PowerMac idea Hmmm ???? how about a G5.3 ???

m.o.s.t

Ok we all know Apple is having a hard time getting to a G5 3.0 GHz



We know (as of now) the top speed is a dual G5 2.5 Ghz



We know: no matter the speed of the CPU, little things like system clock and other hardware management are going to slow down the G5 slightly



What is called "CPUhogTicks"

Mac OS has to always devote some processor speed to these little things- From what I understand, as much as 12%



We also know the newer the processor the more money it cost to make- for example using pricewatch.com here are some of the CPU prices



$759\t_-_\tXeon 3.6GHz 604

$520\t_-_\tXeon 3.4GHz 604

$419\t_-_\tXeon 3.2GHz 800FSB

$597\t_-_\tXeon 3.2GHz 533FSB 1MB

$305\t_-_\tXeon 3.0GHz 800FSB

$366\t_-_\tXeon 3.0GHz 533FSB 1MB

$294\t_-_\tXeon 3.0GHz 533FSB

$199\t_-_\tXeon 2.8GHz 800FSB

$246\t_-_\tXeon 2.8GHz 533FSB

$185\t_-_\tXeon 2.66GHz 533FSB

$169\t_-_\tXeon 2.4GHz 533FSB

$132\t_-_\tXeon 2.0GHz 533FSB

$305\t_-_\tXeon 3.0GHz

$199\t_-_\tXeon 2.8GHz

$165\t_-_\tXeon 2.6GHz

$165\t_-_\tXeon 2.4GHz

$89\t_-_\tXeon 2.2GHz

$69\t_-_\tXeon 2.0GHz

$78\t_-_\tXeon 1.8GHz

$48\t_-_\tXeon 1.7GHz

$49\t_-_\tXeon 1.5GHz



So here is the idea: (Dual G5... kinda???) With OSX -new programing- Take a blazing fast G5 2.5 GHz CPU - also have a CPU at 1/4 the speed(( 625 MHz.)) Both with 1.25GHz frontside bus ???



The 625 MHz chip would handle the hardware management aka wifi...bluetooh.....usb2.0....firewire....modem port....keyboard...system clock



The 2.5 GHz chip would be able to focus on the program(s) being used



I would guess the G5 2.5 GHz chip cost something around what the Xeon 3.6GHz 604 (750$)



I would guess a 650MHz chip would cost at the most (1/4 of the price of the G5 2.5 Chip or 187$ -but i'm going to say 150$



So (if this idea would really work) for just a 150$ part we could see a "12%" speed bost?



Or.... How about a 3 CPU system

TWO G5 2.5GHz chips and one 650MHz chip

tht

Apple can simply gain that much by supporting PC4200 or PC2-5300 memory, faster graphics cards, and optimizing the graphics drivers.

ipodandimac

MOST: have you heard of core image? in tiger, the GPU will handle many things so the CPU can do whatever. And my dual 2.5 is fast--dont complain unless you've used one. I'd put mine up against ANYTHING with a Xeon or whatever.

cubist

And by the time you have all the supporting logic for a second CPU, I don't think you'd save a lot of money by putting in a slow chip. But who knows? I could buy a "dual-ready" 2.5 with a stinker CPU in one socket, then upgrade it later when I saved up some more bucks. Right now none of the PM G5's are upgradeable at all in the CPU department.

black dragon

Hi,



nice idea and all but incase you diden't know thats what multi core CPU's are going to do but each core at the same speed so you can have 1 extra core or 2 or 3 or 4 or even 10 each core taking of diffrent core processis or even operating systems.



and this year if all gose well we should see the first one of these processors

slughead

Quote:

Originally posted by ipodandimac

MOST: have you heard of core image? in tiger, the GPU will handle many things so the CPU can do whatever. And my dual 2.5 is fast--dont complain unless you've used one. I'd put mine up against ANYTHING with a Xeon or whatever.

I bet a dual opteron setup could beat the 2.5 G5 for less money.



I know opterons eat xeons for breakfast.



I agree with THT: Mac OS X needs to have better drivers, and maybe switch to a microkernel for that little extra boost.



Also, adopt some modern high end standards like faster RAM, PCI-Express, MORE THAN 2 HD SLOTS, and at least 1 more PCI slot (also express).



After owning a 2.5 for these past five months, I can say it does everything faster than I need it to. Now all it needs are more features.

myst

Just incase you were wondering about actual benches:



http://barefeats.com/g5c.html



That shows the dual 2.5 with a 3.06 xeon. Can't hurt at least...

programmer

Quote:

Originally posted by slughead

I bet a dual opteron setup could beat the 2.5 G5 for less money.

This is very dependent on the software you are running. The G5, Xeon, and Opteron are all roughly equivalent -- some are better at this, others are better at that. Often what else goes into the system determines which machine is better.

Quote:

I know opterons eat xeons for breakfast.

Again, that is not always true. Some tasks are ideal for the Xeon and they'll eat the Opterons alive. Other things turn the tables.

Quote:

I agree with THT: Mac OS X needs to have better drivers, and maybe switch to a microkernel for that little extra boost.

Certainly the OpenGL implementation needs work (possibly the drivers, possibly the OS level of OGL), but its not clear that the other drivers in the system are at fault. The OS has a couple of broadly used mutexes, and that is probably responsible for more bottlenecks than driver issues.



MacOS X is a microkernel, except that they've moved more code into the microkernel's address space to improve performance. A pure microkernel design tends to have more overhead, making it slower.

Quote:

Also, adopt some modern high end standards like faster RAM, PCI-Express, MORE THAN 2 HD SLOTS, and at least 1 more PCI slot (also express).

DDR400 is the fastest broadly used standard at the moment. In 6 months that will likely change, and at that point Apple will probably consider moving the PowerMacs up to the new standard. PCI-Express is much the same -- too new just yet and will likely show up in the next major PM rev. More HD bays is a valid and common request. Another slot is of questionable value since most people don't use all the existing ones as it is.... what are you putting in these slots that you need another? And do PCI-Express versions already exist of all those parts?

Quote:

After owning a 2.5 for these past five months, I can say it does everything faster than I need it to. Now all it needs are more features.

I suspect this is true of a lot of people. That's why Apple is flogging this as the year of HD -- they need something requiring lots of computing power that will sell more machines. Marketing needs something new that customers in general can identify with, rather than just more Photoshop benchmarks.

slughead

Quote:

Originally posted by Programmer

what are you putting in these slots that you need another?

1. GF FX U 6800 (1 AGP + 1 PCI)

2. Radeon 9200 (1 PCI) - 3rd monitor and TV

3. 100baseT Ethernet card (1 PCI) - I bog down my 1000baseT all the time, it's nice to surf the internet while serving files, and eventually I'll be running NAT on this thing.



Wishlist:

4. RAID-0 SATA Controller (1 PCI) - for external enclosure.

or

4. some sort of high end multimedia card (1 PCI)

Quote:

Originally posted by Programmer

And do PCI-Express versions already exist of all those parts?

Not for mac, but they need to start including at least 1 PCI-express slot so companies will actually build cards for them. You know that as well as I do.



If Apple does not include a PCI-Express slot in the next PM release, I assure you we will be left out of the next generation of video cards. There must be a significant base to sell to before a company releases a product.

mat79

dont compare the G5 Ghz to Intel's GHz. if you want to compare, use AMD's true GHz. (an AMD Athlon with 2GHz is Rated at 3000 and about as fast as an Intel 3 GHz)



so a G5 2.5 GHz isnt rally "slow". the fastest AMD CPU (Athlon 64 4000+) has only 2.40GHz, so i'd guess you could compare an G5 2.5 Ghz with this CPU.