Would you pay $4500 for a quad 2GHz G5?
$1500 more than a dual 2 GHz G5. Same base specs as the current dual 2GHz.
Two more 2 GHz G5's would cost an extra $600-800.
The remaining $900-$700 would be margin that goes to recoup the development costs for making a 4 way Mobo. This would be a very lucrative machine for Apple.
Now mind you, I don't think that Apple will do this, though it would be cool. It would be cool because for one thing, the consumer (non server) licenses of Windows only go up to two CPUs. If you want a quad CPU license then you are have to shell out the real $$ for the server OS license. Apple could make a true ultimate Pro machine that Windows could not compete with simply because of MS license fees. Another reason would be that Apple could leverage the mobo in XServes, making for a moster XServe number cruncher.
Of course, the fact that it would radiate near 400W of heat would be a scary thing... it does open up quite a few after market possibilities (like G5 bread toasters). Time to wait for a die shrink.
Two more 2 GHz G5's would cost an extra $600-800.
The remaining $900-$700 would be margin that goes to recoup the development costs for making a 4 way Mobo. This would be a very lucrative machine for Apple.
Now mind you, I don't think that Apple will do this, though it would be cool. It would be cool because for one thing, the consumer (non server) licenses of Windows only go up to two CPUs. If you want a quad CPU license then you are have to shell out the real $$ for the server OS license. Apple could make a true ultimate Pro machine that Windows could not compete with simply because of MS license fees. Another reason would be that Apple could leverage the mobo in XServes, making for a moster XServe number cruncher.
Of course, the fact that it would radiate near 400W of heat would be a scary thing... it does open up quite a few after market possibilities (like G5 bread toasters). Time to wait for a die shrink.
Comments
Is it possible to make a quad with this system? And would that price be realistic?
I would like the range of the computer to be bigger. I want my computer to be able to incorperate every type of eletronic sytem imaginable and be able to do them all at once.
So if a quad would be needed to accomplish that, yes I would pay that price.
$4999 for Octo's
With all of the pre-emptive compiling and threading that is being slowly added to the OS, I can see alot of creative houses getting a few quads for designers that are basically workstations that can on-the-fly check each other's status for distributed computing. That could be very compelling versus having everyone linked to one xServe array. What you lose in stability and ease of management, you gain in flexibility and moving machines around as needed.
So heck yeah, I think Apple should build Quads and price them accordingly and convince companies like Pixar (should be easy) and Weta and others that Apple is into workstation quality for the long-haul (thanks to Big Blue in the background) and worth Switching.
Basically, you are paying $1500 for two more CPU's and a new motherboard. Apple's margins would be somewhere around 35% which is very high.
Originally posted by Producer
$3999 and I'm in
$4999 for Octo's
at $3999, you and most everyone else would be in.
Octo G5's?! 800 watts of heat coming out the back!? If we see any future machines with the codename "towering inferno", then we know what Apple is up to.
Originally posted by Bancho
If my work required that kind of power then $4500 seems cheap for a 4 CPU 64 bit workstation. What's a 4 way sparc run now?
Alot more than $4500, but it is a dedicated server machine, so the hardware is far superior to desktop level hardware. You can't really compare server prices to desktop prices (they are after all in very different markets). Servers must be much more reliable than desktops and so their components are much more expensive. $4500 would basically be an uber desktop.
But I could see it coming out around US$9,999.00 when I am done with my BTO version:
Quad 2.0GHz G5 64bit CPUs
Quad 1GHz FSBs
32GB DDR SDRAM (16 @ 2GB PC3200 DIMMs)
SuperDrive
S-ATA hardware RAID controller built-in to main logic board
Four (4) Serial ATA 150 HDDs (250GB/7,200rpm/8MB cache)
nVidia QuadroFX2000 AGP Pro 8x OpenGL card (400MHz RAMDAC/128MB DDR2 SGRAM/ADC port)
And that is without a monitor!
But I won't buy ANY new PowerMac G5 until Apple releases new monitors to match the Al housing...
Hopefully something in a 30" model...!
Quad G5, 30" ACD, Maya & Shake...
Mmm...
Looks like I need about US$25,000.00!!!
;^p
I know not all processes can be distributed, and just having the cheapest 64-bit 4-way system would be cool, but it might be too costly for Apple.
Originally posted by MacRonin
Looks like I need about US$25,000.00!!!
Yes, that is something of the problem. $4500 is a cheap box, but it would require significant modifications to become usable. Of course, when you are spending thousands of dollars on the software, what is a couple of thousand more for better hardware. I am constantly amazed at the users of the software product I work on who spend 20,000 for a copy of our software and then run it without enough RAM. What are they thinking? Then again, if you could spend an extra $1500 and get almost double the speed, then some users would want it.
The poll question was written to be intentionally misleading (in the marketing sense)- anyone who has Quad G5's would want at least two or four GB of RAM. $4500 is the price for a machine that has too much CPU horsepower and not enough HDD space. $4500 is the starting price and it would only get much more expensive.
This was back in the day of the 603 and 604 CPUs. G3's were unheard of. The Mac OS didn't do real multitasking. Most importantly, there were clones who were willing to do some strange things with Macs. In particular was Daystar who made the Genesis MP system. The machine had quad 604 CPU's. Now at Club Mac, we sold quite a few machines to people who were getting into video editing. These people had money, and it was very common for them to pay $7,000 for a high end machine. Because the Quicktime libraries were MP aware (well, sorta MP aware), Quicktime API calls were pretty quick (e.g. compressing/decompressing video). Now the rest of the OS was mostly MP braindead (except for Quickdraw 3D and probably some other stuff that nobody cared about). Despite the complete lack of useful MP support in the OS, people would buy dual CPU machines from Apple. People were extremely interested in the quad MP machines from daystar, but didn't want to buy them for several reasons:
They were too expensive. They were something like 7 grand.
FUD about Daystar. How long were these people going to be around? (not too long it turned out)
"I use quicktime alot, but not THAT much"- the fact that the OS didn't support multiple CPUs as it should have.
Well, if Apple came out with a quad machine, the FUD angle would not be present. Given OS X, a Mac now has the ability to really use more than one CPU. Finally, Apple won't have to stake the future of the company on the sales of high end powerMacs. I think that Apple could sell a quad G5 and that there is a market for it. Heck, there was a market years ago when all you could use it for was video editing (btw, that market hasn't shrunk). I think that it is time for Apple to let the PC world that when it comes to the desktop market, that it is not messing around. I think that it is time for Quad CPU's. Daystar showed that there were people who were darned interested in having a comparatively ridiculous level of CPU power, but that they didn't want to shell out a ridiculous ammount of money. People wanted quads, but generally settled for dual Apple machines out of a fear of Daystar. Apple should make a desktop machine that simply can't be competed with.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Octo G5's?! 800 watts of heat coming out the back!? If we see any future machines with the codename "towering inferno", then we know what Apple is up to.
when they get it down to .09 micron? If they could,
they could squeeze in two of those chips for a kick-ass
combined 12ghz of power!
And I don't buy in to the "we don't want not another Cube failure" argument, because I don't believe the Cube was a failure. I bet given the number they sold and the R&D they put in them, they probably broke close to even. That isn't a failure. Even if Quads only broke even, they would have the free publicity for having the only Quads in the prosumer market and they would have bragging rights to the REAL fastest computer on the market and Dell wouldn't have alot to say about it.
And in my mind distributed computing doesn't favor a rack of xServes running iMacs or 10 quad machines over a Rendesvous-ed network. Both could work fine depending upon the company's needs.
Originally posted by mello
Do you think IBM can get the 970 to a dual core chip
when they get it down to .09 micron? If they could,
they could squeeze in two of those chips for a kick-ass
combined 12ghz of power!
THAT is nice to think about.
Does anyone know if dealing with 4 chips with a point-to-point controler geometrically more difficult to design or is it just "twice" as more complex. The controler and the heat seem to be the only issues I see as needing extra R&D.