Does this still have relevance? using smaller "G3" processors with altivec added on?
-walloo.
Do you mean something like that? Well, the main obstacle here is software; because of that, I think such a design is not more than wishful thinking. I don't say that desings like that are not coming, but it looks like it is too early. A quad processor configuration can be proved very efficient when running software written to distribute calculations and then rejoin the results, but for now this happens only in high performance computing applications where customised software is used and only when the nature of the problem allows to distribute the calculations in several processors.
We will see in 2004. Although I have trouble to believe that Apple will leave the current Powerbook line untouched (processor-wise) for 10 months or so from now, this cannot be ruled out since it happened again in the, not so distant, past (Pismo case). On the other hand, what could they do? Upgrade to 1.42, 1.33 and 1.25 GHz? This is meaningful only for the 12" Powerbook which would get a 25% boost. Use a new mobile processor (not the quad one), kept secret until then? I don't think so. Right now, it looks more probable the Powerbook line will stagnate (almost, with some bump in hard disk and/or graphics) until September/October 2004.
Maybe a dual G4 on a smaller fab process if the G5 isn't available to put into the Powerbooks anytime soon. I doubt Apple would do it simply because the power consumption would be astronomical for a laptop, and it would get very hot, and the battery would last all of 1 hour, unless you could turn one processor off.
Isn't all the software on Mac OS X built for multiple processors, because of the operating system is built for multiple processors...
I did not know, however, that the G3 was scalable in terms of processors the way the G4 and the G5 are. And of course, heat, heat heat... it would be muy caliente
Isn't all the software on Mac OS X built for multiple processors, because of the operating system is built for multiple processors...
It's not that simple. Certainly, MacOS X itself will benefit much from such an architecture for the reason you cite. As a result, you obtain a much more responsive system. And if you are running at the same time four processes on a quad processor system with each processor running at, say, 700 MHz, MacOS X will perfectly distribute the tasks to get the maximum benefit. It is something like having a 2800 MHz machine running in parallel the four processes and allocating about the same resources to each of them, without privileging some of them. But if you try to run one single process in the same configuration, but a process not designed to auto-distribute its calculations when several processors are present, then you wouldn't get more than a single 700 MHz processor running your process.
So, though such a processor + MacOS X configuration is very efficient in multi-processing, it would be a disaster in single-processing if the individual processors are not capable enough or if the single process cannot take advantage of more processors. Unless I am missing something here.
Comments
Originally posted by willywalloo
Does this still have relevance? using smaller "G3" processors with altivec added on?
-walloo.
Do you mean something like that? Well, the main obstacle here is software; because of that, I think such a design is not more than wishful thinking. I don't say that desings like that are not coming, but it looks like it is too early. A quad processor configuration can be proved very efficient when running software written to distribute calculations and then rejoin the results, but for now this happens only in high performance computing applications where customised software is used and only when the nature of the problem allows to distribute the calculations in several processors.
We will see in 2004. Although I have trouble to believe that Apple will leave the current Powerbook line untouched (processor-wise) for 10 months or so from now, this cannot be ruled out since it happened again in the, not so distant, past (Pismo case). On the other hand, what could they do? Upgrade to 1.42, 1.33 and 1.25 GHz? This is meaningful only for the 12" Powerbook which would get a 25% boost. Use a new mobile processor (not the quad one), kept secret until then? I don't think so. Right now, it looks more probable the Powerbook line will stagnate (almost, with some bump in hard disk and/or graphics) until September/October 2004.
Originally posted by mattyj
... it would get very hot, and the battery would last all of 1 hour, unless you could turn one processor off.
How about alternating processors to prevent heat build up during idle CPU time, and during portable operation?
I did not know, however, that the G3 was scalable in terms of processors the way the G4 and the G5 are. And of course, heat, heat heat... it would be muy caliente
Originally posted by Nebagakid
Isn't all the software on Mac OS X built for multiple processors, because of the operating system is built for multiple processors...
It's not that simple. Certainly, MacOS X itself will benefit much from such an architecture for the reason you cite. As a result, you obtain a much more responsive system. And if you are running at the same time four processes on a quad processor system with each processor running at, say, 700 MHz, MacOS X will perfectly distribute the tasks to get the maximum benefit. It is something like having a 2800 MHz machine running in parallel the four processes and allocating about the same resources to each of them, without privileging some of them. But if you try to run one single process in the same configuration, but a process not designed to auto-distribute its calculations when several processors are present, then you wouldn't get more than a single 700 MHz processor running your process.
So, though such a processor + MacOS X configuration is very efficient in multi-processing, it would be a disaster in single-processing if the individual processors are not capable enough or if the single process cannot take advantage of more processors. Unless I am missing something here.