or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's 64bit 4GHz Quad processor vs. IBM future CPU in Mac's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's 64bit 4GHz Quad processor vs. IBM future CPU in Mac's.

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
Well this is what intel is up to watch the video it's interesting

It seems they (intel) have monster servers coming with Quad 64bit 4GHz Processors that are the next generation of Xeons with a new name, and all.

Quote:
Nocona chips for two-processor servers will arrive in the second quarter, Barrett said, followed quickly by Prescott processors with 32/64-bit capability for single-processor servers and workstations. Prescott and Nocona are functionally the same processor but differ in cache size and bus speed. The 32/64-bit technology will then come to chips for servers with four or more processors in 2005, Barrett added.

The most promising immediate IBM PPC rumors come from a french rumor site which say (in english)

Quote:
PPC 975 at APPLE - APPLE received on behalf of IBM of the first samples of preproduction's of PPC 975. The rates of successes are excellent with the pre-production. Almost all the processors reach 2.8 GHz and a very small quantity is assembled to 3.4 GHz!

With that been said there is also this which seems relative to this PPC version.

Quote:
Future innovations in Powermacs

APPLE tests in this moment of the charts videos to format NCV Express train from Nvidia. These tests are carried out on the mother charts of the Powermac futures designed to leave at the end the next summer.

These new mother charts which will leave in September will be to the standards Hyper-transport 2 (announced recently) and will have bus NCV Express train, the whole animated by a chip PPC 975.

And later down the road there is the next IBM PPC version (supposedly)

Quote:
VMX 2 - IBM must solidify the specifications of the VMX 2 (Altivec 2) at the end of the year.
It will be in 256 bits instead of 128 for the VMX. IBM thinks of being able to make it 2,5 to 3 times faster than the VMX. It will treat up to 12 instructions per cycle of clock.
It will be perfectly compatible with the VMX. The first CPU VMX 2 will be the PPC 976 Dual Core.

Battling the new intel processor configurations is going to be no easy task for IBM, and Apple especially.

I left out AMD, and they truly are Intel's direct competitor so If anyone want's to add some AMD info to this feel free.

This topic is intended for discussion of Future Apple Products in a common market with it's competitors. NOT AN INTEL, OR APPLE FLAME SESSION. Let's keep it under control.



link to the french rumor site: croquer
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #2 of 73
Great...may the battle begin.
post #3 of 73
I wouldn't be so worried about Intel. All signs point to a meltdown. They already have a 64-bit processor - the Itanic. Reports of their new processors to date haven't been very positive. If Intel can't get their act together, AMD has a real chance to gain significant market share.

And, regarding bring 64-bit to the desktop (not servers), Intel has no immediate plans for this. They have said over and over that their 64-bit hardware for the desktop is tied to Longhorn (the next Windows). Longhorn will not ship until late 2005 at the earliest. Many people put the ship date of Longhorn out much farther than that.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is hurting on multiple fronts. They cannot simply rush a Longhorn release this time. If they do and it's as full of security holes as their current products, they will take a major hit in the pocket book.

However, both MS and Intel have more $$$ than most nations, so they might be able to buy their way out of their current mess.

BTW, here's a couple of related links:

http://www.arstechnica.com/etc/mac/index.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/35654.html
post #4 of 73
they have very immediate plans for 64bit desktop chips, just google up on the IDF announcements.
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #5 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Battling the new Intel processor configurations is going to be no easy task for IBM, and Apple especially.

Exactly. I see this more like competition than threat. Simply, Apple-IBM and AMD are not going to be the only players in the desktop 64-bit field. Such a pressure from Intel's side (and Microsoft's, to not forget 64-bit Windows) with IBM in the game, could lead to some interesting developments for the Mac, in 2 or 3 years from now. Most probably good, but bad ones are not excluded.
post #6 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by G-News
they have very immediate plans for 64bit desktop chips, just google up on the IDF announcements.

You don't suppose Intel is above a little FUD, do you?

Speaking of the IDF, here's a quote from the link above:

Quote:
Describing the shift from the server environment to the mainstream client as a "big jump", Bill Siu, general manager of Intel's Desktop Platforms Group, admitted that the process of recompiling device drivers and the like for a 64-bit desktop PC would take "some time to complete".

He said Intel expects to see a Windows OS delivering "comprehensive 64-bit support in the Longhorn timeframe".

That puts the arrival of 64-bit addressing in the Pentium 4 sometime around 2006 - and possibly even as late as 2008, if you believe the prognostications of analysts like Gartner.

That sure doesn't sound like "immediate" to me.

We'll see....
post #7 of 73
Isn´t power5 the competitor for this Intel chip?

correct me if I am wrong

maclogic
post #8 of 73
anyone have some links to previews of this longhorn thing ?

what will they steal from osx this time ?
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #9 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by Faeylyn
You don't suppose Intel is above a little FUD, do you?

Speaking of the IDF, here's a quote from the link above:



That sure doesn't sound like "immediate" to me.

We'll see....

Put that down to very poor journalism then because Intel has confirmed 64 bit addressing is already in Prescott, awaiting a new socket, and that the first 90 nm produced Xeons will also have it.

Intel doesn't however expect the software support to be there so soon but the hardware is done.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #10 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~

what will they steal from osx this time ?

Microsoft is going to implement some new (in the Windows world) technologies, like database-like file system and advanced graphics layer, something like Quartz and Quartz Extreme but, quite likely, fully hardware accelerated. I would not say "steal", since this is a rather general future trend in displaying graphics and content in computers. Simply, Apple was there a long time ago...

Palladium is also expected to be integral part of Longhorn.
post #11 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Palladium is also expected to be integral part of Longhorn.

what's that ?
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #12 of 73
post #13 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~
what's that ?

Scary things...
post #14 of 73
Quote:
admitted that the process of recompiling device drivers and the like for a 64-bit desktop PC would take "some time to complete".

All that says is that Microsoft, not Intel, will have a hard time catching up. That does however not concern Intels 64bit strategy in the least. They will have a product that says "64bit" on the sticker out within half a year, at very high clockspeeds compared to Athlon 64, FX and Opteron and of course also the PPC 97x. That's what's going to count for the marketing, not whether 64bit actually makes any sense for the majority of the consumers, or not.

Frankly, it makes very little sense for most people, regardless of the platform, as of now and the near future.
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #15 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Scary things...

thanks!

scary indeed
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #16 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Put that down to very poor journalism then because Intel has confirmed 64 bit addressing is already in Prescott, awaiting a new socket, and that the first 90 nm produced Xeons will also have it.

Intel doesn't however expect the software support to be there so soon but the hardware is done.

Intel's fortunes are, to a large extent, tied with Microsoft. Just because they have a chip doesn't mean it's going to appear in desktop PC's overnight. And the software support is sort of critical. Exactly how compatible is it with their old chips?

And even if theyre able to ship in quantity today, what are they going to plug it into? Its going to take a day or two for the whole package to appear. And device drivers arent Microsofts problem, theyre Intels. Its kind of pointless having a PC without the ability to connect to anything, isnt it?

And what OS are they going to run? I cant see many (any?) of the PC makers using this if it isnt capable of running some flavor of Windows. So if Microsoft does need to make changes to their current OS, that brings Microsoft in the loop before this can become part of a real product.

And if its going to run the current OS, then its going to get compared to the current CPUs. How well/fast will it run the current OS and current applications? How much does it cost vs. a current 3.4Ghz chip? Is the price/performance worth it?

Basically this all adds up to Intel/MS being at least a year+ behind Apple in terms of delivering a 64-bit computer.
post #17 of 73
not really, no.
remember, we're talking about 64bit EXTENDED Versions of already available and proven 32bit architectures.
Compatibility won't be a problem here at all, unlike Itanium, but similar to the Athlon 64.

Quote:
Just because they have a chip doesn't mean it's going to appear in desktop PC's overnight.

Wrong. Whenever they have something new to throw buzzwords at, they will do so, and there will be people who will buy into it. You should read the little essay over at mac.ars, regarding 64bit computing. "64bit" is the new MHz myth, and Intel has finally decided to join the game, even if they still think it's pointless. But as long as it sells, who care's if it's obsolete? Intel certainly doesn't. They're whole CPU history is largely built on "buzzwords".

Quote:
And the software support is sort of critical. Exactly how compatible is it with their old chips?

How critical? Do you see any 64bit drivers for G5 machines? Any 64bit enabled applications? Even Panther itself isn't capable of adressing more than 32bit of memory to a single task. Exactly who cares in the consumer market?
"I have a dual 2GHz, 64bit G5 PowerMac, the fastest desktop in the world". That's how these things work.

AMD has shown an impressive record of understanding the workings of the CPU market: They started using their alternative numbering scheme for the Athlon XP, which has worked very well. (How many people do you think actually know that the Athlon XP 3000+ actually runs at ~2/3 that implied speed? And who cares, really?) Now they understand that "64" is the new word of magic, claiming it's the ultimate for gaming. In fact the only benefits games see so far from the 64 and FX Athlons are improvements made elsewhere. Who cares there?

This is all marketing, and has nothing to do with "better", "required" or "usable".
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #18 of 73
I have to wonder where people get this idea from. Maybe I've been around to long but this is just a repeat of near sightedness that appears all to foten in the industry.

In the past we have had people claim that here was no need for more than 640K of memory. We have had people claim that 16 bit processing all one needs for the desktop. We have had people claim that a FP math processor is only an option for special applications.

All of these calims and many more have been made in the past and quickly shown to be garbage. So to will this artificial impediment to the uptake of 64 bit processing be shown to be nothing but garbage.

Addressable memory is fundamental to being able to affer new and unique capabilities to computing hardware and software. With out a growth in address space the industry will stagnate. 64 bit is as important to computing today as was the processor with the first integrated FP unit, as was the first processor with vector capability and was the the ability to address more that 640K of ram.

Sure the current users may wonder what would anybody need that for. Lets be honest though how many Lotus123 users do you see these days. Those that don't get on the technology band wagon early end up stuck in a hay field somewhere wondering why no body is using their software any more.

Dave

Quote:
Originally posted by G-News


Frankly, it makes very little sense for most people, regardless of the platform, as of now and the near future.
post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
This topic is intended for discussion of Future Apple Products in a common market with it's competitors. NOT AN INTEL, OR APPLE FLAME SESSION. Let's keep it under control.

Should be posted in top of every forum. ThxX.
Quote:
Originally posted by maclogic
Isn´t power5 the competitor for this Intel chip?

correct me if I am wrong

maclogic

Oh no, the Power5 is IBM's specialised server chip! The PowerPC 975 is supposed to be a Power5 light version...
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #20 of 73
64 bits should be look upon for what it is, it is the natural evolution of the microprocessor. Just as the "improvements made elsewhere" are an evolution of the processor, to extend its capabilities, so is 64 bits.

What I find perplexing is that we did not see such negativity when the industry changed form 16 bit to 32 bit hardware. I do have to wonder why there is such a huge resistance to accepting that 64 bit technology is the next logical step forward.

64 bit technology offers us several advantages, one of the most out standing advanatge is the increase in adressable range of memory. This is and advantage to the user with real RAM or virtual addressing. It enables a whole class of applications that don't easily map onto current hardware.

Beyond that a 64 bit machine offers several other advanatges when it comes to 64 bitness. These would be in the area of ALU capabilities such as 64 bit math ops, increased abilities with bit maps and other logical operations. While these operations don't enable applications in the way that an extended address space may, they do make such operations much faster.

So yeah those benefits to the current crop of games is limited to a few areas not directly related to the 64 bitness of the processor. One can only imagine what the games of tommorrow will be like with 4 or more times the real memnory available to them and a vastly larger virtual address range.

By the way I'm willing to bet that some of the new advantages that AMD's 64 bit CPU sees with games are related to the 64 bitness of the processor. Just having wider data paths and other optimizations in the chip to implement 64 bit operations allows data to flow faster. Software may not be using 64 bit features but that doesn't mean that the addition of such features to a processor doesn't help the data through put.

Dave



Quote:
Originally posted by G-News
Now they understand that "64" is the new word of magic, claiming it's the ultimate for gaming. In fact the only benefits games see so far from the 64 and FX Athlons are improvements made elsewhere. Who cares there?

This is all marketing, and has nothing to do with "better", "required" or "usable".
post #21 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO--Smarting from criticism from open-source programmers, Intel has committed to release Linux versions of essential supporting software at about the same time it releases Windows versions.

Don't forget about Linux. Everybody seems to be noting, and expecting windows to be what these processors will rely on, but with the Quad processor systems coming which should/could/would be aimed at the high end 3D workstation market; coupled with the fact that Linux has already become a much more accepted OS in the 3D realm than it was in the past. Do any of you think Apple, and IBM would need to counter with a Quad processor workstation probably available as a BTO? Before you get ahead of denying Apples interest (or lack there of) in 3D. We do know Pixar is planing (and is probably finished) to bring RenderMan Server to OS X. Which says something of interest by Steve Job's I think anyway. Wouldn't Apple need a 4 way processor system to compete with these Intel workstation/servers?


Intel to speed lagging Linux support link
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Addressable memory is fundamental to being able to affer new and unique capabilities to computing hardware and software. With out a growth in address space the industry will stagnate. 64 bit is as important to computing today as was the processor with the first integrated FP unit, as was the first processor with vector capability and was the the ability to address more that 640K of ram.

Exactly. There are markets (yes, they are very small compared to general computing) where 64-bit addressable memory is important; hence, why we still keep a quad Enterprise 450 around. Oh, how I wish I could address more than 32 bits on the G5, but, I can wait.

EDIT: to be clear though, most people are making the claim that 64-bit is not needed in consumer applications. This is true today and probably next year, but, with that extra breathing room, maybe some revolutionary product can come out of it.
post #23 of 73
Quote:
Frankly, it makes very little sense for most people, regardless of the platform, as of now and the near future.

If you read my statements again, Dave, you will find that I never said 64bit was unnecessary in the future. All I said is that right now, consumer desktop systems, and most certainly also for the next 1-2 years ("near future" above), will not need to be able to adress more than 4GB of RAM.
I'm not saying 4GB of RAM will be enough for everybody, forever, as Bill Gates would have put it, nor would I ever say that 64bit is inferior than 32bit.

Read more carefully, instead of jumping the gun.
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #24 of 73
My only worry about longhorn would be if apple is ready. Which, I can't imagine them not being. Nothing in the movies looks like something quartz couldnot be programmed to handle. If longhorn is a year or too out then hopefully apple can keep the improvments coming so longhorn really is long in the tooth.
post #25 of 73
The G5's are already 64bit and must be reliable enough for the Xserve to go G5 as well. Only the OS needs to be made 64bit. The ball is in Apples court.
Making the OS 64bit is a huge hurdle. MS are already working feverishly on their desktop version (as Apple is I hope).
I personally think that Apple has the advantage that they are already running on a 64bit processor and all seems well.
If IBM introduces new CPU technology it won't be as big a challenge as moving to a 64bit OS.
Does XP run on either Itanic or Operton?

Dobby.
post #26 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dobby
The G5's are already 64bit and must be reliable enough for the Xserve to go G5 as well. Only the OS needs to be made 64bit. The ball is in Apples court.
Making the OS 64bit is a huge hurdle. MS are already working feverishly on their desktop version (as Apple is I hope).
I personally think that Apple has the advantage that they are already running on a 64bit processor and all seems well.
If IBM introduces new CPU technology it won't be as big a challenge as moving to a 64bit OS.
Does XP run on either Itanic or Operton?

Dobby.

There is a Operon version of windows, but Linux is a more worrisome OS than windows is right now for such a systems. I'm surprised none of you seem to realize that. Windows isn't the threat. It's Intel's 4 processor 4GHz System.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #27 of 73
Some things to remember...

First of all, a 4 CPU server requires a different license of Windows in order to use all 4 CPUs. This license costs a bit more and so you won't see a 4 CPU Intel heater on any desktops any time soon.

Second, 4 CPU servers are expensive because they are intended to be used for different things than just being a computing node, let alone being a desktop. I doubt that such a beast would be price competetive with two new XServe G5s. A 4 CPU Intel beast would probably run around 10 grand.

Third, Intel has profound issues with scaling the P4's and Xeons and not having them meltdown. These chips put out some profound ammounts of heat and this is a design issue that must be addressed (adding cost).

Fourth, the new Xeons are larger than the new G5s and as such fewer of them will fit onto a wafer, meaning Intel has higher per chip costs. Economies of scale don't help Intel because economies of scale only offset the cost of the FAB, not the cost of using more silicon.

Fifth, don't expect to see Intel ship a 64 bit laptop anytime in the next couple of years. Apple should do so this year.

Sixth, Win64 isn't out yet and won't be out for a little while longer yet. Of course, when it does come out, it will have better 64 bit support than OS X 10.3.

There is nothing to worry about regarding Intel's propaganda.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by dobby

Does XP run on either Itanic or Operton?

Yes on both counts. Of course, it runs in 32 bit mode on an Opteron, but then again there isn't much software out there for 64 bit windows.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Don't forget about Linux. Everybody seems to be noting, and expecting windows to be what these processors will rely on, but with the Quad processor systems coming which should/could/would be aimed at the high end 3D workstation market; coupled with the fact that Linux has already become a much more accepted OS in the 3D realm than it was in the past. Do any of you think Apple, and IBM would need to counter with a Quad processor workstation probably available as a BTO? Before you get ahead of denying Apples interest (or lack there of) in 3D. We do know Pixar is planing (and is probably finished) to bring RenderMan Server to OS X. Which says something of interest by Steve Job's I think anyway. Wouldn't Apple need a 4 way processor system to compete with these Intel workstation/servers?

Although I am all for quad G5s, I don't see the need. Modern CGI rendering is done in the server farm. Who cares if the computing node has 2 or CPU's? It is all about what gives you the best performance for the dollar, and what gives you the best TCO (Total Cost of Ownership- the cost to buy, use and maintain a box). I think that the XServe competes quite well in this area and that 2 XServes with G5s would beat up on a quad P4.

I apologize for the triple post and now leave you to talk amongnst yourselves.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #30 of 73
why worry about paper ware from intel, when athlon64fx is already capable of quad operation....no?

This can be done if Mobo/OS can support such features. However, we can always have cluster system to match up CPU power. So, if intel quad cpu system cost $10K, then you can have 2 G5 Xserve clustered for less or just keep adding more cluster units for future upgradability.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #31 of 73
Has any pricing information been posted anywhere? It would be interesting if Intel replaced the Xeon MP over the next two years with the new 64 bit Xeon. If I can get a 4-way 64-bit Xeon for the same price as the Xeon MP then this really is something!!!
post #32 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Put that down to very poor journalism then because Intel has confirmed 64 bit addressing is already in Prescott, awaiting a new socket, and that the first 90 nm produced Xeons will also have it. ...

64-bit addressing does not make it a 64-bit processor. Prescott is most definitely a 32-bit processor. The existence of Intel's rumored X86/64 processor, "Yamhill", is officially still being denied by Intel.

But the folks at Intel are not as stupid as they appear to be; they see AMD is eating their lunch, and they will come out with something to compete with it. It'll just be late, cost more, and be slower.

Intel and Microsoft are burning through incredible amounts of cash these days, but they have lots more where that came from.
post #33 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Although I am all for quad G5s, I don't see the need. Modern CGI rendering is done in the server farm. Who cares if the computing node has 2 or CPU's? It is all about what gives you the best performance for the dollar, and what gives you the best TCO (Total Cost of Ownership- the cost to buy, use and maintain a box). I think that the XServe competes quite well in this area and that 2 XServes with G5s would beat up on a quad P4.

I apologize for the triple post and now leave you to talk amongnst yourselves.

I think that's CG, or 3D rendering, and yes they all use their own render-farms, which are all intel based running Linux in most cases I believe. But I'm not talking about render-farms for ILM , Weta, Pixar, or Dreamworks.
I'm talking about Machines for serious 3D prosumers/users/freaks who all know they must always have the fastest machine, and graphics card available.

Right now it looks like intel just made a stand against any nay-sayers, or up, and comers in that area.

Quote:
2 XServes with G5s would beat up on a quad P4.

You must have missed most of the facts, and specs on the internet contesting the G5, and proving it isn't the fastest thing imaginable as we all hoped it was. The specs Apple finessed, and posted were contested by too many, and proven wrong, and misleading IMHO. I was actually ashamed that Steve Jobs still made the claim at MWSF. That being said 2 Xserves with dual G5's probably wouldn't beat up a quad P4 system let alone one of these
new Intel 4GHz 4 processor systems running 64-bit version of Linux.

(note) -> However, I do agree that a quad processor system isn't completely necessary for consumers, but ruling out a couple highend pro-sumer machines if Apple decides to impact an inroad into the highend 3D arena isn't necessarily a bad idea either.

The thing about clustering a couple Xserves together is that the PowerMac line always looks faster, and less expensive than an Xserve does. A person could cluster 2 PowerMacs together, but it's messy, (in appearance) and that's not how Apple seems to like to appear. If Apple has new machines in the wings I think this intel information may bring about a redesign of how these Apple products are presented; possibly a few price shifts for an Xserve w/the Xserve Cluster node possibly as a package, and/or possibly a bigger lineup (more choices) for the PowerMac lineup.

Apple definitely needs to get on with it though. The Mac has been trailing pretty far behind for the past few years. (which is all Motorola's fault anyway) They used to dictate where things were going in personal computers, and they still do to an extent, but now it's like they watch, and see if it's working for anybody else before they try it. (other than the iPod)
In computing; - Power, performance, and having a machine capable to do the job says a lot more to consumers who buy your products, and ones who don't yet than one may think. It's like subliminal messages, or reoccurring dreams. The thought of the image resonates, and is always in the back of your mind. It definitely applies when purchasing a computer. The thought's of a super stomper system would help sales tremendously now, and in the future. I just hope we see some really tremendous things from IBM, and Apple by the end of 2004 in Power, Graphics performance, and price vs. price on equally equipped machines from competitors. Because 2005 is just too late.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Some things to remember...

Second, 4 CPU servers are expensive because they are intended to be used for different things than just being a computing node, let alone being a desktop. I doubt that such a beast would be price competetive with two new XServe G5s. A 4 CPU Intel beast would probably run around 10 grand.

Try around $50 for a loaded 4 way Xeon MP setup to run Linux (including memory). For us, this would be our primary machine that would replicate to our cluster nodes. (Actually 2...one hot standby) The cluster nodes would be Dell 1750's or dual G5 XServe machines.

You are correct that some people are premature in pointing out that two G5's could equal the power of a 4-way Xeon. There is much more to the equation then this. What should I power my cluster with (as in primary node)? Apple does not have anything that could handle this for us (and many others) at this time.

Others would argue that a company could save $40,000 by just using 2 - Dual G5's. What about employee costs? What about software costs? What about memory costs? What about storage array costs? What about replication node costs? etc.

There is so much more to the equation then having two dual processor machines that would equal the HP of one quad processor machine.
post #35 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
64-bit addressing does not make it a 64-bit processor. Prescott is most definitely a 32-bit processor. The existence of Intel's rumored X86/64 processor, "Yamhill", is officially still being denied by Intel.

But the folks at Intel are not as stupid as they appear to be; they see AMD is eating their lunch, and they will come out with something to compete with it. It'll just be late, cost more, and be slower.

Intel and Microsoft are burning through incredible amounts of cash these days, but they have lots more where that came from.

You must have missed the presentation.

Quote:
Nocona chips for two-processor servers will arrive in the second quarter, Barrett said, followed quickly by Prescott processors with 32/64-bit capability for single-processor servers and workstations. Prescott and Nocona are functionally the same processor but differ in cache size and bus speed. The 32/64-bit technology will then come to chips for servers with four or more processors in 2005, Barrett added.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #36 of 73
Quote:
Don't forget about Linux.
-onlooker

IBM has been ramping up their Linux support not only in software but in hardware and more specifically Power CPU's and their associated compilers.

The Linux market on cheap x86 box's has probably instigated Big Blues charge in this arena as their Unix big iron ($$$$) has become threatened. Part of the 970 is for this market and it looks like IBM is moving to Blades and the smaller server space with Linux.

While IBM uses all sorts of processors I would think they would be gearing towards the whole widget with home grown Power derivative CPU's.

I don't see Chimpzilla conceding the market to IBM or to AMD for that matter.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #37 of 73
Sources at the Redmond campus report that it's common knowledge on campus that Longhorn is not expected until middle 2007, at best. It could slip to 2008 if the current Longhorn feature set is not reduced.
Redmond sold major corporations expensive service contracts for OS upgrades. These expensive contracts will expire before Longhorn is expected to ship. Customers are unhappy.
The Intel 64bit 4GHz CPU may have larger problems than technical issues.
post #38 of 73
Hi Atom;

Yes people seem to mis this point, there are already a large number of applications out there that make use of 64 bit addressing. Then there are a very large number of applications that could make use of 64 bit addressing if low cost hardware existed for it to run on. This is the software that often has to approach data mangement from a more complex perspective to enable operation on 32 bit hardware.

As far as consumer applications go I think it is only a matter of developers seeing enough 64 bit hardware in the wild for them to target 64 bit hardware. Games are one item that could make immediate use of the extended address space 64 bits offer. Media editing programms are not far behind. I would have to say that there are actually a number of potential consumer applications that could take advantage of 64 bits.

The only hold up we have is the adoption of 64 bit hardware. There has to be enough hardware out there to enable profitable sales of the software. This is where Apple has the potential to lead if they can transition their consumer lines quickly to 64 bit.

Quote:
Originally posted by atomicham
Exactly. There are markets (yes, they are very small compared to general computing) where 64-bit addressable memory is important; hence, why we still keep a quad Enterprise 450 around. Oh, how I wish I could address more than 32 bits on the G5, but, I can wait.

EDIT: to be clear though, most people are making the claim that 64-bit is not needed in consumer applications. This is true today and probably next year, but, with that extra breathing room, maybe some revolutionary product can come out of it.
post #39 of 73
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think that's CG, or 3D rendering, and yes they all use their own render-farms, which are all intel based running Linux in most cases I believe. But I'm not talking about render-farms for ILM , Weta, Pixar, or Dreamworks.
I'm talking about Machines for serious 3D prosumers/users/freaks who all know they must always have the fastest machine, and graphics card available.

Right now it looks like intel just made a stand against any nay-sayers, or up, and comers in that area.

Ummm, no? This won't be the first quad CPU machine from Intel. So far, how many prosumer freaks use quad CPU machines? None. Everyone uses dual Xeons. The price curve for quad processors is too high for most people to use. Such machines are aimed at the server market.

Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You must have missed most of the facts, and specs on the internet contesting the G5, and proving it isn't the fastest thing imaginable as we all hoped it was. The specs Apple finessed, and posted were contested by too many, and proven wrong, and misleading IMHO. I was actually ashamed that Steve Jobs still made the claim at MWSF. That being said 2 Xserves with dual G5's probably wouldn't beat up a quad P4 system let alone one of these
new Intel 4GHz 4 processor systems running 64-bit version of Linux.

Well, since Linux x86 apps are compiled using the GCC compiler which is the compiler used in those speed tests, then we can say that a dual 2GHz G5 system is faster than a dual Xeon system when the Xeon system is running Linux. Either way, I wouldn't expect Intel's CPUs to scale linearly. Branch mispredicts will be worse than they currently are. Besides, Intel's CPU is vaporware and the G5 is available in the here and now and is about to get a nice speed bump.

Further, four 4GHz Intel processors would have to fight for data over one bus to main memory. This would basically starve high bandwidth processes. Why not have two different machines with two busses?

Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
(note) -> However, I do agree that a quad processor system isn't completely necessary for consumers, but ruling out a couple highend pro-sumer machines if Apple decides to impact an inroad into the highend 3D arena isn't necessarily a bad idea either.

I think that dual G5s are just fine for the high end pro sumer 3D Freaks. Again, how many quad Xeon machines does Intel sell to this market? Not many.

Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
The thing about clustering a couple Xserves together is that the PowerMac line always looks faster, and less expensive than an Xserve does. A person could cluster 2 PowerMacs together, but it's messy, (in appearance) and that's not how Apple seems to like to appear. If Apple has new machines in the wings I think this intel information may bring about a redesign of how these Apple products are presented; possibly a few price shifts for an Xserve w/the Xserve Cluster node possibly as a package, and/or possibly a bigger lineup (more choices) for the PowerMac lineup.

XServes are more expensive than PowerMacs because they are servers. They have redundancy designed in. XServes are already dirt cheap for what they offer.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #40 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Ummm, no? This won't be the first quad CPU machine from Intel. So far, how many prosumer freaks use quad CPU machines? None. Everyone uses dual Xeons. The price curve for quad processors is too high for most people to use. Such machines are aimed at the server market.

I'm not sure where I said it was the first Quad CPU Machine from Intel, because I know 2 people that have them, and 5 more that have Dual Xeons. And yes they are all 3D freaks that were interested in what direction Apple was headed with the G5 knowing RenderMan was coming, and Apple would possibly have more surprises coming with that announcement. Probably not as interested now as they were.

Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, since Linux x86 apps are compiled using the GCC compiler which is the compiler used in those speed tests, then we can say that a dual 2GHz G5 system is faster than a dual Xeon system when the Xeon system is running Linux. Either way, I wouldn't expect Intel's CPUs to scale linearly. Branch mispredicts will be worse than they currently are. Besides, Intel's CPU is vaporware and the G5 is available in the here and now and is about to get a nice speed bump.

I have no idea what brings you to your conclusions, but you go.

Quote:
[b]I think that dual G5s are just fine for the high end pro sumer 3D Freaks. Again, how many quad Xeon machines does Intel sell to this market? Not many.[b]

I don't know how much 3D you do, but I doubt it's much because the current G5's are not ready for Highend 3D work yet. They don't even have a graphics card. Which is the first priority.

Quote:
XServes are more expensive than PowerMacs because they are servers. They have redundancy designed in. XServes are already dirt cheap for what they offer.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's 64bit 4GHz Quad processor vs. IBM future CPU in Mac's.