More than 2 Processor Support in Mac OS X?

[Hes Nikke]

no new news

if you have a peak at /System/Library/CoreServices/Resources/English.lproj/AppleSystemInfo.strings (last modified on 9/12/2003 on my system) you'll see that the OS has had support for more than 4 CPU's for ages.

//================================================================================
//  String used to describe a dual processor configuration.
//
//  IMPORTANT: Make sure the right hand side value contains the substring "%@".
//  "%@" will get replaced by the processor speed and type string
//  (e.g. "800 MHz PowerPC G3").
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2xCPUFormat"		= "Dual %@";

//================================================================================
//  String used to describe a triple processor configuration.
//
//  IMPORTANT: Make sure the right hand side value contains the substring "%@".
//  "%@" will get replaced by the processor speed and type string
//  (e.g. "800 MHz PowerPC G3").
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"3xCPUFormat"		= "3 x %@";

//================================================================================
//  String used to describe a quadruple processor configuration.
//
//  IMPORTANT: Make sure the right hand side value contains the substring "%@".
//  "%@" will get replaced by the processor speed and type string
//  (e.g. "800 MHz PowerPC G3").
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4xCPUFormat"		= "4 x %@";

//================================================================================
//  String used to describe a N processor configuration where N > 2.
//
//  IMPORTANT: Make sure the right hand side value contains the substrings "%1$d"
//  and "%2$@".  "%1$d" will get replaced by the number of processors (e.g. "4"),
//  and "%2$@" will get replaced by the processor speed and type string
//  (e.g. "800 MHz PowerPC G3").
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NxCPUFormat"		= "%1$d x %2$@";

btw, i have cut down on the file size of the image mentioned in the 1st post (without compression, scaling, or croping) using JPEGcrunch. the 21% smaller version is here.

 

[daveL]

Same problem here. I have version 4.0.0b5

I ended up manually invoking the CHUD remover, then downloading CHUD 4.1.0 from:

ftp://ftp.apple.com/developer/Tool_Chest/Testing_-_Debugging/Performance_tools/

 

[adamfilip]

The new G5's at WWDC

3.0ghz Quad Processor G5 based each with Dual Power5 cores (8 cores total)
1024mb DDR2 memory
1500mhz Bus to each processor

This is what i want

Computers can never be fast enough!

 

[adamfilip]

Actually many vendors have had machines that you could have an odd number of CPUs in. Many of the large DEC Alphas & VAXen were designed like this. I know some of HP's PA-RISC systems were like this, and Sun Microsystems has had many systems that you could add processors one at a time if you want to. So while an odd number of procs seems odd it has happened.

In most modern systems, proc support circuitry is added for an even number of procs at a time (2 or 4) while in the past some system added support circutry as you added the processor.

is 1 odd

so most systems are single processor

 

[Sun Baked]

Somebody dug a little deeper and found more proof...

The results post at ARS

Decent picture and makes the original thread smoke a bit more.

 

[kainjow]

Once again ThinkSecret might be dead on right:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html

 

[Sun Baked]

Especially after the further proof people have found since the start of the thread.

And now that the Xbox2 looks like it's making it's way forward and should be unveilved to the public soon (instead of being delayed like a lot stuff lately.)

The possibility of dual core chips is finally looking quite real for us.

Hopefully we will get them with the release of Tiger.

 

[wdlove]

The new G5's at WWDC

3.0ghz Quad Processor G5 based each with Dual Power5 cores (8 cores total)
1024mb DDR2 memory
1500mhz Bus to each processor

This is what i want

Computers can never be fast enough!

I'm looking forward to an update also. Your specs sound like they would be more than I can afford. Maybe just 4 cores would be more of a price point affordability.

 

[DavidCar]

Any chance of hyperthreading anytime soon? That would allow two processors, each with two cores, each with two threads, therefore 8 threads but still just two processors.

 

[Sun Baked]

Any chance of hyperthreading anytime soon? That would allow two processors, each with two cores, each with two threads, therefore 8 threads but still just two processors.

Nope, no chance of Hyperthreading -- that is an Intel®

You need to look at Power5 Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT).pdf and remember that the GR-UL (aka, Power5-Lite) may eventually replace the G5/PPC970 (aka GP-UL/Power4-Lite).

But, the Power5 also include some Dynamic Power Management and Dynamic Thermal Management features that make it quite interesting.

 

[juniormaj]

I ended up manually invoking the CHUD remover, then downloading CHUD 4.1.0 from:

ftp://ftp.apple.com/developer/Tool_Chest/Testing_-_Debugging/Performance_tools/

Looks like the best plan.

 

[Lacero]

Best bet probably would be dual processors, each with dual cores. But knowing Apple, if they did decide to release such a machine. It would be a single processor with dual cores. Then they'll leverage that technology for the next 18 months, before they decide to actually release a machine with 2 dual-core processors.

 

[Bear]

Best bet probably would be dual processors, each with dual cores. But knowing Apple, if they did decide to release such a machine. It would be a single processor with dual cores. Then they'll leverage that technology for the next 18 months, before they decide to actually release a machine with 2 dual-core processors.

Actually since the dual-core procs will likely be not much faster than the current line, they would need to release a dual core-dual proc model at the high end to show a real advance in capacity.

Also, I believe that if Apple comes out with a dual-dual model soon, they will be the first desktop computer with a multicore processor on sale. That's one heck of a marketing checkbox.

 

[~loserman~]

I think it is safe to say we will see Dual core G5's by the end of the year.
With the low end Power Mac having one and the high end having 2.

I also think we will see Dual Core G4's in the power book.

 

[nek]

Somebody dug a little deeper and found more proof...

The results post at ARS

Decent picture and makes the original thread smoke a bit more.

I think the screenshots on that link basically guarantee 4 cores in the near future. But June seems like too long of a wait for a Power Mac update. Will Apple make a habit of only updating the PM once per year? Going dual-dual is a pretty big update, but I was thinking there would be new PMs in April.

 

[mcdawson]

But still..... what speed WOULD it take to render a iMovie to a file form (leave out the burning bottle neck) - nearley instantaneously?

(1) Part of the answer is software--iMovie and iDVD aren't fully dual proc optimized (maybe because they're consumer programs?). They both definitely use more than 1 proc (I've watched on 10.3.7, dual 1 GHz G4), but not extensively. iDVD seems more optimized (maybe because it uses some of the (what used to be) pro code.

(2) The next piece is disk + I/O speeds. You're talking a lot of disk and memory I/O, as a lot of information is being output (say 1-2 GB for a simple 1 hr iDVD movie). Possibly making these apps 64 bit aware might improve things, if they try to cache everything (i.e., try to grab 4 GB of RAM). 10.3's disk cache is pretty good, so I don't know if there'd be that much speed up there.

(3) My guess is that to render a 1 hr iDVD movie lets say in 1 minute, you'd have to triple the GHz (maybe between 8-10 GHz), have 4 processors (or 4 cores), and quadruple the I/O throughput. Additionally, a lot more work woudl have to go in optimizing the software. So, I would say that its about 3-4 years away (assuming you stay with the same complexity of project). It currently takes a couple of hours with the latest iDVD to render a simple 1 hr movie to a disc image on my dual 1 GHz G4. I assume that the 2.5 G5 would 1/2 of that (I'd love to take my project to someone with a 2.5 G5 to get a true apples-to-apples comparison). My gut feeling is that the latest iDVD is 2x faster on my machine than the older ones. So software alone is making a difference. My 3-4 years might be conservative, but you're still talking about 4 more 2x jumps in speeds. Just as imporant as the hw jumps (in the future a quad PPC would actually, for iDVD, probably be a 5 PPC machine given that the OS is increasingly going towards using the GPU also), is the software--optimizing both for mulptiple processors AND general optimization would need to happen too.

On the pro side, I wouldn't be surprised if getting that encoding time couldn't be reduced to the 5-10 minute range by summer of 2006 (i.e., one more generaltional rev of processor after this year's) because I can see them going to render farms--while a single 4 GHz quad PPC would maybe cut rendering down to 20 minutes (from 60), adding a 2 "older" dual 2.5s could easily cut it down to 10 minutes or less (you would have big bottlenecks with networking speeds, due to the size of data being passed back and forth). The first multiprocessor/multimachine optimizations are likely going to occur in the pro line, then fliter back (as the pros are much more likely to have the hw to take advantage of it and be willing to spend the $$ to get the extra time)

 

[mcdawson]

What speed will make a truely GREAT animated show like Toy Story or Nemo a weekly event like south park or spongbob?

In some ways we're already there, hardware-wise. The issue would almost completely revolve around software. I bet Toy Story could be rendered in a day or so right now running dual 2.5 G5's (not alone, but as a render farm, which is what those animation houses would have). I'd also bet that given the request for the same quality and the fact that they already have some a lot of the character movement algoritms, it wouldn't be hard to do. It WOULD cost $$, though. They would need to beef up the software to automate even more of the drawings, and to optimize it to make sure it is highly effecient. You'd also need some extra software to quickly add in new characters. You'd probably have to spend millions in software development, and probably a couple of years to refine it. Of course, you'd have much faster hw in 2 years too.

For movies (major releases), render quality is always trying to be more realistic; for that goal, I would guess that there would never be enough speed in the next decade for that (given that final renders of current animation use hundreds of top of the line computing clusters). That assumes no major breakthrough in hw or sw algorithms.

 

[ryan42]

Anyone find it interesting that 4.1 is gone from version tracker and the apple FTP site... without a trace?

 

[dekator]

Anyone noticed that "Clock Speed" has changed to "Core Freq."? I am pretty sure this means dual-core CPUs soon.

Hope you're right. This may also explain why PowerMacs haven't seen an upgrade in quite some time. Do you think it's likely they'll go to dual core right away, without a prior speed bump (at least to 3GHz) ?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Anyone find it interesting that 4.1 is gone from version tracker and the apple FTP site... without a trace?

I think these rumors triggered Apple to pull CHUD 4.1. There's no doubt about it in my mind.

Apple's secrecy tactics never fail to interest me...and the rumor sites

 

[maya]

I think these rumors triggered Apple to pull CHUD 4.1. There's no doubt about it in my mind.

Apple's secrecy tactics never fail to interest me...and the rumor sites

When you have almost the entire Mac community looking for clues and reporting to rumour sites about they latest find, its hard next to impossible to keep anything secret when it comes to Apple.

Its fun for the end users to pick up the clues however a nightmare for Apple.

 

[wdlove]

Hope you're right. This may also explain why PowerMacs haven't seen an upgrade in quite some time. Do you think it's likely they'll go to dual core right away, without a prior speed bump (at least to 3GHz) ?

I'm certainly hoping for an update soon. Wondering if Apple will go ahead with the dual core with the next update. Should we be concerned about Rev A again? Or will it not be an issue?

 

[Lacero]

Yes, this level of scrutiny by the mac faithful borders almost on hilarity. I don't know whether Apple and Steve Jobs are amused by this, or completely livid. Or is this some sort of masterplan, for Apple to leave behind breadcrumbs to keep the fans interested in Mac products.

For a complete so notoriously secretive, they've had their fair share of slip-ups.

 

[271]

Yes, this level of scrutiny by the mac faithful borders almost on hilarity.

i think that everytime i come to this site.
sometimes the hilarity is useful but sometimes its cult branding at its best.

 

[d.perel]

If it is under $2500, then it would be noteworthy.