But I don't believe that there will be G5 beyond the 3 GHz mark.
Well, this is rumor central, but ...
Assuming Oct 12 is a PM/PB announcement instead of (e.g.) a video iPod, what is the likely configuration? In particular:
PCI Express or no?
Dual-core or dual-dual core, and at what speed?
New graphics boards? ATI Radeon x1300/1600/1800?
It would seem a significant step up for Apple to put out dual-dual core machines for not a lot more money. This suggest, to me, that (1) only highest-end gets 4x processors, or (2) there are dual-dual core even in the "mid-range" PM, but at a slower processor speed. After all, my understanding is Intel/AMD (unsure of details here) is putting out dual-core, but at lower clock speeds.
I'm counting on PCI-e...
And one would hope that the new Radeon cards would be available at least as a BTO. I understand the x1300 and x1800 are shipping, with the x1600 delayed?
Assuming Oct 12 is a PM/PB announcement instead of (e.g.) a video iPod, what is the likely configuration? In particular:
PCI Express or no?
Dual-core or dual-dual core, and at what speed?
New graphics boards? ATI Radeon x1300/1600/1800?
My prediction, assuming it is a PM/PB announcement:
1x2.2 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI
4 slot DDR2-533
ATI Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$1999
1x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$2499
2x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X700 or Nvidia equivalent
$2999
Options:
$400+ video card options
PCI-X FiberChannel, G-Ethernet cards
Quote:
It would seem a significant step up for Apple to put out dual-dual core machines for not a lot more money. This suggest, to me, that (1) only highest-end gets 4x processors, or (2) there are dual-dual core even in the "mid-range" PM, but at a slower processor speed.
4-way systems are specialist machines. Very few people would require them. So, by that alone, I think there will only be 1 dual-dual system.
I would be very interested to see a 1.8+ GHz Powerbook G5 system, but I'm doubting it. Maybe they'll pull it out of their hat a "year" late. Who knows.
"[B]My prediction, assuming it is a PM/PB announcement:
1x2.2 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI
4 slot DDR2-533
ATI Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$1999
1x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$2499
2x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X700 or Nvidia equivalent
$2999
Options:
$400+ video card options
PCI-X FiberChannel, G-Ethernet cards
4-way systems are specialist machines. Very few people would require them. So, by that alone, I think there will only be 1 dual-dual system."
On this Daystar of the modern day, how well will the Mac OS as it is now be able to take advantage of the hoped for 4 cpus?
Would the 4 cpu, or 2 dual core cpu be usable by such folks as use photoshop, or 3D programmes, or final cut pro, or avid software? That is, must the software programmers for the 3rd party software make changes for such modern type Daystars?
Or would the Mac OS make use such that various programmes would be advantaged?
I know there are folks in the sciences who have sought for the quad machines, I think some are using another unix as well as the Mac OS. There has been request for other graphics cards as well as the Radeon or the NVidia, too. How likely that is to happen I would not know, but there certainly are people who could use higher end graphics.
I reckon this question could be filed under an OS question, but since it directly would be part of future hardware, it seemed a good place to put it.
AMD showed some tests that two single core processors are still faster than a single dual core. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it'll be the same with IBM. IBM showed AMD how to accomplish a dual core processor to begin with.
Needless to say anyway, but I Think intel, and IBM have shown the same results. It's a little slower in some areas. It's a little faster in others, but those others don't actually matter performance wise. It's just stuff that happens naturally because of the cores being that close together, but it wasn't anything that actually translated to the outside world of the chip. It was more of an internal functioning thing.
Assuming this is near reality, exactly how does a single 2.5 970mp compare to current duals?
Well, in a straight-up comparison between the two, I'd guess it'd be about a 90% performance gain, because each one would take a slight hit for having to share a bus (if they do, which I can't say).
However, these processors each have twice the amount of cache per core as the current G5s (1MB vs 512Kb), so there's: twice as much cache per core, four times as much cache per chip and four times as much cache overall. Combined with DDR2, this should yield significant performance gains for the PowerMac, since "slow" memory reads (relative to cache) will be more infrequent, and will still be faster because they're now using DDR2. 8)
So given that, I'd imagine our performance gain might be 105% to 110% (being a little over twice as fast). These numbers are total BS. Anyway, I think these systems will be impressive given the smattering of predicted changes. However, we'll see what Apple has in store for us come next Wednesday...
Hopefully I'm not on too much crack! Rather, none at all!
Comparing to AMD may not be that rellevant. The G5 has a very fast bus but on the other hand high latencies in the north bridge. The AMD has an IBC with much lower latencies. The effect of the doubling of the L2 will depend both on these things as well how the OS is made as well as how any L2 to L2 traffic is implemented.
We will know when Apple release them. If there is a SP dual core version then the gain is substantial for dual cores. If they instead have a low end version that is dual CPU but with 1 MB L2 (as IBMs J20 blade server) the losses on a shared bus is more than the gain on the shared L2
Wow, that should be some upgrade for me coming from my dual gig
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Hmmm... I was thinking dual rig.
Quote:
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
The transition really should be as soon as possible. The sooner they put Conroe or Woodcrest into Power Macs, the better. But, if the announce new Power Macs this month, that could leave a product cycle of more than a year, before the Power Mac/Intel machines come. Long wait, so, maybe they can bump it a tad in 06.
The sooner they put Conroe or Woodcrest into Power Macs, the better. But, if the announce new Power Macs this month, that could leave a product cycle of more than a year, before the Power Mac/Intel machines come. Long wait, so, maybe they can bump it a tad in 06.
Unfortunatly, Conroe is not a multiprocessor chip so I don't believe it will go in any "PowerMac" but will fit well in any iMac or mid-range Mac.
Woodcrest will be dual-processor and multi-processor, those will go in the next-gen PowerMacs, end of 2006?
I agree it will be a long wait.
If 970mp PowerMacs are really announced next week, there will be room for a last (very last) update summer 2006.
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
Yes, the first Dual 1ghz quicksilvers(?) So it will be a hell of an upgrade? Awesome
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
I mean if a single 970mp 2.5ghz is even closely equal to the dual 2.7 ghz then upgrading from my 2 X 1ghz would be a sweet upgrade.
Unfortunatly, Conroe is not a multiprocessor chip so I don't believe it will go in any "PowerMac" but will fit well in any iMac or mid-range Mac.
Woodcrest will be dual-processor and multi-processor, those will go in the next-gen PowerMacs, end of 2006?
I agree it will be a long wait.
If 970mp PowerMacs are really announced next week, there will be room for a last (very last) update summer 2006.
Conroe is not SMP but it's a dual-core processor so it will indeed go into the Powermac lineup. I don't have dreams of Quad Proc Powermacs just yet.
Woodcrest will offer SMP procs meaning a two socket motherboard for Woodcrest = Quad procs. I look for the Xserve line to use Woodcrest single socket and perhaps dual socket motherboards.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the iMac go Dual-Core Yonah. iMac users don't need 64-bit processors.
I hope there is is a PowerMac upgrade next Wednesday.
For me, the wait is over. I'll buy a Dual Dual Core 2.5 if they have one.
It sounds like the processor speed may be similar for dual-core chips, so the benefits isn't there, but in less obvious (to me) ways.
I guess my question is whether the tighter integration, cache, data bandwidth etc are going to really add up to significant speedups for single-dual-core systems over existing dual-processor systems. The posts here suggests the improvements will be there, but may be modest. And - I still fear dual-dual-core will be over $3000 - too much for me, though I could use it.
Will the heating problem be any better or worse? Is dual-core a way to return to adequate air cooling for the highest-end systems?
It seems like video processing (unless you are in long-GOP MPEG2 editing) should be parallelizable, and so the more processors the better. Final Cut should be able to take advantage of those extra processors - along with the scientific (and visualization?) codes mentioned earlier.
This sounds like the processor speed may be similar for dual-core chips, so the benefits isn't there, but in less obvious (to me) ways.
I guess my question is whether the tighter integration, cache, data bandwidth etc are going to really add up to significant speedups for single-dual-core systems over existing dual-processor systems. The existing G5 has a frontside bus per processor; will the dual-core system be able to move data in and out of each processor as quickly? The posts here suggests the overall speedup will be there, but may be modest. And - I still fear dual-dual-core will be over $3000 - too much for me, though I could use it.
Will the heating problem be any better or worse? Is dual-core a way to return to adequate air cooling for the highest-end systems?
It seems like video processing (unless you are in long-GOP MPEG2 editing) should be parallelizable, and so the more processors the better. Final Cut should be able to take advantage of those extra processors - along with the scientific (and visualization?) codes mentioned earlier.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the iMac go Dual-Core Yonah. iMac users don't need 64-bit processors.
Adding x86-64 doesn't really complicate the processor too much, so if Apple can arrange for all of their production x86-Macs to have this capability it hugely simplifies the 32-bit to 64-bit transition: all x86 Macs would be able to run 64-bit software. There would be no need for 32bit vs. 64bit x86 binaries.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
But I don't believe that there will be G5 beyond the 3 GHz mark.
Well, this is rumor central, but ...
Assuming Oct 12 is a PM/PB announcement instead of (e.g.) a video iPod, what is the likely configuration? In particular:
PCI Express or no?
Dual-core or dual-dual core, and at what speed?
New graphics boards? ATI Radeon x1300/1600/1800?
It would seem a significant step up for Apple to put out dual-dual core machines for not a lot more money. This suggest, to me, that (1) only highest-end gets 4x processors, or (2) there are dual-dual core even in the "mid-range" PM, but at a slower processor speed. After all, my understanding is Intel/AMD (unsure of details here) is putting out dual-core, but at lower clock speeds.
I'm counting on PCI-e...
And one would hope that the new Radeon cards would be available at least as a BTO. I understand the x1300 and x1800 are shipping, with the x1600 delayed?
Originally posted by bjewett
Assuming Oct 12 is a PM/PB announcement instead of (e.g.) a video iPod, what is the likely configuration? In particular:
PCI Express or no?
Dual-core or dual-dual core, and at what speed?
New graphics boards? ATI Radeon x1300/1600/1800?
My prediction, assuming it is a PM/PB announcement:
1x2.2 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI
4 slot DDR2-533
ATI Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$1999
1x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$2499
2x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X700 or Nvidia equivalent
$2999
Options:
$400+ video card options
PCI-X FiberChannel, G-Ethernet cards
It would seem a significant step up for Apple to put out dual-dual core machines for not a lot more money. This suggest, to me, that (1) only highest-end gets 4x processors, or (2) there are dual-dual core even in the "mid-range" PM, but at a slower processor speed.
4-way systems are specialist machines. Very few people would require them. So, by that alone, I think there will only be 1 dual-dual system.
I would be very interested to see a 1.8+ GHz Powerbook G5 system, but I'm doubting it. Maybe they'll pull it out of their hat a "year" late. Who knows.
"[B]My prediction, assuming it is a PM/PB announcement:
1x2.2 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI
4 slot DDR2-533
ATI Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$1999
1x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$2499
2x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X700 or Nvidia equivalent
$2999
Options:
$400+ video card options
PCI-X FiberChannel, G-Ethernet cards
4-way systems are specialist machines. Very few people would require them. So, by that alone, I think there will only be 1 dual-dual system."
On this Daystar of the modern day, how well will the Mac OS as it is now be able to take advantage of the hoped for 4 cpus?
Would the 4 cpu, or 2 dual core cpu be usable by such folks as use photoshop, or 3D programmes, or final cut pro, or avid software? That is, must the software programmers for the 3rd party software make changes for such modern type Daystars?
Or would the Mac OS make use such that various programmes would be advantaged?
I know there are folks in the sciences who have sought for the quad machines, I think some are using another unix as well as the Mac OS. There has been request for other graphics cards as well as the Radeon or the NVidia, too. How likely that is to happen I would not know, but there certainly are people who could use higher end graphics.
I reckon this question could be filed under an OS question, but since it directly would be part of future hardware, it seemed a good place to put it.
Originally posted by THT
[B]My prediction, assuming it is a PM/PB announcement:
1x2.2 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI
4 slot DDR2-533
ATI Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$1999
1x2.5 GHz 970mp
PCIe, PCI-X
8 slot DDR2-667
Radeon X600 or Nvidia equivalent
$2499
Assuming this is near reality, exactly how does a single 2.5 970mp compare to current duals?
Needless to say anyway, but I Think intel, and IBM have shown the same results. It's a little slower in some areas. It's a little faster in others, but those others don't actually matter performance wise. It's just stuff that happens naturally because of the cores being that close together, but it wasn't anything that actually translated to the outside world of the chip. It was more of an internal functioning thing.
Originally posted by KidRed
Assuming this is near reality, exactly how does a single 2.5 970mp compare to current duals?
Well, in a straight-up comparison between the two, I'd guess it'd be about a 90% performance gain, because each one would take a slight hit for having to share a bus (if they do, which I can't say).
However, these processors each have twice the amount of cache per core as the current G5s (1MB vs 512Kb), so there's: twice as much cache per core, four times as much cache per chip and four times as much cache overall. Combined with DDR2, this should yield significant performance gains for the PowerMac, since "slow" memory reads (relative to cache) will be more infrequent, and will still be faster because they're now using DDR2. 8)
So given that, I'd imagine our performance gain might be 105% to 110% (being a little over twice as fast). These numbers are total BS. Anyway, I think these systems will be impressive given the smattering of predicted changes. However, we'll see what Apple has in store for us come next Wednesday...
Hopefully I'm not on too much crack! Rather, none at all!
Originally posted by KidRed
Assuming this is near reality, exactly how does a single 2.5 970mp compare to current duals?
I would expect a 1x2.5 GHz 970mp Power Mac G5 ~= 2x2.7 GHz 970fx Power Mac G5. It's all from the extra on-chip L2 cache.
Edit: WHOOPS. Typo. The extra half MB of cache typically at 5 to 10% improvement per clock.
We will know when Apple release them. If there is a SP dual core version then the gain is substantial for dual cores. If they instead have a low end version that is dual CPU but with 1 MB L2 (as IBMs J20 blade server) the losses on a shared bus is more than the gain on the shared L2
Originally posted by THT
I would expect a 1x2.5 GHz 970mp Power Mac G5 ~= 2x2.7 GHz 970fx Power Mac G5. It's all from the extra on-chip L2 cache.
Edit: WHOOPS. Typo. The extra half MB of cache typically at 5 to 10% improvement per clock.
Wow, that should be some upgrade for me coming from my dual gig
Originally posted by KidRed
Wow, that should be some upgrade for me coming from my dual gig
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
Originally posted by THT
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
Originally posted by Programmer
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Hmmm... I was thinking dual rig.
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
The transition really should be as soon as possible. The sooner they put Conroe or Woodcrest into Power Macs, the better. But, if the announce new Power Macs this month, that could leave a product cycle of more than a year, before the Power Mac/Intel machines come. Long wait, so, maybe they can bump it a tad in 06.
Originally posted by THT
The sooner they put Conroe or Woodcrest into Power Macs, the better. But, if the announce new Power Macs this month, that could leave a product cycle of more than a year, before the Power Mac/Intel machines come. Long wait, so, maybe they can bump it a tad in 06.
Unfortunatly, Conroe is not a multiprocessor chip so I don't believe it will go in any "PowerMac" but will fit well in any iMac or mid-range Mac.
Woodcrest will be dual-processor and multi-processor, those will go in the next-gen PowerMacs, end of 2006?
I agree it will be a long wait.
If 970mp PowerMacs are really announced next week, there will be room for a last (very last) update summer 2006.
Originally posted by Programmer
I think he's talking about upgrading from a 2 x 1 GHz G4. Yes, that will be a hell of an upgrade.
Me, I'm thinking about 2 x 2 x 2.5 GHz w/ DDR2. I hope it is true, and for a not unreasonable price tag. The last of the mighty G5s? Or will they rev it again before x86 arrives in the tower lineup?
Yes, the first Dual 1ghz quicksilvers(?) So it will be a hell of an upgrade? Awesome
Originally posted by THT
5 to 10% per clock? Unless you are talking about the dual-dual, 5 to 10% isn't much. Basic update sort of stuff. The dual-dual on the other hand, will be insteresting.
I mean if a single 970mp 2.5ghz is even closely equal to the dual 2.7 ghz then upgrading from my 2 X 1ghz would be a sweet upgrade.
Originally posted by mjteix
Unfortunatly, Conroe is not a multiprocessor chip so I don't believe it will go in any "PowerMac" but will fit well in any iMac or mid-range Mac.
Woodcrest will be dual-processor and multi-processor, those will go in the next-gen PowerMacs, end of 2006?
I agree it will be a long wait.
If 970mp PowerMacs are really announced next week, there will be room for a last (very last) update summer 2006.
Conroe is not SMP but it's a dual-core processor so it will indeed go into the Powermac lineup. I don't have dreams of Quad Proc Powermacs just yet.
Woodcrest will offer SMP procs meaning a two socket motherboard for Woodcrest = Quad procs. I look for the Xserve line to use Woodcrest single socket and perhaps dual socket motherboards.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the iMac go Dual-Core Yonah. iMac users don't need 64-bit processors.
Mac mini can use single core Yonah.
For me, the wait is over. I'll buy a Dual Dual Core 2.5 if they have one. If it has PCI-Express etc. ie what you would expect.
I've done with waiting. Life's too short...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I hope there is is a PowerMac upgrade next Wednesday.
For me, the wait is over. I'll buy a Dual Dual Core 2.5 if they have one.
It sounds like the processor speed may be similar for dual-core chips, so the benefits isn't there, but in less obvious (to me) ways.
I guess my question is whether the tighter integration, cache, data bandwidth etc are going to really add up to significant speedups for single-dual-core systems over existing dual-processor systems. The posts here suggests the improvements will be there, but may be modest. And - I still fear dual-dual-core will be over $3000 - too much for me, though I could use it.
Will the heating problem be any better or worse? Is dual-core a way to return to adequate air cooling for the highest-end systems?
It seems like video processing (unless you are in long-GOP MPEG2 editing) should be parallelizable, and so the more processors the better. Final Cut should be able to take advantage of those extra processors - along with the scientific (and visualization?) codes mentioned earlier.
Looking forward to Wednesday's news.
I guess my question is whether the tighter integration, cache, data bandwidth etc are going to really add up to significant speedups for single-dual-core systems over existing dual-processor systems. The existing G5 has a frontside bus per processor; will the dual-core system be able to move data in and out of each processor as quickly? The posts here suggests the overall speedup will be there, but may be modest. And - I still fear dual-dual-core will be over $3000 - too much for me, though I could use it.
Will the heating problem be any better or worse? Is dual-core a way to return to adequate air cooling for the highest-end systems?
It seems like video processing (unless you are in long-GOP MPEG2 editing) should be parallelizable, and so the more processors the better. Final Cut should be able to take advantage of those extra processors - along with the scientific (and visualization?) codes mentioned earlier.
Looking forward to Wednesday's news.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I wouldn't be surprised to see the iMac go Dual-Core Yonah. iMac users don't need 64-bit processors.
Adding x86-64 doesn't really complicate the processor too much, so if Apple can arrange for all of their production x86-Macs to have this capability it hugely simplifies the 32-bit to 64-bit transition: all x86 Macs would be able to run 64-bit software. There would be no need for 32bit vs. 64bit x86 binaries.