As far as updating the iMac with a PPC rev before the Intel switch, don't know about that. The iMac was released during the 1st week of May 05. I can easily see Apple doing nothing for 10 months in order to ship the Intel version. No need to bump the iMac at all.
Although I don't know what Apple will finally do, I don't see the iMac in a hurry to get the Intel chips so soon. It is not like the situation in the portables or the Mac mini.
Quote:
As for the 970mp and the iMac enclosure, yes I don't think so. If Apple intends to keep the same thickness and sound levels, I don't think so. A 2 GHz 970mp would have nearly twice the max power consumption as a 2 GHz 970fx.
If a 17" iMac can accomodate a 2 GHz 970FX, why a 23" model would not take a 2 GHz 970MP? I understand your power consumpion argument, but what we need here are the exact physical dimensions in the two form factors (17" and 23") to calculate the available volume. Otherwise, I must admit that this discussion is pointless.
I can see Apple ship a 23" iMac with a 2.1 GHz Yonah for $2k. There, 1080p H.264 video at full frame rate on an iMac.
Are you sure about that? I know that in a dual G5 2.0 GHz Power Mac, full frame rate h.264 decoding at 1080p needs around 90-115% CPU power. And if I am not mistaken, this is an FPU intensive task, where the G5 is stronger.
Are you sure about that? I know that in a dual G5 2.0 GHz Power Mac, full frame rate h.264 decoding at 1080p needs around 90-115% CPU power. And if I am not mistaken, this is an FPU intensive task, where the G5 is stronger.
Quicktime 7's h.264 is shitty. On Windows, Elecard player's h.264 decoder allows for 1080p decoding on a 1.7 GHz Dothan (single-core!) that has discrete graphics.
For example, a close family member of mine has a Dell D810 2GHz Dothan. Using the Elecard player, they can play Apple's 1080p H.264 trailers at full framerate.
The iBook update was something to be expected. But the Mac mini one just terrible. . .
Gee, I thought the Mac mini update was fine. I knew we would not get a CPU upgrade until the Intel Macs arrive, but we finally got more RAM on all models. The $599 upgrade is impressive, since it also added both AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth. Very tempting. My only complaint is that the 1GB RAM upgrade should be cheaper, since it only adds an extra 512M of RAM. By comparison, I bought a full 1GB of RAM for my G5 for something like $98.
Gee, I thought the Mac mini update was fine. I knew we would not get a CPU upgrade until the Intel Macs arrive, but we finally got more RAM on all models.
Well, yes, you cannot update the CPU if you have nothing better to use, but there is no excuse to keep today that Radeon 9200, even in the lowest end machine, just because it does not support the Core technologies in Tiger.
Yeah I was a bit disappointed about those revisions, it looks like Apple doesn't have a lot of headroom before the switch, but I wouldn't like Apple to rush it, they have to be sure enough native software will be availbable at the intro...
I think all they really need, if they are in fact only updating the consumer machines, to be native Intel software is the existing Mac OS X software bundle: iLife apps (iTunes et al) and Safari. Possibly Microsoft Office, but I generally think web browsing is 99% of a consumers usage.
If they could only get a fully features Yahoo and MSN Messenger support...
Quote:
I guess the PowerBooks update rumored for sept-oct will also be disappointing.
If it is a 1.8 GHz 7448 CPU on the top end, it will be a good update. Cross your fingers.
Quote:
Now on the subject (G5 updates), can someone explain simply the differences between the actual G5 CPU found on PMacs and iMac and the announced new models FX and MP (I know those are dual core) and what kind of power ratio can we expect to get (for example 2.0GHz G5 vs 2.0GHz FX vs 2.0GHz MP)? Thanks.
Sure. I love doing this sort of stuff.
Code:
PowerPC 970: 130 nm, ~118 mm^2 die size.
Shipped in 1st gen Power Mac G5. Diagram below.
--------------------------
| ------------------------ |
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ------------------------ |
| ------------------------ |
|| ||
|| 512 KB L2 Cache ||
|| ||
| ------------------------ |
--------------------------
PowerPC 970fx: 90 nm, ~66 mm^2 die size.
Simple die shrink. Shipped in 2nd 3rd gen Power
Mac G5, 1st and 2nd gen Xserve G5, and 1st and
2nd iMac G5. There have been some different
versions involving how much power they consume
per clock rate between 970fx revisions. The
performance of the chip however did not change.
------------------
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
| ---------------- |
|| 512 KB L2 ||
|| cache ||
| ---------------- |
------------------
PowerPC 970GX: 90 nm, ~85 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that the 970gx is simply just a
970fx with 1 MB L2 cache instead of 512 KB.
Further process refinements (materials and
voltage) could enable the 970fx to consume about
the same power as previous 970fx even though it
has more cache. Would be about 5% faster than the
970fx at the same clock rate due to larger cache.
Some say the 970gx is simply a 970mp with one of
its cores inoperative.
------------------
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| 1 MB L2 ||
|| cache ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
------------------
PowerPC 970mp: 90 nm, ~180 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that the 970mp is simply 2 970gx
CPUs on 1 die with a 970 frontside bus arbiter
(or switch). Almost like a system-on-chip. The
970mp would only have 1 FSB.
-------------------------------------------
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| || || || || |
| || || || || |
| || PowerPC || || PowerPC || |
| || 970 || || 970 || |
| || core || || core || |
| || || || || |
| || || || || |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| || || || || |
| || 1 MB L2 || || 1 MB L2 || |
| || cache || || cache || |
| || || || || |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| --------------------------------------- |
| | 970 FSB Arbiter | |
| --------------------------------------- |
-------------------------------------------
PowerPC 970mx: 90 nm, ~150 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that it would be like a 970mp
enhanced for better economies of scale (smaller die)
and better single-threaded performance. This 970mx
would actually be quite similar to the Power4 without
its memory subsystem. 2 970 cores that share a
unified L2 cache. It would be more like a 1 integrated
CPU rather than the "2 CPUs on die" that is the 970mp.
------------------------------------
| ---------------- ---------------- |
|| || ||
|| || ||
|| PowerPC || PowerPC ||
|| 970 || 970 ||
|| core || core ||
|| || ||
|| || ||
| ---------------- ---------------- |
| ---------------------------------- |
|| ||
|| 2 MB Shared ||
|| L2 cache ||
|| ||
| ---------------------------------- |
| ---------------------------------- |
|| 970 FSB Arbiter ||
| ---------------------------------- |
------------------------------------
Power consumption: I guessed for the most part.
Power consumption is actually quite complex to explain
because there are a few dependent variables to consider:
node size, fab process (SOI, strained silicon, DSL, low-k),
Noticed I kept the scale of the text diagrams nearly the same for all of the chips. Also notice that all of the chips, as far as we know now, have the same exact 970 core. Haven't really heard a real peep about an enhanced 970 core yet.
Moderators, could not we have all those beautiful CPU diagrams and technical details that THT posts as sticky or something for reference? It is a pity they get lost after some time in the threads.
Does 2x dual core PowerMac before the intel switch seem to be a reasonably safe bet?
Although I probably wouldn't buy one because I'm looking, and waiting for future PC graphics card options. I'll have enough money saved up to buy a monster by then though.
Quicktime 7's h.264 is shitty. On Windows, Elecard player's h.264 decoder allows for 1080p decoding on a 1.7 GHz Dothan (single-core!) that has discrete graphics.
For example, a close family member of mine has a Dell D810 2GHz Dothan. Using the Elecard player, they can play Apple's 1080p H.264 trailers at full framerate.
Apple's H.264 hardware requirements are fairly conservative, or perhaps we should say they are trying to make sure they recommend machines that play all H.264 1080p content because not all 1080p movies are the same.
A 2 GHz Dothan or 2.2 GHz 970fx would be on the bleeding edge being able to play most of the movies at 24+ fps. If you can, I'd be interested to know which movies and what framerate you are getting on your Dothans. Also submit the results to the H.264 thread on Ars Technica for comparison.
Well, yes, you cannot update the CPU if you have nothing better to use, but there is no excuse to keep today that Radeon 9200, even in the lowest end machine, just because it does not support the Core technologies in Tiger.
Yes, maybe it IS better to wait for the Intel Mac mini. I like the way Intel provides a variety of chip sets for different platforms. The home desktop platform is likely to have good video for games, and hopefully support for core technologies as well. My guess is there will be a chip set without PCI Express, maybe perfect for the Mac mini. Didn't Intel allude to something like that when the Intel mini mockup was shown? I understand that Intel video chips are getting better. There is so much on Intel's roadmap that it is hard to keep track of all the chip sets and processors. Never had to do that before the changeover.
I know this is a little off topic, but it seems like Apple had to put all this stuff together on their own while using IBM and FreeScale CPUs. The savings in engineering will be huge, and we will get the latest technology as soon as it comes out. We are seeing more and more benefits of going with Intel as time goes on. IBM was never prepared to offer such support for desktop and notebook personal computers. One customer was not enough.
Yet I'm still a little sad to see the PPC go away. I keep hoping the PPC will stick around for some really top end workstations and servers, if IBM can stay competitive. We really do need Intel for the great majority of Macs, to keep all costs down and stay current with the rest of the PC market.
Now on the subject (G5 updates), can someone explain simply the differences between the actual G5 CPU found on PMacs and iMac and the announced new models FX and MP (I know those are dual core) and what kind of power ratio can we expect to get (for example 2.0GHz G5 vs 2.0GHz FX vs 2.0GHz MP)?
Thanks. [/B]
Most of the differences relie on level-2 cache memory, and how many cores the model has. One core equals basically one processor, so a dualcore processor is about the same thing as two processors running together.
- The actual G5 in iMac is a 970FX. It has 512 kB L2.
- The 970GX doubles this L2 to 1 MB. So the GX at the same frequency as the FX wiil be at least as fast. It should run a little faster.
- The 970MP is a dual core with 1 MB L2 per core (2MB L2 total). Think of it as two GX on one die.
- The 970MX proposal would share the 2 MB L2 between the two cores, instead of having two 1 MB separated and dedicated L2 as in the MP. More efficient.
At the same frequency, you will have about the same performance between all single core models (FX, GX).
And you will have the same performance with one MP as with an actual Power Mac dual G5. Because a dualcore processor is about the same as a dual CPU system.
Now think that you can put two MP in a tower, and you have a quadcore Power Mac.
With a quadcore processor which we will have early 2007 with Intel (Whitefield project), a simple dual CPU system will equal... 8 processors. See the point of multicore?
With a quadcore processor which we will have early 2007 with Intel (Whitefield project), a simple dual CPU system will equal... 8 processors. See the point of multicore?
At the same frequency, you will have about the same performance between all single core models (FX, GX).
And you will have the same performance with one MP as with an actual Power Mac dual G5. Because a dualcore processor is about the same as a dual CPU system.
Thanks,
So. Is it safe to say that a 1.4GHz MP in a future iMac will outrun the current 2.0GHz iMac?
And that a Dual 2.0GHz MP in a future PowerMac will outrun the current Dual 2.7GHz model?
So. Is it safe to say that a 1.4GHz MP in a future iMac will outrun the current 2.0GHz iMac?
In general no. This will be the case only if you stress the machine either with a well multithreaded application, or with more than one CPU intensive tasks. Only then you will put the two CPUs hard at work and you will see a substantial difference with respect to the single CPU perfromance, as long as this single CPU has not twice or more the power of one core in the dual core configuration.
The above was the "parallel" case (more than one tasks asking simultaneously system resources). In executing "serial" code (for example web browsing, gaming), the most common situation for most people, what matters is a strong CPU, probably with high clock speed. However, this starts to change as more and more people process image, sound and video in their computers using iLife (I don't count of course professionals). In a dual machine (one dual core CPU or two single core CPUs), you can launch some heavy video transformation, put it in the background and continue your work; you will hardly notice that anything happens, because you heavy tasks will run on one of the CPUs and you will have the other to do other things.
Quote:
And that a Dual 2.0GHz MP in a future PowerMac will outrun the current Dual 2.7GHz model?
The situation here is similar as previously. You just have far more resources on a 4 core machine and even without appropriately threaded applications, if the OS can handle it (and Tiger it seems can), concurrent tasks are distributed across the available processors.
Comments
Originally posted by THT
As far as updating the iMac with a PPC rev before the Intel switch, don't know about that. The iMac was released during the 1st week of May 05. I can easily see Apple doing nothing for 10 months in order to ship the Intel version. No need to bump the iMac at all.
Although I don't know what Apple will finally do, I don't see the iMac in a hurry to get the Intel chips so soon. It is not like the situation in the portables or the Mac mini.
As for the 970mp and the iMac enclosure, yes I don't think so. If Apple intends to keep the same thickness and sound levels, I don't think so. A 2 GHz 970mp would have nearly twice the max power consumption as a 2 GHz 970fx.
If a 17" iMac can accomodate a 2 GHz 970FX, why a 23" model would not take a 2 GHz 970MP? I understand your power consumpion argument, but what we need here are the exact physical dimensions in the two form factors (17" and 23") to calculate the available volume. Otherwise, I must admit that this discussion is pointless.
Originally posted by THT
I can see Apple ship a 23" iMac with a 2.1 GHz Yonah for $2k. There, 1080p H.264 video at full frame rate on an iMac.
Are you sure about that? I know that in a dual G5 2.0 GHz Power Mac, full frame rate h.264 decoding at 1080p needs around 90-115% CPU power. And if I am not mistaken, this is an FPU intensive task, where the G5 is stronger.
Originally posted by PB
Are you sure about that? I know that in a dual G5 2.0 GHz Power Mac, full frame rate h.264 decoding at 1080p needs around 90-115% CPU power. And if I am not mistaken, this is an FPU intensive task, where the G5 is stronger.
Quicktime 7's h.264 is shitty. On Windows, Elecard player's h.264 decoder allows for 1080p decoding on a 1.7 GHz Dothan (single-core!) that has discrete graphics.
For example, a close family member of mine has a Dell D810 2GHz Dothan. Using the Elecard player, they can play Apple's 1080p H.264 trailers at full framerate.
Originally posted by PB
The iBook update was something to be expected. But the Mac mini one just terrible. . .
Gee, I thought the Mac mini update was fine. I knew we would not get a CPU upgrade until the Intel Macs arrive, but we finally got more RAM on all models. The $599 upgrade is impressive, since it also added both AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth. Very tempting. My only complaint is that the 1GB RAM upgrade should be cheaper, since it only adds an extra 512M of RAM. By comparison, I bought a full 1GB of RAM for my G5 for something like $98.
Originally posted by snoopy
Gee, I thought the Mac mini update was fine. I knew we would not get a CPU upgrade until the Intel Macs arrive, but we finally got more RAM on all models.
Well, yes, you cannot update the CPU if you have nothing better to use, but there is no excuse to keep today that Radeon 9200, even in the lowest end machine, just because it does not support the Core technologies in Tiger.
Originally posted by Existence
Quicktime 7's h.264 is shitty.
Do you mean the OS X version too?
On Windows, Elecard player's h.264 decoder allows for 1080p decoding on a 1.7 GHz Dothan (single-core!) that has discrete graphics.
Hmm, that's very interesting. Guess Apple has yet a long way to go. And better go running.
Originally posted by mjteix
Yeah I was a bit disappointed about those revisions, it looks like Apple doesn't have a lot of headroom before the switch, but I wouldn't like Apple to rush it, they have to be sure enough native software will be availbable at the intro...
I think all they really need, if they are in fact only updating the consumer machines, to be native Intel software is the existing Mac OS X software bundle: iLife apps (iTunes et al) and Safari. Possibly Microsoft Office, but I generally think web browsing is 99% of a consumers usage.
If they could only get a fully features Yahoo and MSN Messenger support...
I guess the PowerBooks update rumored for sept-oct will also be disappointing.
If it is a 1.8 GHz 7448 CPU on the top end, it will be a good update. Cross your fingers.
Now on the subject (G5 updates), can someone explain simply the differences between the actual G5 CPU found on PMacs and iMac and the announced new models FX and MP (I know those are dual core) and what kind of power ratio can we expect to get (for example 2.0GHz G5 vs 2.0GHz FX vs 2.0GHz MP)? Thanks.
Sure. I love doing this sort of stuff.
PowerPC 970: 130 nm, ~118 mm^2 die size.
Shipped in 1st gen Power Mac G5. Diagram below.
--------------------------
| ------------------------ |
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ------------------------ |
| ------------------------ |
|| ||
|| 512 KB L2 Cache ||
|| ||
| ------------------------ |
--------------------------
PowerPC 970fx: 90 nm, ~66 mm^2 die size.
Simple die shrink. Shipped in 2nd 3rd gen Power
Mac G5, 1st and 2nd gen Xserve G5, and 1st and
2nd iMac G5. There have been some different
versions involving how much power they consume
per clock rate between 970fx revisions. The
performance of the chip however did not change.
------------------
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
| ---------------- |
|| 512 KB L2 ||
|| cache ||
| ---------------- |
------------------
PowerPC 970GX: 90 nm, ~85 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that the 970gx is simply just a
970fx with 1 MB L2 cache instead of 512 KB.
Further process refinements (materials and
voltage) could enable the 970fx to consume about
the same power as previous 970fx even though it
has more cache. Would be about 5% faster than the
970fx at the same clock rate due to larger cache.
Some say the 970gx is simply a 970mp with one of
its cores inoperative.
------------------
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| ||
|| PowerPC ||
|| 970 ||
|| core ||
|| ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
| ---------------- |
|| ||
|| 1 MB L2 ||
|| cache ||
|| ||
| ---------------- |
------------------
PowerPC 970mp: 90 nm, ~180 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that the 970mp is simply 2 970gx
CPUs on 1 die with a 970 frontside bus arbiter
(or switch). Almost like a system-on-chip. The
970mp would only have 1 FSB.
-------------------------------------------
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| || || || || |
| || || || || |
| || PowerPC || || PowerPC || |
| || 970 || || 970 || |
| || core || || core || |
| || || || || |
| || || || || |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| || || || || |
| || 1 MB L2 || || 1 MB L2 || |
| || cache || || cache || |
| || || || || |
| | ---------------- | | ---------------- | |
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| --------------------------------------- |
| | 970 FSB Arbiter | |
| --------------------------------------- |
-------------------------------------------
PowerPC 970mx: 90 nm, ~150 mm^2 die size.
Speculation is that it would be like a 970mp
enhanced for better economies of scale (smaller die)
and better single-threaded performance. This 970mx
would actually be quite similar to the Power4 without
its memory subsystem. 2 970 cores that share a
unified L2 cache. It would be more like a 1 integrated
CPU rather than the "2 CPUs on die" that is the 970mp.
------------------------------------
| ---------------- ---------------- |
|| || ||
|| || ||
|| PowerPC || PowerPC ||
|| 970 || 970 ||
|| core || core ||
|| || ||
|| || ||
| ---------------- ---------------- |
| ---------------------------------- |
|| ||
|| 2 MB Shared ||
|| L2 cache ||
|| ||
| ---------------------------------- |
| ---------------------------------- |
|| 970 FSB Arbiter ||
| ---------------------------------- |
------------------------------------
Power consumption: I guessed for the most part.
Power consumption is actually quite complex to explain
because there are a few dependent variables to consider:
node size, fab process (SOI, strained silicon, DSL, low-k),
yield, voltages, etc. Anyways, generally,
CPU Freq Watt Year Macintoshes used in
----- ---- ---- ---- ----------------------------------
970 2 GHz ~90 2003 1.6 to 2 GHz Power Mac
970fx 2 GHz ~55 2004 2.5 GHz PM, 2 GHz Xs, 1.8 GHz iMac
970fx 2 GHz ~45 2005 2.7 GHz PM, 2.3 GHz Xs, 2 GHz iMac
970gx 2 GHz ~55 --
970mp 2 GHz ~90 --
Noticed I kept the scale of the text diagrams nearly the same for all of the chips.
Although I probably wouldn't buy one because I'm looking, and waiting for future PC graphics card options. I'll have enough money saved up to buy a monster by then though.
Originally posted by Existence
Quicktime 7's h.264 is shitty. On Windows, Elecard player's h.264 decoder allows for 1080p decoding on a 1.7 GHz Dothan (single-core!) that has discrete graphics.
For example, a close family member of mine has a Dell D810 2GHz Dothan. Using the Elecard player, they can play Apple's 1080p H.264 trailers at full framerate.
Apple's H.264 hardware requirements are fairly conservative, or perhaps we should say they are trying to make sure they recommend machines that play all H.264 1080p content because not all 1080p movies are the same.
A 2 GHz Dothan or 2.2 GHz 970fx would be on the bleeding edge being able to play most of the movies at 24+ fps. If you can, I'd be interested to know which movies and what framerate you are getting on your Dothans. Also submit the results to the H.264 thread on Ars Technica for comparison.
Originally posted by onlooker
Does 2x dual core PowerMac before the intel switch seem to be a reasonably safe bet?
Yes, I believe it is at hand for the next update (January-March 2006), although IBM has not yet announced availability.
I think that we're all pleased you gave us this informations.
In my previous post, I was also asking for the processing power of those different chips.
What can we expect from a 1.4GHz 970MP versus (lets say) a 2.0 970FX?
Originally posted by PB
Well, yes, you cannot update the CPU if you have nothing better to use, but there is no excuse to keep today that Radeon 9200, even in the lowest end machine, just because it does not support the Core technologies in Tiger.
Yes, maybe it IS better to wait for the Intel Mac mini. I like the way Intel provides a variety of chip sets for different platforms. The home desktop platform is likely to have good video for games, and hopefully support for core technologies as well. My guess is there will be a chip set without PCI Express, maybe perfect for the Mac mini. Didn't Intel allude to something like that when the Intel mini mockup was shown? I understand that Intel video chips are getting better. There is so much on Intel's roadmap that it is hard to keep track of all the chip sets and processors. Never had to do that before the changeover.
I know this is a little off topic, but it seems like Apple had to put all this stuff together on their own while using IBM and FreeScale CPUs. The savings in engineering will be huge, and we will get the latest technology as soon as it comes out. We are seeing more and more benefits of going with Intel as time goes on. IBM was never prepared to offer such support for desktop and notebook personal computers. One customer was not enough.
Yet I'm still a little sad to see the PPC go away. I keep hoping the PPC will stick around for some really top end workstations and servers, if IBM can stay competitive. We really do need Intel for the great majority of Macs, to keep all costs down and stay current with the rest of the PC market.
http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/power/powerpc/rdmap/
Enjoy.
Originally posted by mjteix
Now on the subject (G5 updates), can someone explain simply the differences between the actual G5 CPU found on PMacs and iMac and the announced new models FX and MP (I know those are dual core) and what kind of power ratio can we expect to get (for example 2.0GHz G5 vs 2.0GHz FX vs 2.0GHz MP)?
Thanks. [/B]
Most of the differences relie on level-2 cache memory, and how many cores the model has. One core equals basically one processor, so a dualcore processor is about the same thing as two processors running together.
- The actual G5 in iMac is a 970FX. It has 512 kB L2.
- The 970GX doubles this L2 to 1 MB. So the GX at the same frequency as the FX wiil be at least as fast. It should run a little faster.
- The 970MP is a dual core with 1 MB L2 per core (2MB L2 total). Think of it as two GX on one die.
- The 970MX proposal would share the 2 MB L2 between the two cores, instead of having two 1 MB separated and dedicated L2 as in the MP. More efficient.
At the same frequency, you will have about the same performance between all single core models (FX, GX).
And you will have the same performance with one MP as with an actual Power Mac dual G5. Because a dualcore processor is about the same as a dual CPU system.
Now think that you can put two MP in a tower, and you have a quadcore Power Mac.
With a quadcore processor which we will have early 2007 with Intel (Whitefield project), a simple dual CPU system will equal... 8 processors. See the point of multicore?
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
With a quadcore processor which we will have early 2007 with Intel (Whitefield project), a simple dual CPU system will equal... 8 processors. See the point of multicore?
Mmm...
OctoMacs!
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
At the same frequency, you will have about the same performance between all single core models (FX, GX).
And you will have the same performance with one MP as with an actual Power Mac dual G5. Because a dualcore processor is about the same as a dual CPU system.
Thanks,
So. Is it safe to say that a 1.4GHz MP in a future iMac will outrun the current 2.0GHz iMac?
And that a Dual 2.0GHz MP in a future PowerMac will outrun the current Dual 2.7GHz model?
Originally posted by mjteix
Thanks,
So. Is it safe to say that a 1.4GHz MP in a future iMac will outrun the current 2.0GHz iMac?
Mmmmmh... for certain tasks, perhaps.
And that a Dual 2.0GHz MP in a future PowerMac will outrun the current Dual 2.7GHz model?
This, for sure. 4 x 2.0 GHz will outperform completely 2 x 2.7 GHz.
Originally posted by mjteix
Thanks,
So. Is it safe to say that a 1.4GHz MP in a future iMac will outrun the current 2.0GHz iMac?
In general no. This will be the case only if you stress the machine either with a well multithreaded application, or with more than one CPU intensive tasks. Only then you will put the two CPUs hard at work and you will see a substantial difference with respect to the single CPU perfromance, as long as this single CPU has not twice or more the power of one core in the dual core configuration.
The above was the "parallel" case (more than one tasks asking simultaneously system resources). In executing "serial" code (for example web browsing, gaming), the most common situation for most people, what matters is a strong CPU, probably with high clock speed. However, this starts to change as more and more people process image, sound and video in their computers using iLife (I don't count of course professionals). In a dual machine (one dual core CPU or two single core CPUs), you can launch some heavy video transformation, put it in the background and continue your work; you will hardly notice that anything happens, because you heavy tasks will run on one of the CPUs and you will have the other to do other things.
And that a Dual 2.0GHz MP in a future PowerMac will outrun the current Dual 2.7GHz model?
The situation here is similar as previously. You just have far more resources on a 4 core machine and even without appropriately threaded applications, if the OS can handle it (and Tiger it seems can), concurrent tasks are distributed across the available processors.