Yeah, it's not like you can't just buy a dual P4 machine anymore. In fact, you can easily buy a dual P4 Xeon machine for probably less than a dual g4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the time you've outfitted something with feature parity (including free PCI slots afterward all upgrades, booting from FireWire, etc.) and equivalent guaranteed bandwidth for USB, FireWire, and Ethernet, added the auto-sensing 10/100/1000 Ethernet jack (which also senses when you're trying to use a conventional ethernet cable as a crossover, and compensates), and priced the Win XP Pro that you need to run Windows on a DP machine, I don't think it'll be much of a bargain.
Fact is, G4 processors are cooler and less expensive than Xeons, and the consumer version of OS X runs happily on two of them (Darwin can be compiled to support 8, and Mach supported up to 24, so Apple has room to grow here). They're a much more likely solution on the Mac side than on the Windows side.
Oh, and OS X has better SMP support than Windows or Linux.
Fact is, G4 processors are cooler and less expensive than Xeons, and the consumer version of OS X runs happily on two of them (Darwin can be compiled to support 8, and Mach supported up to 24, so Apple has room to grow here). They're a much more likely solution on the Mac side than on the Windows side.
Oh, and OS X has better SMP support than Windows or Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cooler, true, but not less expensive. A 2Ghz P4 Xeon is like $300. I also know the WinXP Home edition supports DP just like OSX.
OSX definitely has superior SMP support, but it's rather marginal.
Hopefully the next generation G4 will be optimized for dual-proc operation like the Xeons are. Intel tailored them for dual proc operations, i think it's called "NetBurst" architecture...the 400mhz bus speed helps to.
Adding more than 2 procs to a workstation has diminishing returns, usually it's only necessary on server machines that process a huge number of threads/users simutaneosly.
Cooler, true, but not less expensive. A 2Ghz P4 Xeon is like $300.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's better than I thought (oh, wait - they're cheap now because Intel's pushing the Itanic), but it's still more than a G4.
[quote]<strong>I also know the WinXP Home edition supports DP just like OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did this happen?
[quote]<strong>Hopefully the next generation G4 will be optimized for dual-proc operation like the Xeons are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only G4 that doesn't excel at MP is the 7450, which doesn't appear in any current Apple products (and which isn't that bad at MP, it's just not as good as the others). The 7400 kicked off the line with full MERSI support.
[quote]<strong>Intel tailored them for dual proc operations</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original G4 (MPC7400) was designed to be used in up to 8-processor configurations with no additional hardware.
[quote]<strong>Adding more than 2 procs to a workstation has diminishing returns, usually it's only necessary on server machines that process a huge number of threads/users simutaneosly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How efficient it is depends on a lot of things. Given that neither Windows threading nor Windows MP support is all that hot, and given that most Windows apps are barely threaded if they're threaded at all, your statement definitely holds true there. In OS X, it's less true, because the whole architecture is designed around SMP. Just to pick one example, the web browser OmniWeb 4.1 keeps over 20 threads going all by itself. OS X is also heavily threaded. Mac users have a tendency to keep lots and lots of apps running at once (the average number under OS 9, according to one survey, is somewhere around 10-12 - and OS 9's multi-anything performance is poor).
It's true that the average iMac user probably couldn't tell the difference between a 4 processor and an 8-processor machine, but it's also true that a Mac power user could, easily. Multiprocessor PCI cards(!) were popular power user accessories back in the days of the 604e, and many of those sported more than two processors.
Servers definitely benefit from SMP, as you say, and they also benefit from ample internal bandwidth, so I expect the Apple rackmounts to sport both. We'll see. In the meantime, I maintain that multiprocessing is a more common and more attractive proposition for Macs running OS X than it is for Windows on x86, and thus a viable solution to any real gap in performance introduced by Intel's marketing-driven approach to engineering.
Netburst architecture??? I thought that was the marketing buzzword Intel was using to introduce its full speed 256 kB L2 cache (way back when we were talking about PIII's, I might add).
400 Mhz system bus helps out? I was under the impression that was simply a measure so that their original system bus for the PIII did not go from woeful to absurdly woeful when in context of the CPU clock speeds. At about 1 Ghz, a PIII gets a hit of the memory about every 8 clock cycles. That's a long time for the CPU to have to wait if it's just whipped off a quick operation, has exhausted the L2, and is waiting for something new from main memory. So it's either twiddling its thumbs on short operations or doing just fine for heavier operations that happen to last 8 clock cycles.
In comes the 1.4 Ghz P4. So where a 133 Mhz system bus was getting kind of pokey for a PIII, it would be downright absurd for a P4 that is designed to scale to 3 Ghz and above. So in comes a QDR 100 Mhz system bus (400 effective). So they catch up a little bit- a hit of memory about every 4 clock cycles instead of 8. With the castrated caches of the 1st gen P4, it seems the least one can do to compensate for that issue alone (but can you imagine routine 4 clock cycle stall bubbles in a P4 execution pipeline? Not an ideal situation, I imagine.). Now we are talking 3 Ghz P4's by years end on a 533 Mhz system bus. Well that sounds good, but actually we are getting down to 1 memory hit every 6 clock cycles- getting awfully close to the PIII running on a 133 Mhz system bus again. Seems like with all the brunt the P4 offers, it deserves a 1 or 2 MB full speed cache and/or a 1.5+ Ghz system bus to really keep in line with where the "insane" clock speeds are at right now. Anything less is a compromised offering (maybe it does "OK" as it is now, but can you imagine what is really lurking inside there if it weren't hobbled by meager cache and system bus?).
Amorph, you concede too easily, your assesment is much better than you give yourself credit. I don't think you even need to get into feature parity and I/O to equalize Dual Xeon prices to DP 1Ghz prices, they're more expensive already.
G4s are cheaper and cooler and lower power than P4 xeons (and P4).
I'm no Apple apologist but as far as multi-CPU arrangements of 4 or more go, the price-performance edge rapidly shifts in favor of the PPC.
First let's deal with the cost issue for boxes we can buy right now. Anyone selling Dual Xeon boxes is doing so at a premium. They ain't cheaper than a DP 1Ghz, many cost a fair bit more. Granted they're probably scary fast, but they ain't cheap. (forget AMD for now) They require DP capable socket 601 boards, which aren't cheap, and they need XP-Pro (also not cheap, but pirateable if you're rolling your own). The costs quickly add up. It's more expensive than PowerMac, but it's also faster.
But the essential crux of Amorph's throw more PPC's at it solution is still quite valid. In fact, I'd say it's a compelling strategy given the PPC versus Xeon comparo.
4 1Ghz G4's @ 20watts dissapation each. 80 watts. It'll go comfortably in a QS size tower, with a strong but not prohibitively expensive PS.
4 2Ghz Xeons... AHAHHAHA!!! 75watts x 4 = 300 watts AHAHAHA!!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Not unless you have some jet turbine cooling fans and a HUGE PS and MoBo gussied up to deal with the power and heat requirements. It ain't happening. Even then, it certainly won't sit on your desk! And it only gets worse if you want to add more CPU's.
But that's making a false assumption that you could put MORE than TWO 'regular' Xeons in a box to begin with. YOU CAN'T. You need Xeon MP for that. Yep, Intel weenies everywhere take note: There are 3 desktop flavors of P4. Regular P4, Xeon P4 for dual configs, and Xeon MP for configs of 4 or more. Wanna guess how much those Xeon MP's cost? In March they were selling for $1177 for a 1.4w/512KB and over $3500 for a 1.6 w/1MB. Two months have passed, so prices are surely down, but even in a very generous estimate you're looking at $1000 dollars per chip!
Compare to the current G4 1Ghz at just a touch more for ALL FOUR CHIPS.
See a winner yet?
So what does Apple need to make this happen. Easy. Faster RAM and more of it. 4GB DDR266 would probably do the trick considering how well they've extended the life of SDR133. But what's more amazing, when you really think about it, is that using PPC's it could be done on a fairly conventional MoBo, in a regular ATX size case. Maybe the ultimate performance wouldn't be as good as if dual memory channels were thrown in but given the software and hardware integration, I bet they could do Powermac quads well before the law of diminishing returns kicked in, even on 4GB of DDR266. All, according to the magic calculator in my head, for no more than $1000 above a DP 1Ghz (excluding RAM allotment).
$4000 Powermac Quad anyone?
And that's using 300 dollar Ghz chips. Drop it down to $125 800's and you could start making comparatively affordable 4 ways right now.
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to get a life. Why are you even at AppleInsider if you won't let us speculate. Some of us are HERE to learn more about the computers we're using. If you can't deal with that, then you can leave!
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you, some sort of redneck? An arrogant techno-drone? A flea-brained sack 'o sh!t that knows it all?
[quote]Netburst architecture??? I thought that was the marketing buzzword Intel was using to introduce its full speed 256 kB L2 cache <hr></blockquote>
No, their full speed L2 cache is referred to as ATC, Advanced Transfer Cache.
Dual Xeon PCs are a lot of $$$ and are really not worth the price for most people. It's the dual Athlons that are interesting right now... you can get them a lot cheaper then a dual PPC system (but you would have to put up with XP Pro).
One thing to remember is that people are comparing the newest p4s and such to old apple hardware. We all know that Apple is going to release new hardware in a few short months. And, if Apple has been paying attention to the high-end user's complaints, it just might be something spectacular -- or at least usable
Yep, dual Xeons cost but perform. Dual Athlons also perform, and cost less. Neither one could really supply a relatively affordable quad or more solution.
But with the energy/heat ratings of the PPC and its cost for MP (greater than DP) capable parts, Apple's the only company really positioned to be able to offer a desktop quad in a reasonable enclosure and at a reasonable (pro) cost.
They just need more memory bandwidth and capacity to feed those 4 chips with. If they get DDR266 and 4GB capacity a quad would be possible. Maybe we'll see a quad server rack-mount.
That would certainly give Apple a space efficiency advantage. They could get twice the CPU's into the same space as comparable x86 racks.
<strong>Ok, my bad! So what is netburst then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel says it is:
[quote]Intel® NetBurst? micro-architecture
The NetBurst? micro-architecture delivers a number of new and innovative features including Hyper Pipelined Technology, 400 MHz System Bus, Execution Trace Cache, and Rapid Execution Engine. It also delivers a number of enhanced features, including Advanced Transfer Cache, Advanced Dynamic Execution, Enhanced Floating Point and Multimedia Unit, and Streaming SIMD Extensions 2.
Comments
<strong>
Yeah, it's not like you can't just buy a dual P4 machine anymore. In fact, you can easily buy a dual P4 Xeon machine for probably less than a dual g4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By the time you've outfitted something with feature parity (including free PCI slots afterward all upgrades, booting from FireWire, etc.) and equivalent guaranteed bandwidth for USB, FireWire, and Ethernet, added the auto-sensing 10/100/1000 Ethernet jack (which also senses when you're trying to use a conventional ethernet cable as a crossover, and compensates), and priced the Win XP Pro that you need to run Windows on a DP machine, I don't think it'll be much of a bargain.
Fact is, G4 processors are cooler and less expensive than Xeons, and the consumer version of OS X runs happily on two of them (Darwin can be compiled to support 8, and Mach supported up to 24, so Apple has room to grow here). They're a much more likely solution on the Mac side than on the Windows side.
Oh, and OS X has better SMP support than Windows or Linux.
<strong>
Fact is, G4 processors are cooler and less expensive than Xeons, and the consumer version of OS X runs happily on two of them (Darwin can be compiled to support 8, and Mach supported up to 24, so Apple has room to grow here). They're a much more likely solution on the Mac side than on the Windows side.
Oh, and OS X has better SMP support than Windows or Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cooler, true, but not less expensive. A 2Ghz P4 Xeon is like $300. I also know the WinXP Home edition supports DP just like OSX.
OSX definitely has superior SMP support, but it's rather marginal.
Hopefully the next generation G4 will be optimized for dual-proc operation like the Xeons are. Intel tailored them for dual proc operations, i think it's called "NetBurst" architecture...the 400mhz bus speed helps to.
Adding more than 2 procs to a workstation has diminishing returns, usually it's only necessary on server machines that process a huge number of threads/users simutaneosly.
<strong>
I also know the WinXP Home edition supports DP just like OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's XP PROFESSIONAL edition
The home edition only supports one cpu
<strong>
Cooler, true, but not less expensive. A 2Ghz P4 Xeon is like $300.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's better than I thought (oh, wait - they're cheap now because Intel's pushing the Itanic), but it's still more than a G4.
[quote]<strong>I also know the WinXP Home edition supports DP just like OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did this happen?
[quote]<strong>Hopefully the next generation G4 will be optimized for dual-proc operation like the Xeons are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only G4 that doesn't excel at MP is the 7450, which doesn't appear in any current Apple products (and which isn't that bad at MP, it's just not as good as the others). The 7400 kicked off the line with full MERSI support.
[quote]<strong>Intel tailored them for dual proc operations</strong><hr></blockquote>
The original G4 (MPC7400) was designed to be used in up to 8-processor configurations with no additional hardware.
[quote]<strong>Adding more than 2 procs to a workstation has diminishing returns, usually it's only necessary on server machines that process a huge number of threads/users simutaneosly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How efficient it is depends on a lot of things. Given that neither Windows threading nor Windows MP support is all that hot, and given that most Windows apps are barely threaded if they're threaded at all, your statement definitely holds true there. In OS X, it's less true, because the whole architecture is designed around SMP. Just to pick one example, the web browser OmniWeb 4.1 keeps over 20 threads going all by itself. OS X is also heavily threaded. Mac users have a tendency to keep lots and lots of apps running at once (the average number under OS 9, according to one survey, is somewhere around 10-12 - and OS 9's multi-anything performance is poor).
It's true that the average iMac user probably couldn't tell the difference between a 4 processor and an 8-processor machine, but it's also true that a Mac power user could, easily. Multiprocessor PCI cards(!) were popular power user accessories back in the days of the 604e, and many of those sported more than two processors.
Servers definitely benefit from SMP, as you say, and they also benefit from ample internal bandwidth, so I expect the Apple rackmounts to sport both. We'll see. In the meantime, I maintain that multiprocessing is a more common and more attractive proposition for Macs running OS X than it is for Windows on x86, and thus a viable solution to any real gap in performance introduced by Intel's marketing-driven approach to engineering.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
400 Mhz system bus helps out? I was under the impression that was simply a measure so that their original system bus for the PIII did not go from woeful to absurdly woeful when in context of the CPU clock speeds. At about 1 Ghz, a PIII gets a hit of the memory about every 8 clock cycles. That's a long time for the CPU to have to wait if it's just whipped off a quick operation, has exhausted the L2, and is waiting for something new from main memory. So it's either twiddling its thumbs on short operations or doing just fine for heavier operations that happen to last 8 clock cycles.
In comes the 1.4 Ghz P4. So where a 133 Mhz system bus was getting kind of pokey for a PIII, it would be downright absurd for a P4 that is designed to scale to 3 Ghz and above. So in comes a QDR 100 Mhz system bus (400 effective). So they catch up a little bit- a hit of memory about every 4 clock cycles instead of 8. With the castrated caches of the 1st gen P4, it seems the least one can do to compensate for that issue alone (but can you imagine routine 4 clock cycle stall bubbles in a P4 execution pipeline? Not an ideal situation, I imagine.). Now we are talking 3 Ghz P4's by years end on a 533 Mhz system bus. Well that sounds good, but actually we are getting down to 1 memory hit every 6 clock cycles- getting awfully close to the PIII running on a 133 Mhz system bus again. Seems like with all the brunt the P4 offers, it deserves a 1 or 2 MB full speed cache and/or a 1.5+ Ghz system bus to really keep in line with where the "insane" clock speeds are at right now. Anything less is a compromised offering (maybe it does "OK" as it is now, but can you imagine what is really lurking inside there if it weren't hobbled by meager cache and system bus?).
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
G4s are cheaper and cooler and lower power than P4 xeons (and P4).
I'm no Apple apologist but as far as multi-CPU arrangements of 4 or more go, the price-performance edge rapidly shifts in favor of the PPC.
First let's deal with the cost issue for boxes we can buy right now. Anyone selling Dual Xeon boxes is doing so at a premium. They ain't cheaper than a DP 1Ghz, many cost a fair bit more. Granted they're probably scary fast, but they ain't cheap. (forget AMD for now) They require DP capable socket 601 boards, which aren't cheap, and they need XP-Pro (also not cheap, but pirateable if you're rolling your own). The costs quickly add up. It's more expensive than PowerMac, but it's also faster.
But the essential crux of Amorph's throw more PPC's at it solution is still quite valid. In fact, I'd say it's a compelling strategy given the PPC versus Xeon comparo.
4 1Ghz G4's @ 20watts dissapation each. 80 watts. It'll go comfortably in a QS size tower, with a strong but not prohibitively expensive PS.
4 2Ghz Xeons... AHAHHAHA!!! 75watts x 4 = 300 watts AHAHAHA!!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Not unless you have some jet turbine cooling fans and a HUGE PS and MoBo gussied up to deal with the power and heat requirements. It ain't happening. Even then, it certainly won't sit on your desk! And it only gets worse if you want to add more CPU's.
But that's making a false assumption that you could put MORE than TWO 'regular' Xeons in a box to begin with. YOU CAN'T. You need Xeon MP for that. Yep, Intel weenies everywhere take note: There are 3 desktop flavors of P4. Regular P4, Xeon P4 for dual configs, and Xeon MP for configs of 4 or more. Wanna guess how much those Xeon MP's cost? In March they were selling for $1177 for a 1.4w/512KB and over $3500 for a 1.6 w/1MB. Two months have passed, so prices are surely down, but even in a very generous estimate you're looking at $1000 dollars per chip!
Compare to the current G4 1Ghz at just a touch more for ALL FOUR CHIPS.
See a winner yet?
So what does Apple need to make this happen. Easy. Faster RAM and more of it. 4GB DDR266 would probably do the trick considering how well they've extended the life of SDR133. But what's more amazing, when you really think about it, is that using PPC's it could be done on a fairly conventional MoBo, in a regular ATX size case. Maybe the ultimate performance wouldn't be as good as if dual memory channels were thrown in but given the software and hardware integration, I bet they could do Powermac quads well before the law of diminishing returns kicked in, even on 4GB of DDR266. All, according to the magic calculator in my head, for no more than $1000 above a DP 1Ghz (excluding RAM allotment).
$4000 Powermac Quad anyone?
And that's using 300 dollar Ghz chips. Drop it down to $125 800's and you could start making comparatively affordable 4 ways right now.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
You need to get a life. Why are you even at AppleInsider if you won't let us speculate. Some of us are HERE to learn more about the computers we're using. If you can't deal with that, then you can leave!
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you, some sort of redneck? An arrogant techno-drone? A flea-brained sack 'o sh!t that knows it all?
Whatever...
No, their full speed L2 cache is referred to as ATC, Advanced Transfer Cache.
One thing to remember is that people are comparing the newest p4s and such to old apple hardware. We all know that Apple is going to release new hardware in a few short months. And, if Apple has been paying attention to the high-end user's complaints, it just might be something spectacular -- or at least usable
But with the energy/heat ratings of the PPC and its cost for MP (greater than DP) capable parts, Apple's the only company really positioned to be able to offer a desktop quad in a reasonable enclosure and at a reasonable (pro) cost.
They just need more memory bandwidth and capacity to feed those 4 chips with. If they get DDR266 and 4GB capacity a quad would be possible. Maybe we'll see a quad server rack-mount.
That would certainly give Apple a space efficiency advantage. They could get twice the CPU's into the same space as comparable x86 racks.
<strong>Ok, my bad! So what is netburst then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel says it is:
[quote]Intel® NetBurst? micro-architecture
The NetBurst? micro-architecture delivers a number of new and innovative features including Hyper Pipelined Technology, 400 MHz System Bus, Execution Trace Cache, and Rapid Execution Engine. It also delivers a number of enhanced features, including Advanced Transfer Cache, Advanced Dynamic Execution, Enhanced Floating Point and Multimedia Unit, and Streaming SIMD Extensions 2.
<hr></blockquote>
See glossary entry at <a href="http://www.intel.com/home/glossary/body.htm#net_mic_arc"; target="_blank">http://www.intel.com/home/glossary/body.htm#net_mic_arc</a>;