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

Quad Processor Intel Mac?

EricNau said:
Would a dual-core 2.0 GHz G5 be faster than a dual G5 2.0 GHz processor?
Click to expand...
Yes--so I have been led to believe. Technical comments/corrections from those in the know are welcomed. We may know soon enough :)

EricNau said:
If this concept has been around since 2001, why hasn't Apple used it? It's been 4 years, and Apple usually seems to adopt the cutting-edge before other companies.
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't make G5s, IBM does. Dual-core chips are only recently emerging from Intel--and from IBM presumably.

EricNau said:
I doubt Apple will introduce a PPC dual-core, right before the Intel release.
Click to expand...
PowerMacs are not likely to transition soon--maybe late 2006. So Apple WOULD use whatever G5 is fastest in the mean time.
 
Originally Posted by nagromme
Apple doesn't make G5s, IBM does. Dual-core chips are only recently emerging from Intel--and from IBM presumably.
Click to expand...
I knew IBM made the PPC G5. But the fact that dual-core processors are just now emerging from IBM and Intel answers my question.
Originally Posted by nagromme
PowerMacs are not likely to transition soon--maybe late 2006. So Apple WOULD use whatever G5 is fastest in the mean time.
Click to expand...
I get your point, your right, Apple would probably use the best they could get...Hopefully.
 
Xenolith said:
The images posted show that Activity Monitor is set to Show CPU Usage as the dock icon. My dual processor G5 shows TWO vertical scales for the CPU usage... one for each processor. In the posted images, there is only ONE vertical scale. I would think the image is a fake.
Click to expand...



OHHH SNAP! Good eye Xenolith. You're right. This is a fake for sure. Ha.
 
Think about it

Steve Jobs announced 3gz PM and G5 PB years ago.... This time he decided maybe he'd announce something with lots of spare time. So when he said the transition would be complete sometime around 2007 he probably was saying, "this will be complete mid '06 unless i get screwed again". He's playing it safe but now he got the dual core intels in his hand and is like, **** I gotta make these amazing machines, the Dual Dual-Core Processor Macs! I know, i'm a nut :eek:
 
Whaaatt? Obviously fake...

Come on, who actually thinks its real?

I don't doubt that OS X can support quad processors, I just doubt there's a Quad processor machine running OS X. I mean seriously, who even sells a Quad processor machine? I've not heard of it, and if they do exist its got to be a different mobo altogether and thus requires drivers not yet written for OS X.
 
Err...

savar said:
Come on, who actually thinks its real?

I don't doubt that OS X can support quad processors, I just doubt there's a Quad processor machine running OS X. I mean seriously, who even sells a Quad processor machine? I've not heard of it, and if they do exist its got to be a different mobo altogether and thus requires drivers not yet written for OS X.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?
 
YES THIS IS A FAKE!!!!

:cool: I have an Apple Mac Intel DTK right here, and I don't think I'm outside the bounds of my NDA when I call B.S. on this one, since I've seen screenshots posted online from other people's DTK's, so I can comment on what's well-known from publicly available information. :D

When Hyper-Threading is enabled, the Menu Extra shows an "HT" where they tried to overlay a "4". More obviously, with HT, the Processor Palette's display gains a horizontal split right down the center of the black graph area, with (okay, rotate this 90 deg CCW): [ Thread B | Thread A ]. If you disable Hyper-Threading, the display has no horizontal line or header near the top. The images are stolen from both an Intel DTK and from a dual-PPC Mac, and the image appears to have been composited/captured on a single processor machine anyway, since the Dock icon shows an indicator for only one CPU; on either a dual-PPC or a single-core x86 Intel with HT enabled, it shows two indicator columns, one for each logical unit! :confused:

Their mockup of Activity Monitor is also a sham. Due to the way memory allocation works in Darwin, you won't likely find six identical processes with the same exact real memory allocations, nor would you see a threaded CPU utilization with such little deviation (and the total utilization doesn't mathematically correspond with the time-lapse/average usage graphs anyway). The sequential PID's are another giveaway. ;)

The "Genuine Intel" pictures are definitely NOT from an x86 version of Mac OS X 10.4.1 or 10.4.2, otherwise the screenshots would be WATERMARKED with a visible pattern! Yep... :eek:

Someone's been having fun with Photoshop. I could have easily fabricated a better spoof than this one... :rolleyes:

And yes, I'm having fun with smileys. :)
 
DPazdanISU said:
Steve Jobs announced 3gz PM and G5 PB years ago.... This time he decided maybe he'd announce something with lots of spare time. So when he said the transition would be complete sometime around 2007 he probably was saying, "this will be complete mid '06 unless i get screwed again". He's playing it safe but now he got the dual core intels in his hand and is like, **** I gotta make these amazing machines, the Dual Dual-Core Processor Macs! I know, i'm a nut :eek:
Click to expand...

No. 2007 is the year on Intel's roadmap where they will have a really effective desktop 64-bit solution. Apple will not go from 64-bit, back to 32-bit, back to 64-bit on their pro machines. Expect PPC-based PowerMacs & xServes for the next 2 years.
 
Have any of you thought of the possibility that this is a dual-processor, dual core configuration?

Four processors would only take the space of two and fit in a G5 enclosure.
 
igetbanned said:
Sorry I asked. :(

I was just guessing that Adobe properly separated their logic from their gui.

My bad.
Click to expand...

Too many assumptions still. What's their logic written in and what frameworks/libraries does it use? (rhetorical)

Foundation.h (just to use one example) doesn't exist on windows...
 
nope

MacTruck said:
OHHH SNAP! Good eye Xenolith. You're right. This is a fake for sure. Ha.
Click to expand...

or not cause there is also an option to avg. the CPU percentages into one over all graph. Doesn't prove a thing.
 
Oh maaan, I was getting so excited about this thread, I just noticed I read all 8 (as of this post) pages of it while at work. Naughty me.

And although I think this is a fake, if it's for sale any time soon, I'll put out a mortgage on my foot to buy one.
 
Apple is releasing Wednesday a dual dual-core Mac Media Center based on dual core intel's. It will have an iPod dock and be Apple's answer to the Xbox 360 and PS3, let the battle begin.
 
Originally Posted by stingerman
Apple is releasing Wednesday a dual dual-core Mac Media Center based on dual core intel's. It will have an iPod dock and be Apple's answer to the Xbox 360 and PS3, let the battle begin.
Click to expand...
Do you know this for sure or are you guessing?
 
Adobe FUD

Doesn't it strike anyone as just a little bit odd that Adobe would go on record with a statement that so blatantly insults the CEO of Apple? The last time I checked, Adobe was in it for money and designed their own proprietary development for all their Applications. IIRC, the goal was to have an Adobe 'sub' operating system instead of relying on the normal built tools and development models everyone else used. Sure, it's a great idea if you have the kind of market dominance (deserved or not) that Adobe has. I don't think they care what the Macromedia codebase is, they just know they need to have those apps and they are really hoping they don't have to divest themselves of anything in the merger again (that's was in the mercury as being a likely scenario given the current administration).

Yes, you need to use the APIs for the correct operating system. Adobe did separate their 'logic' from their brains (for lack of a better word). How could you fail to notice that everyone w/ a PPC upgrade waiting to magically become obsolete suddenly released upgrades? Why isn't there a huge Photoshop challenger w/ core image etc? Graphic Converter is NOT that bad and for a lot of things I'm using fireworks. Photoshop is a flagship that Adobe trades on and the last thing they want is to be the last to market w/ their premier (lower case) app. We're looking at CS 3.x possibly working on Mactel w/ some premium parts not being available, CS 4 being 'leopard' native and then CS 5 finally having all the premium stuff up to speed.

Apple knows the value of trading on an iconic flagship (ipod anyone) so they transition the pro machines last. Seems reasonable to me. At the same time it's not about how small a company is. Look at your dock. I bet the majority of Applications are Apple and ported, third party and easily ported, or third party and need time because they need to support a lot of IHV drivers (burning apps etc). At the same time you might have Potatoshop (or like me you have MX and CS as folders b/c no matter how wide the screen is you'll always use up the dock) and you might look for an alternative while Adobe gets it's stuff together. Who doesn't want that (funny how core image is barely used in third party stuff now)? Adobe. So the FUD.

Mac OS X was designed to be extremely efficient w/ multi-processor systems I'm sure it's right up there for dual-core systems as well. Since Apple had parallel builds it's no great stretch of the imagination to think that Mac on Intel will take as many processors as you can throw at it and use them as efficiently as possible (probably the best multi-processing usage of any OS).

So is this real. Who cares? The point is that we can expect Apple to enter a rapid product release cycle with highly competitive products very soon and enter it from a position of relative strength. Apple owns their faithful and their market share is expanding, not to mention growing faster than any other vendor.

Does the end transition require a 64 bit desktop processor? I don't see that many 64 bit desktop apps out there. Apple wants more in the server market and there I can see it.

In summary, I think taking the specific quotes from Adobe and generalizing them to the porting of the majority of applications is over emphasized, needless, and inaccurate.
 
themacman said:
WOWOW
even though it could be fake thing how fast that thing would be. A dual 2.7 pm g5 is fast thing about this. Four CPU's eight cores. wow
Click to expand...

No, you are quite mistaken. It's propably two CPU's, each with two cores and hyperthreading.

two dualcore CPU's, four cores, eight logical processors. Simple, really.
 
igetbanned said:
Adobe already has the code for x86, they just need to wrap a GUI around it.....right?

Or am I missing something.

Someone fill me in.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing much.

Photoshop running on Windows/x86 doesn't mean Photoshop running on Linux/x86

Photoshop running on Linux/x86 almost means* Photoshop running on Linux/PowerPC

Photoshop running on Linux/PowerPC doesn't mean Photoshop running on MacOS X/PowerPC


*except ASM code
 
themacman said:
WOWOW
even though it could be fake thing how fast that thing would be. A dual 2.7 pm g5 is fast thing about this. Four CPU's eight cores. wow
Click to expand...

Meep wrong, 4 CPUs, 4 Cores, hyperthreading pretenting to be 8 CPUs/8 Cores
 
AltiVec guru said:
:cool: I have an Apple Mac Intel DTK right here, and I don't think I'm outside the bounds of my NDA when I call B.S. on this one, since I've seen screenshots posted online from other people's DTK's, so I can comment on what's well-known from publicly available information. :D

When Hyper-Threading is enabled, the Menu Extra shows an "HT" where they tried to overlay a "4". More obviously, with HT, the Processor Palette's display gains a horizontal split right down the center of the black graph area, with (okay, rotate this 90 deg CCW): [ Thread B | Thread A ]. If you disable Hyper-Threading, the display has no horizontal line or header near the top. The images are stolen from both an Intel DTK and from a dual-PPC Mac, and the image appears to have been composited/captured on a single processor machine anyway, since the Dock icon shows an indicator for only one CPU; on either a dual-PPC or a single-core x86 Intel with HT enabled, it shows two indicator columns, one for each logical unit! :confused:

Their mockup of Activity Monitor is also a sham. Due to the way memory allocation works in Darwin, you won't likely find six identical processes with the same exact real memory allocations, nor would you see a threaded CPU utilization with such little deviation (and the total utilization doesn't mathematically correspond with the time-lapse/average usage graphs anyway). The sequential PID's are another giveaway. ;)

The "Genuine Intel" pictures are definitely NOT from an x86 version of Mac OS X 10.4.1 or 10.4.2, otherwise the screenshots would be WATERMARKED with a visible pattern! Yep... :eek:

Someone's been having fun with Photoshop. I could have easily fabricated a better spoof than this one... :rolleyes:

And yes, I'm having fun with smileys. :)
Click to expand...


Nicely done inspector. So again and even better, its a fake. Lets hope someday it will be real.
 
Only Takes Two Dual Core G5's For PowerQuadra To Happen Now

liketom said:
i will eat my hat if they release 4 cpu powers this week :eek:
Click to expand...
Only takes two dual core G5's for that to happen. Quesiton is: How many dual core G5 processors has Apple stockpiled? If they have plenty, then the dual dual core G5 will be shipping soon. Hope your hat is tasty. No that's ok. I won't expect you to really eat it. Keep it for shelter. :p
 
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