Quintupal Processor Mac Mini. I was kicking ass in Half-Life 2, had about 17 headshots... then I woke up.swissmann said:
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 Processor Intel Mac?
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
BZZZZZT! Wrong!
They were (if real) showing what OS X supports on Intel procs.
They do not claim that it is from an Apple made system. They just just say it's from a 4 proc system with hyperthreading enabled.Macrumors said:
MacBidouille posts some screenshots which claim to demonstrate an unreleased Quad Processor Intel-based PowerMac with Hyperthreading support.
...
They were (if real) showing what OS X supports on Intel procs.
liketom said:i will eat my hat if they release 4 cpu powers this week
dont worry, you wont be eating your hat.
fake
Screen shots like that are the easiest thing to fake in photoshop. I say its a fake. I'm sure we will see quads some day. Maybe PPC maybe X86. But I don't think these are real screen shots of one. Although upon further reflection, I'm sure we could open up Activity Monitor.app package and see if there is an optional hyperthreading check box. Activity Monitor from an X86 Mac OS X version I mean. That could probably easily give it away as a fake.
Screen shots like that are the easiest thing to fake in photoshop. I say its a fake. I'm sure we will see quads some day. Maybe PPC maybe X86. But I don't think these are real screen shots of one. Although upon further reflection, I'm sure we could open up Activity Monitor.app package and see if there is an optional hyperthreading check box. Activity Monitor from an X86 Mac OS X version I mean. That could probably easily give it away as a fake.
Are there any motherboards available that support dual intel cpus? I don't think so. The only motherboards available that do that are for xeon chips. Intel does not enable dual cpus for Pentium. Its fake or apple made it.
According to Steve when he announced the switch to Intel, they demonstrated how quickly current apps could be ported over to Intel (was it Mathematica?). They also said that older non-Carbon apps would need to be re-written. They provided the application for porting apps to developers at WWDC. That was MONTHS ago. Many major apps, likely including Adobe Suite, etc. have probably been ported and are being worked on already. Rosetta will allow the slower transition apps to continue to run, so I can't agree that this is a valid argument. Sorry.Quartz Extreme said:
It's the special Pixar edition. I bet this never ships but just as a prototype to see that it is possible. The price between a 2 CPU motherboard and 4 CPU motherboard is huge (granted it was years ago when I last checked). Makes those 30 inch displays look cheap.
Must be a hacked version
This couldn't possibly be an actual apple dev machine.
1.) Photos of the dev machines I've seen clearly show a modified PM enclosure.
2.) There's no way in the world that 4 x86 cpus would fit into a PM enclosure.
So this must be a hacked version of OS X, if the screenshot is what they claim it is.
On the other hand, Intel does have dual-core CPUs with HT that would show 4 CPUs and 8 threads in a dual configuration.
This couldn't possibly be an actual apple dev machine.
1.) Photos of the dev machines I've seen clearly show a modified PM enclosure.
2.) There's no way in the world that 4 x86 cpus would fit into a PM enclosure.
So this must be a hacked version of OS X, if the screenshot is what they claim it is.
On the other hand, Intel does have dual-core CPUs with HT that would show 4 CPUs and 8 threads in a dual configuration.
Or, some sort of prototype server. I do have my doubts, as current Intel procs seem to do large-scale SMP about as well as I ballet dance: It can be done, but it takes tons of effort and the results are ugly.Veldek said:
Le fake
Of course its a fake.
There are Intel logos on the screen. Apple wont put other peoples logos on ther computers. There are no IBM or Motorola logos on the current Macs.
But the concept is very interesting. Id like to see how well or badly OS X supports multiple processors.
(sorry about the lack of apostrophes, Im using a buggy browser on Windoze)
Of course its a fake.
There are Intel logos on the screen. Apple wont put other peoples logos on ther computers. There are no IBM or Motorola logos on the current Macs.
But the concept is very interesting. Id like to see how well or badly OS X supports multiple processors.
(sorry about the lack of apostrophes, Im using a buggy browser on Windoze)
MacTruck said:
Yes there are.
I've personally built a dual P4 system for a client.
You're right that Intel doesn't make a board for them.
It uses an ASUS board.
There is also an intel board with support for 4 cpus, but it comes as a 'packaged' server solution. I highly doubt this screenshot comes from one of those systems though. Or someone has a lot of money to burn.
If this is true, I can't wait to see what this would mean for laptops and iMacs - should be some interesting "trickle down" in the next couple years.
Calm down and RTFA
1. This is not Apple hardware. This is the x86 developers' OS cracked and running on a non-Apple quad x86 box.
2. Yes, quad x86 (with hyperthreading) do exist and do cost quite a pretty penny. I know of several in the very building I'm in right now.
3. No, this does not mean Apple is planning on releasing quad-proc Intels. There are three numbers in programming: 0, 1, and n. Well, not exactly in processors, where 1,2,4,8, etc are the magic numbers. But it's hard to imagine an OS designed to run on two or four logical processors failing to run on eight logical processors. Tuning is a different story altogether.
4. No Intel Macs tomorrow. Out of the question for many reasons, not the least of which is that the entire development community was given until "a little before" next WWDC to get Intel-compiled apps out there, and guess what? They're not out nine months early (I know, almost all software ships nine months early, but oddly enough this seems a special case). Doesn't rule out MWSF either; the understood target window is generally somewhere in [MWSF-WWDC).
1. This is not Apple hardware. This is the x86 developers' OS cracked and running on a non-Apple quad x86 box.
2. Yes, quad x86 (with hyperthreading) do exist and do cost quite a pretty penny. I know of several in the very building I'm in right now.
3. No, this does not mean Apple is planning on releasing quad-proc Intels. There are three numbers in programming: 0, 1, and n. Well, not exactly in processors, where 1,2,4,8, etc are the magic numbers. But it's hard to imagine an OS designed to run on two or four logical processors failing to run on eight logical processors. Tuning is a different story altogether.
4. No Intel Macs tomorrow. Out of the question for many reasons, not the least of which is that the entire development community was given until "a little before" next WWDC to get Intel-compiled apps out there, and guess what? They're not out nine months early (I know, almost all software ships nine months early, but oddly enough this seems a special case). Doesn't rule out MWSF either; the understood target window is generally somewhere in [MWSF-WWDC).
Hum...
I think that there is no relation at all with "One More Thing" wednesday... and it will take a while to see this baby running free.
I think that there is no relation at all with "One More Thing" wednesday... and it will take a while to see this baby running free.
FoxyKaye said:
Intel claims to have a working quad-core processor in their labs as we speak.
17 multi-core projects in all.
Quad processor machines don't make a lot of sense in the days of renderfarms / clusters. There are so few applications that would do anything with that kind of horsepower anyway, that it wouldn't make sense for Apple to release a 4 or 8 processor desktop-- they'd sell you some xServe clusters.
But, the author of the rumor does not say this is an Apple machine, just that they have OS X running on a 4Phy / 8Log processor Intel.
I'd much prefer to have a dual core PB, or a dual core PM. If I need more horsepower for rendering, I can offload it in a cluster.
But, the author of the rumor does not say this is an Apple machine, just that they have OS X running on a 4Phy / 8Log processor Intel.
I'd much prefer to have a dual core PB, or a dual core PM. If I need more horsepower for rendering, I can offload it in a cluster.
Mr Maui said:
all apps that run on X have to be either carbon or cocoa, there's no such thing as a non-carbon app on X.
most major apps that ran on pre-X systems are carbon, not cocoa, meaning the transition is not simple. furthermore most apps were developed in codewarrior not xcode, so not only do these large dev shops have to port code, but also switch development environments.
i suspect we won't see a mactel version of photoshop until CS3 at the very earliest. considering the 18 month product cycle that might even be pushing it and we might have to wait for a CS 3.1 updater.
Mr Maui said:
Sorry it is a very real and valid arguement.
I guess you don't pay attention to press releases.
Adobe has already come out and said not to expect CS for Intel Mac until at least late 2006 if not sometime in 2007. The CEO for Adobe said that Jobs was down-playing the difficulty of conversion and that it was a very daunting task that would require a lot of man-hours of work.
In addition, Rosetta emulates as a 800 mhz G3. (No Altivec code). Almost every pro app uses Alti-vec code somewhere in it's implementation. Therefore altivec dependant code designed for a G4 & G5 will either run slow or not at all.
Even FCP which should be the first to go Intel native has not yet been converted by Apple.
liketom said:
May not be fake... Might be someone who put OSX-intel on a 4-processor Xeon. Or it could actually be Apple who is experimenting with multi-processor configs of future chips, or even with Xeons (though I doubt it).