or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › EE Times Joins The Speculation Frenzy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EE Times Joins The Speculation Frenzy

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020103S0069" target="_blank">Article</a> says dual processors and new LCD displays.
post #2 of 33
Well this person may write for MOSR. The G3 willnot work in a dual processor config.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #3 of 33
Well I have always thought that multiprocessors were the answer to the GHz Gap. The only way that I see the G4 as a viable option for the MWSF PowerMac line is to go dual and even quad at the "ultimate" ($3499) level.

With the G5 coming, anything less than the above will be met with a lot of holding back of purchase orders until the G5 ships.
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #4 of 33
Um, yeah, it was my understanding that the G3 couldn't go into an MP config.
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #5 of 33
To be fair, the article does not mention the processor for these "dualin'" iMacs (unless I missed something). Would the possibility exist for two low-MHz (say, 450) G4's finding their way into a fanless iMac?
post #6 of 33
While dual 450's ain't bad, I think it would have to start out at about 700.

Just can't come out with a new iMac at a clock speed slower than the model you are replacing.


Maybe Apple is getting good prices on G4's now.

Chip has been out for some 2 1/2 years almost.
post #7 of 33
Let's see who can count all the errors in that article.
post #8 of 33
No, I like that article. Its the only optimistic one I've read today. I wouldn't mind having dual 500Mhz G4's in an iMac. Not at all. Then again, I wouldn't mind a 1Ghz G4 either but still...

If it has a G3 another pin goes into my Steve Jobs voodoo doll though.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
Stuck in an infinite loop waiting for an Apple PDA...

apple.otaku
Reply
Stuck in an infinite loop waiting for an Apple PDA...

apple.otaku
Reply
post #9 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Let's see who can count all the errors in that article.</strong><hr></blockquote>

8?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #10 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>No, I like that article. Its the only optimistic one I've read today. I wouldn't mind having dual 500Mhz G4's in an iMac. Not at all. Then again, I wouldn't mind a 1Ghz G4 either but still...

If it has a G3 another pin goes into my Steve Jobs voodoo doll though.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's funny...I came away with a feeling that the author was pretty anti-Mac for some reason. Nothing in particular I can point to, maybe I am just so biased towards the platform that anythign short of flat-out praise make me skeptical. Ah well.
post #11 of 33
Could somebody please tell me what's wrong with the iMac shipping with a fast G3 processor?

What do you want? A G4? Last I heard, the difference between the two processors was very little besides the fact the G4 has the AltiVec processing unit.

So unless your a graphics professional, using Photoshop, or Illustrator, you'd never really see the benefits of the G4.

If you were a graphics professional, you would most likely be buying a PowerMac G4 Tower anyway. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
MacBook Pro C2D 2.16GHz, 15" Matte, 2GB RAM, 120GB HD, iPod nano 2GB Black.
Reply
post #12 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by erbium:
<strong>Could somebody please tell me what's wrong with the iMac shipping with a fast G3 processor?

What do you want? A G4? Last I heard, the difference between the two processors was very little besides the fact the G4 has the AltiVec processing unit.

So unless your a graphics professional, using Photoshop, or Illustrator, you'd never really see the benefits of the G4.

If you were a graphics professional, you would most likely be buying a PowerMac G4 Tower anyway. :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I've heard, but can't say for sure, that OSX is much slower on the G3 than it is on the G4.
So, if this is true and Apple wants OSX to become the default OS, it would obviously be better to put out machines with the G4.
post #13 of 33
ever heard of osx...

can you say "quartz display layer is optimized for SIMD" and "QuickDraw is not used in osx"?

K THX BYE
post #14 of 33
It is unknown if the 750fx is MP capable. Sort of up in the air at this point.

One of two things:

ibm pruposely left out this nugget at the microprocessor forum

or

its not capable of MP

That said, dual G3's would float my boat, and tide me over until the second generation of G5
post #15 of 33
2,048 x 1,280 display? I thought DVI was close to maxed out on bandwidth...anyone? stereoscopic displays?

This guy's pretty pessimistic about apple.
post #16 of 33
woops!

apparently none of those choices are correct

the sahara is SMP-capable.
post #17 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by mslee:
<strong>the sahara is SMP-capable.</strong><hr></blockquote>Where did you find that? I haven't seen anything that says that.

I really, really hope they don't put duals in iMacs. What a joke. I use a dual 800 at work, and, well, I might as well have a single 800. Almost no one is helped much by a dual, from what I've seen of the benchmarks. It's fool's gold.
post #18 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Where did you find that? I haven't seen anything that says that.

I really, really hope they don't put duals in iMacs. What a joke. I use a dual 800 at work, and, well, I might as well have a single 800. Almost no one is helped much by a dual, from what I've seen of the benchmarks. It's fool's gold.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is untrue when running X from what I've read. X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions like opening otehr apps, QT, itunes etc. (not a techie so I hope I got it right)
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #19 of 33
Where did you find that the G3 (Sahara) is SMP capable, cause I believe it is not, it is based on the G3 architecture. G3's do not play well with other G3's.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #20 of 33
from what i know.. making an lcd mac, with the cpu(s) and all built into the screen is quite hard because of heat. do-able, seen in the large (ugly) form that gateway has for its lcd all in one. i'm sure apple could make it look much better. the problem is, i doubt they could put 2 cpus (g3 or even the new, cooler, g4) into this thing. especially without a fan.

now if they were to go with the cheap cube/lcd alternate idea (as in, not an all in one) i'm sure it could be possible...

anyway, we shall see.

i'd also like to add that altivec is definitely reported to be very helpful with os X, and if os X is gonna be the default, either at SF or in march, altivec is gonna be needed in the new imac.
post #21 of 33
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/jun2001/tech-feat1.html" target="_blank">Dual G3 mobo by</a>

here's the link

the cache coherency problems with earlier G3's had been resolved by the time of the 750cxe

credit where credit is due: comptown records

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: mslee ]</p>
post #22 of 33
coolio dualio g3's would kicketh buttocks.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #23 of 33
Dualies in an iMac are a bad idea. Too expensive. Look at what Apple charges for dual G4s at the Apple store...do you think they are miraculously going to forget about their margins and put dualies in a $1000 iMac? Or maybe this is why it's may cost $1800...dual CPUs.

I'd rather see a G4 in the iMac. It would be just what Apple needs to incite developers to put more effort into coding for altivec.
post #24 of 33
You know what the sad thing is? I betcha a single G4 would cost more than two 750cxes and only a bit less than two 750fxs.
post #25 of 33
Here's a piece of worthless information to toy with. I read, I believe in an article about upgrade cards, that Dual G4's do not have to be the same MHz. To lower costs and still offload system requirements, one 1GHz cpu and one 500Mhz or whatever.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #26 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by mslee:
<strong><a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/jun2001/tech-feat1.html" target="_blank">Dual G3 mobo by</a>

here's the link</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, thanks. I wonder if this is applicable to Macs. I sure hope not.
post #27 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions</strong><hr></blockquote>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.

<a href="http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/quick_733_vs_867.html" target="_blank">Here's one example from MacSpeedZone.</a>

Anyway, whether a dual 800 is better than an 867 is an interesting question. But at many hundred dollars more? I doubt it. (And I say that as a dual-user). But I'd still much rather have a 1.6Ghz than a dual 800.


I've always felt like this is something that hasn't been entirely fleshed out by Mac-ers, but it's just taken as an article of faith that a dual is great. Perhaps a new thread on this sometime could get some of the experts to voice their opinion.
post #28 of 33
How many times have we done the dual vs single thing here? It comes out sounding like Spinal Tap, "Well you see it's got two" "Yes well two slow CPUs and no multi-threaded apps" "Right but it's got two, you see, two is more than one"


Sigh.
post #29 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

This is untrue when running X from what I've read. X is multi-threaded (I hope) so it can tell the apps to use both processors as well as do background and secondary actions like opening otehr apps, QT, itunes etc. (not a techie so I hope I got it right)</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is absolutely true. I have the CPU monitor open in the dock at all times, and both processors are frequently pegged on my dual 800. Quartz takes advantage of multiple processors, core audio uses both processors, using classic causes absolutely no system speed degradation whatsoever, and when the crappy Finder decides that it wants all of the processor to open my iDisk everything else speeds along without a hitch.

No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.
post #30 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>No single application that I use is much faster because of the multiple processors, but the usability of the system is seriously enhanced because of them. Unless Apple completely does away with them I will never again buy a single processor machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #31 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by Adolfo:
<strong>2,048 x 1,280 display? I thought DVI was close to maxed out on bandwidth...anyone? stereoscopic displays?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

3D display links, one from eetimes of yesteryore:

<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990219S0003" target="_blank">http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990219S0003</a>

<a href="http://www.research.philips.com/generalinfo/special/3dlcd/" target="_blank">http://www.research.philips.com/generalinfo/special/3dlcd/</a>
post #32 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

I'm there with ya 100%. I am not buying any more desktops that aren't dual processor. I run OS X all the time, and after using it on a DP system -- mmmm, tough to go back!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Shouldn't you be working?

Oh-- the sig. I see. It's good to be el Rey.

[edit: never took Spanish]

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #33 of 33
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>In the end, you have to look at the empirical results, rather than the theoretical "it's multi-threaded" promise of X. And from what I've seen, you only get a speed boost if you're using explicitly multi-threaded apps.

<a href="http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/art/edge/misc/a/quick_733_vs_867.html" target="_blank">Here's one example from MacSpeedZone.</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, read that article you linked to, it explicitly mentions all testing has taken place in OS 9.2.1.

Bye,
RazzFazz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › EE Times Joins The Speculation Frenzy