Quad PowerMacs?

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Ge4-ce
[B You forget about Newtek's Lightwave 3D, wich has an encridible good renderer even exceding Maya's [/B]

Well, I wouldnt say I was forgetting LW, we just werent talking about it. And Maya's renderer sucks really bad and pretty much always has. Thats why its now bundled with MentalRay, and has always been used with custom rib (renderman) exporters.

Though I'm not much of a TD or lighter/renderer. I'm more of a character guy.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by army_guy
As for the power requirement they will be high anyway due to the 90nm process (current leakage etc) and this is worse at 65/40nm eventually you will be dissipating more static power than dynamic.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to IBM much. The 970FX uses 24.5W at 2Ghz (vs 51 for the 970 at 1.8Ghz). Doesn't look like the power requirements went up to me.

Intel is having a hell of a time with leakage because they use a different process. IIRC, their 90nm doesn't use SOI, just Strained Silicon. Since SS makes it easier for electrons to move, I would assume that it also makes it easier for electrons to leak. SOI prevents leakage by putting an insulator between layers. The 970 FX uses SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) so it gets the best of both - and we get a chip that uses and leaks less power at a smaller process size.

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040121202659.shtml

 

[shyataroo]

Does anyone here remember the old Quad G4 rumors?

I remember them well they had a picture. it was around the single 800mhz G4 was still the Disturbingly fast processor. if you ask me 2 more processors will be useless... I mean why not just give each G5 hyper-threading and RDRAM? that way you will get the effect of a Dual 8.0ghz 32 bit CPU P4 Extreme will seem like the Celeron (original)

 

[army_guy]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to IBM much. The 970FX uses 24.5W at 2Ghz (vs 51 for the 970 at 1.8Ghz). Doesn't look like the power requirements went up to me.

Intel is having a hell of a time with leakage because they use a different process. IIRC, their 90nm doesn't use SOI, just Strained Silicon. Since SS makes it easier for electrons to move, I would assume that it also makes it easier for electrons to leak. SOI prevents leakage by putting an insulator between layers. The 970 FX uses SSOI (Strained Silicon on Insulator) so it gets the best of both - and we get a chip that uses and leaks less power at a smaller process size.

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040121202659.shtml

I have been paying attention, but IBM has only part solved the problem, get to higher clocks or 65nm/40nm and your back to square one. Through the past few years power dissipation has continued to increase for all manufacturing companies and will do as time goes buy. It will not suddenly stop and go backwards. Cooling techniques such as liquid/TEC have to replace aircooling in consumer machines, aircooling went obsolite a few years back unless you want KG heatsinks the size of footballs or a water block half the size of a pack of cards.

 

[lind0834]

I think it's just a misinformed somebody spreading wrong information that got out of hand. Somebody was talking about Dual Core Tech.. and was thinking about Dual Core Dual Processor.. Somebody over heard and came up with quad processor. There is really no reason to want/need it. The kind of heat dissipation you'd need is kind of crazy.

 

[nuckinfutz]

I think it's just a misinformed somebody spreading wrong information that got out of hand. Somebody was talking about Dual Core Tech.. and was thinking about Dual Core Dual Processor.. Somebody over heard and came up with quad processor. There is really no reason to want/need it. The kind of heat dissipation you'd need is kind of crazy.

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

The problem with Quad G5 is one of memory. The G5 has a Point to Point bus so with Quad G5 Apple needs to have a controller that handles 4 independent streams. Expensive for a limited market.

Perhaps when DDRII becomes affordable Apple may make a stab at Quad G5s if multicore tech doesn't take off.

 

[edenwaith]

MacDailyNews, however, has not been a reliable source of information, previously claiming that iTunes would introduce higher bit-rate AACs for sale back in October 2003.

Personally, I don't really care for how MacDailyNews' credibility is derided in this case. If one reads the MacDailyNews article, they emphasize on several attempts that the rumor should be taken with a grain of salt and not be considered as a hard core fact by any means. Now, if MDN was porting false rumors on a continual basis, then there might be more reason to publicly cut down their credentials.

 

[ipiloot]

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.

According to your logic, VT supermachine is a 2 Ghz machine which has 2199 processors for multitasking very ver well.

Afaik they work in parallel really multiplying effective processing power of the machine. The real usage of the available power depends very much of the applications ability to use the extra processors.

Think of it that way - it really doesn't add Ghz, but it multiplies processor size making it x-way parallel.

 

[ionas]

Nopes

Yes. This is in the roadmap.
... The IBM PPC 975 (or 976?) is suppsed to have SMT built in (what intel people call Hyperthreading). ...
Dharvabinky

Imho i dont know which one, the 975 or 976 but one of both will have two REAL CORES,

virtual 2 cores per one real core would still be neat then, resulting in 4 "visible" cores per cpu, resulting in 8 virtual cpus per machine in a dual CPU machine.

if we say 3.5 ghz will be dual cored ones coming end of 2005 (if we are optimistic) and they build in both, real dual cores and so called hyperthreading, then we ll have 8 bars in our system untility ;->

 

[army_guy]

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

The problem with Quad G5 is one of memory. The G5 has a Point to Point bus so with Quad G5 Apple needs to have a controller that handles 4 independent streams. Expensive for a limited market.

Perhaps when DDRII becomes affordable Apple may make a stab at Quad G5s if multicore tech doesn't take off.

Dissipate the same heat yes, running cooler no, why? because the contact area is smaller hence you would need a bigger HSF to cool a 90nm CPU to the same temperature of a 130nm CPU. In the end you have bigger HSF's hence bigger chassis, again another reason why liquid cooling is so good able to absorb 200-250W (or more if you use TECS) of heat in a waterblock 1/2 the size of a pack of cards, the only big thing is the radiator.

As with DDRII I speculated it would make system slower and it did, some guys did some benches on the new grantdale chipset and overall performance was 10-20% lower on the P4 platform. This could actually be worse for Opteron/G5 which have excellent memory subsystems due to the rediculous latency of the DDRII parts. DDRII will come but not now (18-24months thats how long it took DDR) and definetly not for $800-$900 for 512MB DIMMS! Apple would gain more to wait for the 666/800MHz DDRII parts and until prices fall to acceptable levels, think about it $999 gets you a 2GB ECC Reg DDR400 Crucial DIMM (server grade RAM)? and will perform faster than a 533MHz DDRII part.

 

[wizard]

Actually yes! Apple would do very well if the could duplicate the success of the LC and at the same time avoid some of the mistakes they made with it. In a nut shell there is a market for LC class hardware, the PC side of the world has seen a huge burst of innovation with respect to small form factor devices.

Such a machine would employ a 970FX, and ATI 9600 and a reasonable amount of memory. Make the machine fast and it would fly off the shelves.

Dave

Maybe an LCiMac?

.

 

[ffakr]

Re: Heat Dissipation. The 970FX runs at 24watts dissipation at 2Ghz as opposed to the 970 running at 50+ so a Quad 970fx CPU based system would dissipate roughtly the same heat as todays Dual 2Ghz.

Unfortunately, your logic is somewhat flawed.
If Apple were to market a quad processor G5, we would have to assume that they were targeting markets that require extremely high performance in a box. It wouldn't be suitable for a database server (lacking the appropriate I/O subsystems), so I'd be a visualation workstation, research number cruncher, video editing station...

If Apple were to build such a box, do you expect that they would use 2GHz 970fx processors? We have to assume that these CPUs scale much better than the previous versions so it would be silly to try and sell a high margin quad processor workstation at 2.0GHz when you are also selling a cheaper dual 2.6GHz or maybe dual 3.0GHz G5. This would ensure that Apple either sold VERY VERY few of these (making the R&D a waste), or they'd have to sell them VERY VERY cheap.
Personally, I think they could sell them cheap (cheap like under $5000), but I'm not sure they would.

If Apple actually put competative 970s in them, like Quad 2.6GHz cpus, the heat advantage would disappear and you'd once again be dealing with twice the waste heat of the dual, plus increased size and all the other things that would keep this from being a machine that would ever see the inside of a typical consumer house.

 

[phonic pol]

calm before the storm

Reliable Rev B Powermac rumors seem to have thinned one hell of a lot over the last couple of weeks. I think this may mean that those in the know can't let any more info out without totally announcing new machines - they must be very close now! The quiet before the storm, so to speak...

 

[Rincewind42]

If Apple were to build such a box, do you expect that they would use 2GHz 970fx processors? We have to assume that these CPUs scale much better than the previous versions so it would be silly to try and sell a high margin quad processor workstation at 2.0GHz when you are also selling a cheaper dual 2.6GHz or maybe dual 3.0GHz G5. This would ensure that Apple either sold VERY VERY few of these (making the R&D a waste), or they'd have to sell them VERY VERY cheap.
Personally, I think they could sell them cheap (cheap like under $5000), but I'm not sure they would..

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that many would see a Quad 2Ghz G5 as being superior to a Dual 3Ghz G5. In fact, Apple has done something like this twice now - they sold Dual 533 G4s when the 733 G4 came out (and many many performance benchmarks showed these systems as MUCH better for the cost than the 733 for particular apps) and they sold Dual 800s as the high end when a single 867 was the middle machine.

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

 

[army_guy]

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

I agree to that, so far ive been trying to find uses of a QUAD machine aside from my EDA tools (the limitation is LINUX but RH AS support more than 2 CPUS, all the tools are fully multi threaded anyway), even using say Softimage one would require 2 license's, not sure about Maya though. Can anyone find out about Maya and how many CPUS it can use?

 

[beefcake]

According to your logic, VT supermachine is a 2 Ghz machine which has 2199 processors for multitasking very ver well.

Afaik they work in parallel really multiplying effective processing power of the machine. The real usage of the available power depends very much of the applications ability to use the extra processors.

Think of it that way - it really doesn't add Ghz, but it multiplies processor size making it x-way parallel.

Exactly. I don't believe this rumor at all, but creating a quad processor machine would be a huge improvement for the future of home computing.

 

[KC9AIC]

Apple can't release quad powermacs, because it will make all those who have duals feel woefully inadequate.

I can't believe I read this whole thread, and this is the most intelligent thing I have to say...

 

[nuckinfutz]

Unfortunately, your logic is somewhat flawed.
If Apple were to market a quad processor G5, we would have to assume that they were targeting markets that require extremely high performance in a box. It wouldn't be suitable for a database server (lacking the appropriate I/O subsystems), so I'd be a visualation workstation, research number cruncher, video editing station...

Funny you say that ffakr. I was just browsing CreativeCow the other day and heard one Digital Video Maven remark that he wishes he could buy a Quad Powermac as speed is something his company needs. They were looking to move to High Def Editing with a High End I/O system and lots of RAID. Yes I realize Apple would have charge $5k but $5k is easier to swallow when you're making money with the computer.
I don't even think the cooling system in the G5s has been stressed yet but I could be wrong. '

In the end though I do agree with you. Is it feasible? Yes. But practical? I doubt it with Dual Cores around the corner and faster memory tech.

 

[ingenious]

OKAY!!

I just think that any speed increase would be great!

 

[wHo_tHe]

Actually, that's FAR from the most intelligent thing I've ever read on here... (snip)

A Quad processor G5, though really swank, would be physically big. It would be very expensive. It would require much more power to run and it would generate much more waste heat. It'd even, very likely, generate more noise. It's not a machine that would find a niche in a typical home.

Once again, applying today's limitations to tomorrow's technology. Someday, I assure you, we will all have access to the level of computing power offered by today's mythical quad G5, even if it isn't powered by four processors.

And if it is, system packaging will have undoubtedly advanced by then, as will have heat levels will have decreased.

But it's frustrating to hear a cacaphony of reasons why something like this won't happen, instead of pointing out the conditions under which it will.

It's like saying 10 years ago, "In 10 years we will have hard drive-based music players in our pockets that can carry 10,000 songs!", and getting the response "We can't carry a 400gb disk array in our pocket!", obviously failing to realize that both storage and compression technology would advance and ultimately converge, bringing (yes, even lowly consumers) machines like the iPod.

and.. ahem.
Bill Gates never said that we'd never need more than 640K. That's an internet myth.

Yes, that's well-known; I only said someone would be as short-sighted as Gates saying it, not that he actually did.

 

[iChan]

i see no reason why apple don't have this already. it's quite weird actually... putting one out there would totally blow anything away in teh PC world... 4x2.5GHz g5's. OUCH!

what are the barriers to this i wonder? heat issues? only one i can think of.

however, with even the xbox purportedly coming with 3 chips of similar calibre, i doubt it.

redesign the case again if you have to! get it out there!

 

[Rincewind42]

i see no reason why apple don't have this already. it's quite weird actually... putting one out there would totally blow anything away in teh PC world... 4x2.5GHz g5's. OUCH!

what are the barriers to this i wonder? heat issues? only one i can think of.

however, with even the xbox purportedly coming with 3 chips of similar calibre, i doubt it.

redesign the case again if you have to! get it out there!

It's fairly likely that Apple has (and has had) quad configurations in the Lab, but the question is more one of mass production. Lots of designs get stuck in the lab due to mass production issues that haven't been resolved yet. Sure, a quad G5 would blow away the competition (heck, 4 x 1.6 GHz G5 would do that easily) But the question as always is at what cost. There could be power, cooling, or technology issues that we aren't privy to preventing these machines from coming to market, or simply political reasons. For example, if a Quad G5 required you to install memory 4 at a time with 16 memory slots it might be hard to mass produce such a system. Or if it had only 8 slots, it might be looked upon as too constraining for the user (I have to throw away HOW MUCH memory to get to 16GB?!). Maybe the case for such a beast would have to be another 12" taller, or you needed a system controller that required twice as many transistors. These are all things to think about in design, they all affect cost, and they all affect the ability to bring them to market. If Apple jumps the gun on these things, they may fact bad press due to system instability or more DOA purchases.

As for the Xbox 2, from what I've heard, M$ is waiting for 65nm tech so they will have smaller cooler CPUs for that system. But since they want that in a year, they could be taking a HUGE loss on such technology...

 

[RandomMacGuy]

Oh yeah! I remember seeing one of those 4x2.6GHz machines in an Apple Store. It was reasonably priced, too, but then I realized that the "hidden" costs of LIQUID NITROGEN would add up.

Here's to forward thinking...

 

[ffakr]

Once again, applying today's limitations to tomorrow's technology. Someday, I assure you, we will all have access to the level of computing power offered by today's mythical quad G5, even if it isn't powered by four processors.

You utterly and completely missed the entire point of my argument. I SPECIFICALLY noted that faster processor speed is important to innovation.

You stated, in essence, that quad processor macs would drive new innovation for typical users. In response I pointed out: a) Machines are VERY fast right now yet we don't seem to be keeping up with the hardware performance (except for a few niches).. and b) though more processing power is always better, there are plenty of reasons why a quad processor machine is NOT an appropriate machine for the average user.. not now.. not at .09 micron.

Your example of a 10 year prognostication has no relevance with my argument. I never stated that we'd never see quad processor macs in comsumer grade machines. In fact, unless the transistor ups quite a bit when the process shrinks to .065 micron or smaller, it would make perfect sense to move the PPC to dual core.. or to use multiple (maybe 4) PPCs in tower that fit the same price point as the current G5s. At this point.. late 2005 or further down the road, quad processor machines may make sense. They do not, however, make sense now.
That said, I also did NOT discount the possibilty a quad processor G5 in the near future, with current technology. I simply discount the possibility that a quad processor G5 based on today's technology could be constructed and marketed at a price point (and with physical characteristics) that would make it appropriate for typical consumers.

 

[ffakr]

I wouldn't say that at all. I think that many would see a Quad 2Ghz G5 as being superior to a Dual 3Ghz G5. In fact, Apple has done something like this twice now - they sold Dual 533 G4s when the 733 G4 came out (and many many performance benchmarks showed these systems as MUCH better for the cost than the 733 for particular apps) and they sold Dual 800s as the high end when a single 867 was the middle machine.

So if Apple were to release quad machines (not likely anytime soon I think) they could certainly use slower CPUs in the quad machines than in the others and still sell them higher.

I think you are stretching a bit here. You will find increasingly diminishing returns as you scale to more processors. A quad processor 2GHz with today's general architecture (central memory access via main chipset) will not scale as well compared to a dual as a dual would scale compared to a single. I would expect that a dual 533 would perform better than a single 733 on multi-threaded apps. I'd CERTAINLY expect a dual 800MHz to run much better than a single 867MHz on processor intensive, multi-threaded apps. I'd also expect a quad processor 2GHz to outperform a dual 2.5GHz on highly multi-threaded, processor intensive apps but you'll see diminishing returns on the extra CPUs. Now consider a dual 3GHz vs. a quad 2 GHz. The performance difference narrows.
Now consider that in your example that the dual processor G4s were fairly close in price to the single processor machines. If Apple could release a quad processor box for only twice the price of a dual processor box, I think it would be a first in the computer industry.

I think that, in a likely scenero, Apple could release a quad processor workstation and they could do it at a relatively reasonable price. It would still be very expensive compared to typical G5s though.. probably very nearly twice as expensive as a high end Dual processor. Because of the cost difference, it would seem very unlikely to me that Apple would opt to use a significantly slower version of the PPC 970 in the theoretical quad machine than they would in a dual machine. Although there are plenty of people who demand as much power as possible.. at any price, the number of potential buyers would decrease significantly if the performance increase was only marginal compared to the additional cost.

Then again, there is no solid evidence they will release a quad at all. I was just responding to other people's conjecture.

jmho
ffakr