but what I really want is a Holodeck and that'll take more than just a quad G5 to do anyway. Oh well... maybe someday :D
 
Originally posted by msconvert
With true dual core SMP, similar choices are made about the most efficient way to process threads being sent to the "core", but the extra core is at the full speed and not the size of the bubble. Again, this is why Dual G5s perform nearly 95% faster than single G5s, where P4w/HT only get 5% than P4w/oHT.
Click to expand...

Ok, we're talking about different things :). Your talking about Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) and I'm talking about Symmetric Multithreading (SMT). HT is an SMT implementation - the running of 2 threads in a single core. SMP is OS level and involves sharing the CPU with multiple threads. Both are valid technologies, but the P4 simply sucks at SMT while IBM's Power5 has some very interesting pre-release results on improvements with it. The Power5 is also a dual core (as the Power4 before it) so it lets you do SMP & SMT on one chip - 4 CPUs as far as the OS thinks. Dual P4 (Xeon really) performs much faster than single P4 but I don't think that Windows is as good at SMP as OS X is, but that may depend on the version as much as anything else.
 
Re: Re: Must squash bad posts

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Actually, hyperthreading is also done in hardware and is essentially the same as SMT - but the P4 does a really poor job at it, with as you say generally <5% benefit.
Click to expand...
It depends on the app. Cinema4D renders seem to gain a consistent 17%-19% from Hyperthreading on a P4, using Cinebench:

http://www.imashination.com/bench.html

Of course it's no substitute for dual processors, but it's a significant gain if you're rendering something that'll take hours or days.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. And Apple would be bankrupt in a few days. You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.
Click to expand...



i think the original post was sarcasm... ; )

i have no real use for such a thing as a quad machine... but by god i'd sure want one!!!
 
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