<strong>the g4 has 1 GB/s bandwidth with a 133 Mhz bus does that mean a 166 Mhz bus will scale to 1.3 GB/s or is there some overhead.
The 1.7 Ghz Xeon has a 3.2 GB/s theoretical Bus limit but only can obtain about 1.7 GB/s for Integer and FP streams. Is there similar info available for the G4 MPX bus??</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is much more to the new Xenon's than just the 3.2 GB/s memory throughput. I just ordered a new Dell server that has the 400Mhz fontside bus with interleaved DDR memory. Gotta keep those Xenon's fed data ;-)
<strong>Oh really? ? Do tell. Apparently the site concerned even had the name of the 'Apple Man' that said it. Which adds some substance to this rumour. Though his name is mysteriously no longer there..? (The Apple Mafia discreetly wading in?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I assure you I'm as confused and in the dark as virtually everybody else right now. I just really had nothing to say
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.
It was a 733 at the time, I think. Since then the disparity has got much worse. It'll take more than a DDR dual 1.2 G4 to convince me Apple's taking it's overpriced 'power'Mac range seriously. If it's on hypertransport perhaps? If there's a dramatic mhz swing? IF there's an add fpu to keep the lonely fpu happy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G4s have some problems from a desktop PC point of view and in fact one of the bits of software that I saw written recently ran about half the speed on a G4 than it did on the PIVs.
A lot of the poor performance in that case lied within the memory bandwidth though and some issues with OS X. A great deal of the fault with the G4 lies with the fact that it has really never been seriously targeted at the desktop market since it stalled.
The chip itself has potential though and Motorola has been making inroads in developing it for a desktop PC market.
The following is excerpts from Motorola's SEC filing regarding PC market business "...The personal computer market is maturing, and is dominated by a single well-entrenched competitor, providing little opportunity for us..." Motorola lost interest in PC markets, they have more advantage in embeded market than in PC market. Apple is a major end-customer in SPS business,but account for less than 10% of SPS sector revenue.MOT won't give up Apple.MOT will make a balance. Higher BUS speed is good for PC but not
Power Macs are used by companies, schools and individuals with money to buy up-to-date software, or licences where they get the latest software.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....
<strong>It seems everyone has a pet hardware gizmo that is a must have, but what can really be expected?
If Apple is buying up all the video production software companies and they are "Going After Hollywood" what sort of hardware would be needed to beat the pants off of Intel based hardware? Are XServes usable as render farm components? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I propose a cheap AMD/Intel is better for that (render farms), so what sort of desktop would be needed from Apple?
It makes no sense to get agressive in video production without having agressive showing in video production speed. So, what is the minimum hardware that can beat anything else on the scene in that market? (Hardware guys please speculate!)
I'm not expecting such a machine in July, but it would make sense to have something ready after Jaguar's release.
I believe Xserves are usable as renderfarm components. They can be used for alot more than just Webservers and apache machines.
What makes the Xserve and macs in general great is that the dual configs work very well.
after using several dual Athlon and Pentium systems i can safely say they are a mother ****ing bitch to try and get to work well, not only are they unstable but the dual athlon config produces a **** load of heat.
Xserve claims 1 GB/s CPU to System Controller (new implementation according to Apple to support DDR RAM) so there is definately some different mobo mojo going on in there.
Add some FireWire 2 and maybe true DDR RAM support and the new desktop should really unleash some G4 power on yo' ass.
FWIW I don't believe the French rumor of the G5 timetable and production location (France? Uh, okay...). Prolly just some smokescreen, someone trying to get their name in the rumor sites or a really really misinformed Apple guy who is prolly gonna be looking for a new job Monday.
Dorsal has tested a lot of neat stuff in the last couple of years and DNA has been revealed but Apple don't feel like releasing any new stuff because the economy is stuffed.
Sorry for the long haitus, but it has been quite busy here. We are in final testing phases of our Apple hardware and there has been an excitement in the air. I believe many of you will be pleasantly surprised with the hardware to be released, and after seeing some other sites, I'd like to remind you all that behind most rumors is a kernel of truth, despite the fact that some sites like to embelish on the tidbit they get. Without further ado...
The PowerMac G4 as we know it will be retired. Well the architecture will at least. We will see changes to the system bus, processor and general layout. Motorola has been hard at work with the 130nm G4. It will scale nicely (at least 1.5GHz by the summer) and have improved bus features. Memory access will be stellar. And you'll see why. not only will DDR SDRAM make a debut but it will not connect to the processor iin a conventional manner. More to come. Cache will also be increased on the processor level. Twice what is seen now. You will see a collaboration with another hardware company, but this will not surprise some of you in the know.
posted 06-17-2002 10:58 AM
There will be an e500 core based desktop processor based on Apple's requirements. The e500 core is a 7 stage pipeline design very similar to the 7455 core (they both get about 2300MIPS). The execution units are very similar, in quantity and performance. There is an Altivec add on built for the e500. Apple's implimentation has dual RIO ports and a memory controller. The interconnect is the e500 native OCEAN and this is a wide/fast bus, only for on die interconnects. Multiprocessing in handled via RapidIO's 16 bit variant. It connects to a RapidIO hub (RIOH) that serves as the central hub for various RIO devices, such as peripheral controllers, PCI controllers, other PowerPC processors, network processors, etc. The hub controls the bit width and frequency, and this is determined by the distance from the hub (trace length). If both processors are proximate to the RIOH then you can have them connect at a low overhead 16bit wide RIO tunnel at a 2GHz freqency. To connect to a PCI controller you can keep the 16 bit wide port or if pin out is an issue you may need to drop it to 8 bit and run it at a lower frequency such as 500MHz. RIO is capable of over 7GBps bandwidth running at 16bit.
The beauty of Book E is the modularity. The way Motorola designed it was so a customer can pick and choose the components. this was as long as the customer had the money to spend as I imagine this is not an inexpensive proposistion. But it is an ideal solution for Apple. They can choose the size of the L2 cache, number of e500 cores, kind of memory controllers available, if they wanted a PCI controller also embedded... And rumor is that e500 core will soon be joined by another high performance core. </strong><hr></blockquote>
you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....
Whatever. People who can afford new Power Macs can afford updated software to go with them, thats all I said.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.
<strong>Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.
This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>the g4 has 1 GB/s bandwidth with a 133 Mhz bus does that mean a 166 Mhz bus will scale to 1.3 GB/s or is there some overhead.
The 1.7 Ghz Xeon has a 3.2 GB/s theoretical Bus limit but only can obtain about 1.7 GB/s for Integer and FP streams. Is there similar info available for the G4 MPX bus??</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is much more to the new Xenon's than just the 3.2 GB/s memory throughput. I just ordered a new Dell server that has the 400Mhz fontside bus with interleaved DDR memory. Gotta keep those Xenon's fed data ;-)
Like, it outlines the area behind the icon and blurs what is inside
this is future hardware, right>?
<strong>Oh really?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I assure you I'm as confused and in the dark as virtually everybody else right now. I just really had nothing to say
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.
It was a 733 at the time, I think. Since then the disparity has got much worse. It'll take more than a DDR dual 1.2 G4 to convince me Apple's taking it's overpriced 'power'Mac range seriously. If it's on hypertransport perhaps? If there's a dramatic mhz swing? IF there's an add fpu to keep the lonely fpu happy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G4s have some problems from a desktop PC point of view and in fact one of the bits of software that I saw written recently ran about half the speed on a G4 than it did on the PIVs.
A lot of the poor performance in that case lied within the memory bandwidth though and some issues with OS X. A great deal of the fault with the G4 lies with the fact that it has really never been seriously targeted at the desktop market since it stalled.
The chip itself has potential though and Motorola has been making inroads in developing it for a desktop PC market.
for embeded product.
<strong>It's going to happen someday.
Power Macs are used by companies, schools and individuals with money to buy up-to-date software, or licences where they get the latest software.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</p>
<strong>It seems everyone has a pet hardware gizmo that is a must have, but what can really be expected?
If Apple is buying up all the video production software companies and they are "Going After Hollywood" what sort of hardware would be needed to beat the pants off of Intel based hardware? Are XServes usable as render farm components? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I propose a cheap AMD/Intel is better for that (render farms), so what sort of desktop would be needed from Apple?
It makes no sense to get agressive in video production without having agressive showing in video production speed. So, what is the minimum hardware that can beat anything else on the scene in that market? (Hardware guys please speculate!)
I'm not expecting such a machine in July, but it would make sense to have something ready after Jaguar's release.
Please comment!
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe Xserves are usable as renderfarm components. They can be used for alot more than just Webservers and apache machines.
What makes the Xserve and macs in general great is that the dual configs work very well.
after using several dual Athlon and Pentium systems i can safely say they are a mother ****ing bitch to try and get to work well, not only are they unstable but the dual athlon config produces a **** load of heat.
Add some FireWire 2 and maybe true DDR RAM support and the new desktop should really unleash some G4 power on yo' ass.
FWIW I don't believe the French rumor of the G5 timetable and production location (France? Uh, okay...). Prolly just some smokescreen, someone trying to get their name in the rumor sites or a really really misinformed Apple guy who is prolly gonna be looking for a new job Monday.
If he can navigate past his concrete 'shoes'...
Lemon Bon Bon
-Boss Nass
<strong>FWIW I don't believe the French rumor of the G5 timetable and production location (France? Uh, okay...).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why the skepticism about France? AMD's monster fab is in Germany...
<strong>
Why the skepticism about France? AMD's monster fab is in Germany...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cost issue?
Let's hear something more Dorsal (M) !
It's gonna be a long three weeks...
<strong> BIG BUMP!!!
Let's hear something more Dorsal (M) !
It's gonna be a long three weeks...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I second the motion!
Pleeeease?
thanks
<strong>Could someone give me a summary of what Dorsal, or whatever has been discussed in this thread?
Pleeeease?
thanks
OK, Here ya go, Dorsal M's posts on this thread.
[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>posted 06-14-2002 05:06 PM
Sorry for the long haitus, but it has been quite busy here. We are in final testing phases of our Apple hardware and there has been an excitement in the air. I believe many of you will be pleasantly surprised with the hardware to be released, and after seeing some other sites, I'd like to remind you all that behind most rumors is a kernel of truth, despite the fact that some sites like to embelish on the tidbit they get. Without further ado...
The PowerMac G4 as we know it will be retired. Well the architecture will at least. We will see changes to the system bus, processor and general layout. Motorola has been hard at work with the 130nm G4. It will scale nicely (at least 1.5GHz by the summer) and have improved bus features. Memory access will be stellar. And you'll see why. not only will DDR SDRAM make a debut but it will not connect to the processor iin a conventional manner. More to come. Cache will also be increased on the processor level. Twice what is seen now. You will see a collaboration with another hardware company, but this will not surprise some of you in the know.
posted 06-17-2002 10:58 AM
There will be an e500 core based desktop processor based on Apple's requirements. The e500 core is a 7 stage pipeline design very similar to the 7455 core (they both get about 2300MIPS). The execution units are very similar, in quantity and performance. There is an Altivec add on built for the e500. Apple's implimentation has dual RIO ports and a memory controller. The interconnect is the e500 native OCEAN and this is a wide/fast bus, only for on die interconnects. Multiprocessing in handled via RapidIO's 16 bit variant. It connects to a RapidIO hub (RIOH) that serves as the central hub for various RIO devices, such as peripheral controllers, PCI controllers, other PowerPC processors, network processors, etc. The hub controls the bit width and frequency, and this is determined by the distance from the hub (trace length). If both processors are proximate to the RIOH then you can have them connect at a low overhead 16bit wide RIO tunnel at a 2GHz freqency. To connect to a PCI controller you can keep the 16 bit wide port or if pin out is an issue you may need to drop it to 8 bit and run it at a lower frequency such as 500MHz. RIO is capable of over 7GBps bandwidth running at 16bit.
The beauty of Book E is the modularity. The way Motorola designed it was so a customer can pick and choose the components. this was as long as the customer had the money to spend as I imagine this is not an inexpensive proposistion. But it is an ideal solution for Apple. They can choose the size of the L2 cache, number of e500 cores, kind of memory controllers available, if they wanted a PCI controller also embedded... And rumor is that e500 core will soon be joined by another high performance core. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure wish Dorsal would give us more info.
<strong>
you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever. People who can afford new Power Macs can afford updated software to go with them, thats all I said.
Barto
<strong>
Whatever. People who can afford new Power Macs can afford updated software to go with them, thats all I said.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.
<strong>Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.
<strong>
This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*sigh*. Sorry. You're right.