Besides anything else, four processors will *never* go in that case.
Quite obviously there would have to be a different case. Especially as people are also talking about more RAM and I/O accessories. With the extra room required for the extended motherboard it wouldn't be that hard to fit a few extra HD/OD 's in. Probably be looking at around 50% larger case.
One thing to consider is that this sort of thing would be basically branching a different direction to a rack of a couple xServe dual G5, so you would have to think why someone would want this instead.
A larger case could kill two birds with one stone. Allow the quad case to have more drive bays, but also sell a dual version for more than the equivalent dual in the smaller case.
That gives users a lower priced 'mini-Tower' with little internal expandibility, or a full tower option. We could then lock all of the threads talking about optical drive expansion.
Come to think of it, the quad would also end the SPEC arguments too. Damn. Apple should do it!
A larger case could kill two birds with one stone. Allow the quad case to have more drive bays, but also sell a dual version for more than the equivalent dual in the smaller case.
That gives users a lower priced 'mini-Tower' with little internal expandibility, or a full tower option. We could then lock all of the threads talking about optical drive expansion.
Come to think of it, the quad would also end the SPEC arguments too. Damn. Apple should do it!
Or more likely, it would require die shrunk G5's. This would help solve the heat problem. A larger case would be greatly appreciated by those with some true Pro needs!
Or more likely, it would require die shrunk G5's. This would help solve the heat problem. A larger case would be greatly appreciated by those with some true Pro needs!
Well yes, a cooler G5 would be the easiest solution.
I didn't read any posts inside the thread I'm just responding to the title. Sorry, but I'm in a hurry.
Quote:
Would you pay $4500 for a quad 2GHz G5?
It all depends on the performance. IMO I don't think a Quad Xeon is worth the price hike over a Dual Xeon $$$$ == Performance = NO!
The differences between a quad , and dual Xeon is not that great, but if the differences between a dual, and a quad 970 were just flipping mind blowing then of course. I would buy one, but the chances of it happening are slim.
make sure you check with your girlfriend/sig other first...
as for the vast majority of tasks a quad CPU mac would be put to - 99.9% would be better served (no pun intended) $ for $ with a cluster of cheaper machines... in addition - if a machine in a cluster needs a reboot/part swap, the other machine(s) can take the load off of the down system, a single machine with 4 procs would require down time and a total break in service...
so what would these tasks be, and could they be run on a cluster?
3d renders - yes
video renders - yes
compiles - yes
databases - yes
file servers - yes
assuming the motivation is HPC tasks (high performance computing), really - who here has something that MUST be run on a single shared address space multiprocessor machine? (not totally rhetorical - I'd be interested to know) - of these tasks, are they threaded to run on multiple processors?
clusters seem like the answer, and with a little clustering middle-ware work, apple could create clusters that behave just like a single machine... besides - racks look sweet...
make sure you check with your girlfriend/sig other first...
as for the vast majority of tasks a quad CPU mac would be put to - 99.9% would be better served (no pun intended) $ for $ with a cluster of cheaper machines... in addition - if a machine in a cluster needs a reboot/part swap, the other machine(s) can take the load off of the down system, a single machine with 4 procs would require down time and a total break in service...
so what would these tasks be, and could they be run on a cluster?
3d renders - yes
video renders - yes
compiles - yes
databases - yes
file servers - yes
assuming the motivation is HPC tasks (high performance computing), really - who here has something that MUST be run on a single shared address space multiprocessor machine? (not totally rhetorical - I'd be interested to know) - of these tasks, are they threaded to run on multiple processors?
clusters seem like the answer, and with a little clustering middle-ware work, apple could create clusters that behave just like a single machine... besides - racks look sweet...
Yeah, you probably could cluster most of that stuff. OTOH, the G5's FSB is a lot faster than ethernet.
I would pay $4500, but the questin would be if I ever have that much to spend on a computer w/o a monitor. Wow it's good to be back from vacation, and seeing the G5s was awesome, but I have to say that Apple needs to have a G5 with an Apple display for under $2000. Even if you have to drop the superdrive out. But back to the topic, I would just so I can say "I have a freakin supercomputer on my desk, without the water cooling!"
How much power are we talking about here? What could a quad 2 ghz handle?
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.
sounds like you need a traperkeeper (southpark refrence...guess it doesn't make sense unless you've seen taht episode)
This beast will require a very huge box and a power alimentation of at least 700 watts ( i suspect that the G5 dual has a power supply of 450 VA).
A much better solution will be G5 rack, with a good clustered connection of 2 GB/sec via the PCI-X card, or why not a link by HT between each rack (an article said that HT was able to make connection at more than half meter distance, and the distance between two racks is smaller).
Comments
Originally posted by Clive
Besides anything else, four processors will *never* go in that case.
Quite obviously there would have to be a different case. Especially as people are also talking about more RAM and I/O accessories. With the extra room required for the extended motherboard it wouldn't be that hard to fit a few extra HD/OD 's in. Probably be looking at around 50% larger case.
One thing to consider is that this sort of thing would be basically branching a different direction to a rack of a couple xServe dual G5, so you would have to think why someone would want this instead.
That gives users a lower priced 'mini-Tower' with little internal expandibility, or a full tower option. We could then lock all of the threads talking about optical drive expansion.
Come to think of it, the quad would also end the SPEC arguments too. Damn. Apple should do it!
Originally posted by bunge
We could then lock all of the threads talking about optical drive expansion.
Q: What was the driving reason behind your release of the new QuadProcessor PowerMacs?
A: Well.. Apple Insider was generating a few to many threads regaring the lack of extra optical drive bays and we simply couldn't have that..
Originally posted by bunge
A larger case could kill two birds with one stone. Allow the quad case to have more drive bays, but also sell a dual version for more than the equivalent dual in the smaller case.
That gives users a lower priced 'mini-Tower' with little internal expandibility, or a full tower option. We could then lock all of the threads talking about optical drive expansion.
Come to think of it, the quad would also end the SPEC arguments too. Damn. Apple should do it!
Or more likely, it would require die shrunk G5's. This would help solve the heat problem. A larger case would be greatly appreciated by those with some true Pro needs!
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Or more likely, it would require die shrunk G5's. This would help solve the heat problem. A larger case would be greatly appreciated by those with some true Pro needs!
Well yes, a cooler G5 would be the easiest solution.
Would you pay $4500 for a quad 2GHz G5?
It all depends on the performance. IMO I don't think a Quad Xeon is worth the price hike over a Dual Xeon $$$$ == Performance = NO!
The differences between a quad , and dual Xeon is not that great, but if the differences between a dual, and a quad 970 were just flipping mind blowing then of course. I would buy one, but the chances of it happening are slim.
And people say AO is silly...
Originally posted by Anders
I would buy a 25 inch dick in a heart beat.
And people say AO is silly...
make sure you check with your girlfriend/sig other first...
as for the vast majority of tasks a quad CPU mac would be put to - 99.9% would be better served (no pun intended) $ for $ with a cluster of cheaper machines... in addition - if a machine in a cluster needs a reboot/part swap, the other machine(s) can take the load off of the down system, a single machine with 4 procs would require down time and a total break in service...
so what would these tasks be, and could they be run on a cluster?
3d renders - yes
video renders - yes
compiles - yes
databases - yes
file servers - yes
assuming the motivation is HPC tasks (high performance computing), really - who here has something that MUST be run on a single shared address space multiprocessor machine? (not totally rhetorical - I'd be interested to know) - of these tasks, are they threaded to run on multiple processors?
clusters seem like the answer, and with a little clustering middle-ware work, apple could create clusters that behave just like a single machine... besides - racks look sweet...
Originally posted by grad student
make sure you check with your girlfriend/sig other first...
Excatly my point.
Half the people voted yes. And some even talk about eight processors. And they would not feel a difference in use...
Once it was cars. Now its computers...
Originally posted by grad student
make sure you check with your girlfriend/sig other first...
as for the vast majority of tasks a quad CPU mac would be put to - 99.9% would be better served (no pun intended) $ for $ with a cluster of cheaper machines... in addition - if a machine in a cluster needs a reboot/part swap, the other machine(s) can take the load off of the down system, a single machine with 4 procs would require down time and a total break in service...
so what would these tasks be, and could they be run on a cluster?
3d renders - yes
video renders - yes
compiles - yes
databases - yes
file servers - yes
assuming the motivation is HPC tasks (high performance computing), really - who here has something that MUST be run on a single shared address space multiprocessor machine? (not totally rhetorical - I'd be interested to know) - of these tasks, are they threaded to run on multiple processors?
clusters seem like the answer, and with a little clustering middle-ware work, apple could create clusters that behave just like a single machine... besides - racks look sweet...
Yeah, you probably could cluster most of that stuff. OTOH, the G5's FSB is a lot faster than ethernet.
Originally posted by iSegway
How much power are we talking about here? What could a quad 2 ghz handle?
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.
sounds like you need a traperkeeper (southpark refrence...guess it doesn't make sense unless you've seen taht episode)
power alimentation :
- 4 power G5 dual : 400 watts
- AGP 8 X pro : 75 watts
- PCI : 25 watts each : 75 watts
- Firewire, USB 2
- HD : two ?
- fans
- DVD burner
- audio
This beast will require a very huge box and a power alimentation of at least 700 watts ( i suspect that the G5 dual has a power supply of 450 VA).
A much better solution will be G5 rack, with a good clustered connection of 2 GB/sec via the PCI-X card, or why not a link by HT between each rack (an article said that HT was able to make connection at more than half meter distance, and the distance between two racks is smaller).
Originally posted by Scott
I wouldn't. I don't need that kind of power.
Same for me. Of course, that doesn't mean I hate the idea of a quad G5 box. If Apple finds enough buyers, they may start making such beasts.
Originally posted by costique
Same for me. Of course, that doesn't mean I hate the idea of a quad G5 box. If Apple finds enough buyers, they may start making such beasts.
I guess the thread question is answered by that , but the real question is: Is it worth it for Apple, and us?? Answer = NO.
It's pointless IMO .