Quad PowerMacs?

[marcshovan]

Quad G5's, I Doubt It

I doubt that there will be quad G5's. The current power consumption is too high. Thus producing too much heat for the type of cooling currently available (Hello, Cooligy). But I do believe that there could be a quad G6 in the same form factor. Mainly because, If I heard right the Power6 processors from IBM are dual core, thus the quad that everybody has been rumorizing about.

 

[Dreadnought]

Give me a couple for folding@home and soon I will be the number 1 Macfolder for team 3446! Better start on a new script MC86K for folding on quad macs!

 

[benpatient]

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

and by the time that's implimented, it won't matter, anyway. Dual core will probably be implimented in a single processor with a next generation HyperTransport and DDR2 and PCIx16 graphics and all of that stuff...If we see dual-core in PowerMacs, we'll see it as a replacement for dual processor (because after development, it will be cheaper), not as an addition to dual processor.

the framework for 4 separate processors that can't even use each-other's RAM slots by design is a cost limitation beyond what you might call reasonable.

A quad G5 would need (aside from more HT tunnels ($$ and Sq Inches), more power, more cooling, and more controller chips) matching sets of 4 for the RAM, which would be expensive and a PCB nightmare. Not to mention DDR dual-channel specs wouldn't apply...has anyone done experimental quad-channel DDR tests?

Opterons can go "more than two" because they share one memory access...each G5 processor has, essentially, it's own RAM chips and pipelines. This is an advantage or a disadvantage for the G5, depending on your point of view. You can't ignore the fact, though, that it limits processor implimentation to 1 or 2, though...

The most innovative thing that apple did with the G5, on their own, is the case design. The memory structure was established. The processor was developed almost totally by IBM (although obviously apple had some sway in helping decide what it would do and in a general sense, how it would do it). HT was developed outside the influence of apple. PCIx was developed outside the influence of apple. SATA is a standard. the audio I/O is a well-developed standard. The graphics cards are last-year's middle-of-the-road PC cards (unless you pay an insane premium for the 9800, which costs less for PCs at the store than it does to upgrade to from the 5200 on apple's website!).

in other words, they don't have the resources to be developing some sort of new architecture...they would have to rely on IBM to do it, and IBM isn't all secretive about their plans like apple is, and we've heard nothing actually from IBM that leads us to think they want to invest in a new 4-chip tandem line of 64 bit machines...

Apple wants you to buy 2 dual 2.0's and two fiber-channel cards and run a copy of x-grid, not sit in line waiting for a 15,000 dollar 300 lb aluminum case that does the same thing at a lower profit margin.

 

[Rincewind42]

Sorry man, but there are many inaccuracies here...

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

And we can start here... IBM isn't the planner we are debating, Apple is. And we don't have access to their plans so there isn't much we can say. What we do know is that IBM has used their POWER CPUs in 4-way and larger systems, so we know it is at least possible.

the framework for 4 separate processors that can't even use each-other's RAM slots by design is a cost limitation beyond what you might call reasonable.

A quad G5 would need ... matching sets of 4 for the RAM, which would be expensive and a PCB nightmare. Not to mention DDR dual-channel specs wouldn't apply...has anyone done experimental quad-channel DDR tests?

You don't need quad-channel DDR to do 4 CPUs. The G5 accesses the northbridge, the northbridge accesses RAM. The only thing quad-channel would get you is more memory bandwidth (a good thing of course) but not necessarily a speed boost (think of it like this - instead of 2 trucks going down the road you have 4, the trucks still have the same top speed, you just get to haul more on the way. But if each truck is only half full now with 4, you get nothing from the arrangement).

Opterons can go "more than two" because they share one memory access...each G5 processor has, essentially, it's own RAM chips and pipelines. This is an advantage or a disadvantage for the G5, depending on your point of view. You can't ignore the fact, though, that it limits processor implimentation to 1 or 2, though...

Wrong again. Opterons have a bank of memory per processor, the G5s share memory (the northbridge owns the memory, not the CPUs). So in theory it should be easier for the G5 to go beyond a 2-way implementation. Of course the rub in the G5 case is having to have a more complicated system controller that can keep up. The issue with the Opteron is getting fast access to the memory connected to another CPU and keeping coherency between the CPUs.

in other words, they don't have the resources to be developing some sort of new architecture...they would have to rely on IBM to do it, and IBM isn't all secretive about their plans like apple is, and we've heard nothing actually from IBM that leads us to think they want to invest in a new 4-chip tandem line of 64 bit machines...

Apple wants you to buy 2 dual 2.0's and two fiber-channel cards and run a copy of x-grid, not sit in line waiting for a 15,000 dollar 300 lb aluminum case that does the same thing at a lower profit margin.

Uh... Apple designs it's motherboards, it designed the system controller (northbridge) in the G5, and they are almost certainly toying around with designs that use more than 2 CPUs in the lab. If they ever see the light of day is something completely different of course, but if Apple should ever decide to ship a 4-way system, even before Dual Core PPCs become common, it certainly won't cost as much as your car or weigh more than your average human being. It could be done with modest hardware changes, and for under $6k (likely around $5k if they really wanted to). Doing this really isn't all that hard to do, the rub is that it also isn't a huge mass market item, so you can bet it's on the bottom of the list of things to do for a while.

 

[MasonMcD]

IBM is doing quad

guys...IBM has outlined their plans in general for the next several generations...quad PPC 64bit machines aren't on the list...the only real possibility is the dual-core dual processor option.

Gotta stop ya there.

In 2005, the Power blades will begin resembling IBM's Unix server line, with a system comprising four PowerPC 970 processors, Dougherty said. And with a four-processor model, IBM's version of Unix--called AIX--becomes a compelling alternative to Linux, he said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1010-5171648.html

 

[DeepIn2U]

Gotta stop ya there.

In 2005, the Power blades will begin resembling IBM's Unix server line, with a system comprising four PowerPC 970 processors, Dougherty said. And with a four-processor model, IBM's version of Unix--called AIX--becomes a compelling alternative to Linux, he said.

http://news.com.com/2100-1010-5171648.html

Also note that IBM is in huge court case with SCO over its licence of Unix; implementing code into its Linux offerings - effectively giving it out for free via source code - a violation of its licensing with SCO.

Furthermore, that just may put IBM's plans of doing a major revamp of AIX code early this year (2004), on hold.

 

[LucidX]

Quad G5

It seems illogical that Apple would introduce a Quad Powermac G5 before (if at all) a Quad Xserve G5, a place where such certainly belongs.

 

[Rincewind42]

It seems illogical that Apple would introduce a Quad Powermac G5 before (if at all) a Quad Xserve G5, a place where such certainly belongs.

Why would you say that? It would seem logical to have the Xserve always have the fastest CPUs available, or at least on par with the PowerMac. Yet that hasn't been the case most of the time - the Xserve has consistently had slower CPUs than the PowerMac that was available at the same time. Why? Simply because there is more room in the PowerMac for heat dissipation. Why else would it take Apple 6 months to bring the Xserve G5 to the market and why else will they continue to sport slower processors after the next PowerMac G5 revision?

If Apple does introduce a Quad Xserve G5, then it will probably not be a 1U unit. But if it isn't a 1U unit, then you might as well buy 2 Dual Xserves and get better performance than a single Quad Xserve. However a given the markets the Xserve and the PowerMac target, a Quad PowerMac would be much likely to be purchased than a Quad Xserve because while it is relatively easy to rack 2 Dual Xserves to get 4 CPUs, it is quite harder to put two Dual PowerMacs on your desk and use the 4 CPUs to their utmost efficiency.

 

[wdlove]

So you are talking about having 4 processors in a Power Mac unit. Would Mac OS X be able to use all 4 efficiently? Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

 

[Rincewind42]

Would Mac OS X be able to use all 4 efficiently?

It was designed to use up to 32...

Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

Probably, but does it matter? If you have more than one program going, each use a different CPU. And you always have more than one program going...

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Are there any programs currently that would benefit from this technology?

Video and 3D animation software would love to have more processors. Having 4 cpus would be fantastic for me - buy one machine and pretty much have the power of 2. 100 hour render would take 50 hours, etc. (its not quite half, just using that as an example) It remains to be seen if they even have quad machines and then do speed tests to see how much faster they are than duals.....

D

 

[army_guy]

You also need more licenses for rendering, 4 instead of 1 or 2.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

You also need more licenses for rendering, 4 instead of 1 or 2.

That would be incorrect - a quad machine would be one license. I have Lightwave on two separate machines, needs two dongles, even though one of them is a dual processor. There is no way anyone would require separate licenses for each processor. Its just per machine or seat in this case.

D

 

[wdlove]

Just think of the output with a Quad G5 for the production of Folding. If we got a couple of these online it woudl be awesome.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Just think of the output with a Quad G5 for the production of Folding. If we got a couple of these online it woudl be awesome.

folding is what your machine does when its not doing something else - like work. I would laugh at anyone who got a quad machine just to increase their folding score

But it would be nice, just like 2 or so computers instead of just one. We would need dozens in order for there to be a significant impact on the output.

D

 

[wizard]

While it may not be an issue at the moment, there is historical evidence that software vendors might just try to charge by the number of processors in use. It would be vey bad form the software management standpoint and probally not good for the venodr in a competitive environment, but a possibility none the less. Hopefully those sorts of days are long pass us.

Dave

That would be incorrect - a quad machine would be one license. I have Lightwave on two separate machines, needs two dongles, even though one of them is a dual processor. There is no way anyone would require separate licenses for each processor. Its just per machine or seat in this case.

D

 

[wdlove]

folding is what your machine does when its not doing something else - like work. I would laugh at anyone who got a quad machine just to increase their folding score

But it would be nice, just like 2 or so computers instead of just one. We would need dozens in order for there to be a significant impact on the output.

D

I have been laughed at before Mr. Anderson!

Still every little bit of extra output will help the cause.

 

[King Cobra]

Up to about post 134, I think most people hit the little "reply" button beside a random person's post, quoted it, said something of medium relevance in response to the quote, and then went off on their own thoughts of a specific issue regarding the rumored quad PowerMacs.

All right. Now I've heard this line before from jefhatfield, and from a quickie free-time program, and I'm going to quote it again here:

Any rumor that survives more than 24 hours is probably true.

So, for the 8th nonconsecutive month or so, we have Quad PowerMac rumors. Anybody think that Apple will bring them into mainstream production eventually, as supposed to today, or tomorrow, or maybe in a week?

Now I've also noticed this trend in rumors:

Any rumor that survives for more than 4 months without specifications is probably going to be echoed for at least twice as long before it receives official verification.

So Apple probably is testing out 4x processor machines in some small corner of their facilities.

I can just see it now: Mac OS X 10.4: $129 per processor, comes with all new quad processor G5s.

 

[formatc]

Sell a product at a loss

You cannot sell a product at a loss and expect to stay in business.

All of Apple's software is sold at a loss. Apple is a hardware company.

On Apple's Q1 2004 data summary, the software unit volume is labeled NM, for Not Meaningful.

Apple spends much more $ developing software than it earns from selling it. Why? Apple is a hardware company.

 

[jsw]

All of Apple's software is sold at a loss. Apple is a hardware company.

On Apple's Q1 2004 data summary, the software unit volume is labeled NM, for Not Meaningful.

Apple spends much more $ developing software than it earns from selling it. Why? Apple is a hardware company.

Perhaps Frohickey should have said "You cannot sell your products at a net loss and expect to stay in business." Most companies, as formatc notes, sell some of their products or services at a loss to promote other products or services.

 

[Frohickey]

Perhaps Frohickey should have said "You cannot sell your products at a net loss and expect to stay in business." Most companies, as formatc notes, sell some of their products or services at a loss to promote other products or services.

Erp! I was thinking about a company that only had one product.

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

 

[jsw]

Erp! I was thinking about a company that only had one product.

Okay, you cannot sell your aggregate product mix at a net loss and expect to stay in business.

Well, then there's Amazon. Are they in the black yet? They weren't for a very long time at least. I guess you either need to make money or be very convincing to VC's.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I wouldn't consider this proof:

I could probably create an image that looks like that in MICROSOFT PAINT. A Photoshop user could fake that in no time flat.

 

[ddtlm]

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to a product offered by Appro:

http://www.appro.com/product/server_1142h.asp

Your eyes do not decieve you. That is a 1U quad Opteron system, and the "product comparision chart" PDF available at that page declares that all Opteron speeds work in this machine. Hopefully that settles any misconceptions about heat holding Apple back.

 

[DrGruv1]

Quad Powermacs? 2 (976) Dual Core Chips

Tuesday the 23rd.!!!!!