Smokin A PowerMac??

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I believe that Apple will move the Power Mac line to all quad, or at least at 2/3 quad and 1/3 dual, before the switch to Intel. But no 3.0 GHz. More likely the setup we have today.



    Maybe, but there's a fly in the ointment:



    Powermacs (and multi core G5s) are the one area that Apple/IBM have maintained parity, if not superiority, to Intel's offerings. With Altivec, and for certain processes, the quad G5 is much better than anything from Intel (given cost constraints) that Apple could drop into a PowerMac right now. As it happens, those processes are disproportionally clustered around the kind of media authoring that makes up Apple's primary target for these machines.



    Now, Apple can hardly appear to be going backwards, performance wise, during the Intel transition, and certainly not within an already somewhat bemused pro segment for whom time equals money. Presumably, the PowerMac will be the last machine to transition because Intel's roadmap suggests that they will have a worthy multi-core G5 replacement available at some point in the future.



    But, of course, we can't really know for sure. Apple would look kinda bad if they start sticking quad G5s in all the PowerMacs and then have to accept diminished performance with the Intel switch, and its pro market would freak out.



    That is all to say that Apple might be motivated to somewhat "artificially" constrain improvements to the towers, pre-Intel.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wwwork

    does anyone know if the Merom (?) processor will support dual duals? I have been waiting forever to upgrade and the current lineup of PMs, though nice, are too big in size. ...



    No, it won't, nor will the Conroe that most folks expect to be in the Mac Pros. (Pay no attention to the folks that claim it will use a Woodcrust. \ ) I sure agree with you on the size issue. I've now got two Shuttles and can't picture having a desktop machine any bigger than that.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    I would recommend the dual core 2.0GHz PowerMac G5. It will be SIGNIFICANTLY faster than your set up, while not being all that expensive, especially when you factor in the resale value of your current machine.





    No, it won't. The original poster said he has a 1.6ghz G5, and that only one of his design apps, which he says he hardly uses, is multiprocessor aware.

    A 400mhz upgrade is not worth the bother or cost.
  • Reply 24 of 38
    wwworkwwwork Posts: 140member
    I'm pretty sure that Apple will never release a PM slower than one thats already been released and I would like to get an Intel PM (though what kind of stupid name for it are they going to come up with - MacDesktop Pro????).



    These handsome aluminum G5s seem old-fashioned in their size, like those giant old 3086 33MHz. towers. I have been trained to think newer + better = smaller in technology products. Yes, the iPod did it.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Just to tick everyone off, here's something from MOSR....











    People still read that site?
  • Reply 26 of 38
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    According to xBench, my Dual 2.0 GHz G5 is 1.66X faster than the iMac Duo 2.0 GHz
  • Reply 27 of 38
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    No, it won't, nor will the Conroe that most folks expect to be in the Mac Pros. (Pay no attention to the folks that claim it will use a Woodcrust. \ ) I sure agree with you on the size issue. I've now got two Shuttles and can't picture having a desktop machine any bigger than that.



    You mean "Most Jokes" think the conroe is used for workstations. That's like saying a P4 is the processor used in a real Pro machine. It's not. Dual XEONS, or Dual AMD Opteron Processors are what you will find in a real pro workstation.

    As far as I can tell you are the only one that thinks a conroe should be in the Pro machine anyway. Do you even own a PowerMac? What do you use it for? No one that I know that uses them seems to want them. The only computers I have ever had are PowerMacs, and I wouldn't buy one if that were the processor. That is a second class processor that none of us even consider worthy of a Pro machine designation. Maybe a Gaming processor, but what good is that in a Mac anyway? So why do you think we would want the conroe in there again? I want to know because I cant figure it out, and I am a multiple PowerMac owner.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Well, onlooker, you have a good point as to a "pro workstation". But what you are not recognizing is that the vast majority of PowerMacs are not being used as "pro workstations". They are the only desktop Macs available. (Disregard the non-expandable iMac and mini.) I do software development, telecom primarily. I've had many powermacs, at the moment I'm down to just one. I don't use ProTools or Maya or any other "professional" music or graphics apps, but I am a "professional" in that I get paid for what I do.



    Apple is not doing this transition to wedge themselves even tighter into a "graphics and music" niche. They are doing this to expand into the mainstream. They need an affordable minitower machine.



    Forget the naming issue for the moment. They can make a minitower with a Conroe for the majority of the market, and a second machine with Xeons for the music and graphics pros. The first machine will outsell the second at least a hundred to one, sure, but they do want to hold onto that market. Does this make business sense, though? Frankly, I don't think it does.



    What would be neat would be to license Mac OS X to Boxx, and let them put it on their quad-dual-core Opteron behemoth; but the Dons at Intel won't let that happen.
  • Reply 29 of 38
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,424member
    What I find interesting is that Apple now has this plethora of processors to choose from, rather than the 1-2 that they've had from the PPC guys. Perhaps we'll see both of these types being used at different price points or hardware lines. It has long been talked about that Apple should have the towers plus a real line of workstations.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    What I find interesting is that Apple now has this plethora of processors to choose from, rather than the 1-2 that they've had from the PPC guys. Perhaps we'll see both of these types being used at different price points or hardware lines. It has long been talked about that Apple should have the towers plus a real line of workstations.



    I didn't get into this with my last post diretcted to cubist, but now that Apple has a larger presence, and faster growth rate I think there is a posibility that they may split the PowerMac and offer a slim tower sometime in the future like the one that Alienware has, but I still think it is early for such a thing to happen, and if anything for now they will merely chose to offer the woodcrest processor with a single cpu socket mobo w/a dual core machine, and dual socket mobo as a quad core which is what the majority of their pro apps would be most confortable, and complimented on. How would one rather run FCP. Dual conroe, or Dual Woodcrests? If they chose the alternate it would alienate the highend user, but this way everyone would remain happy, and the all important new user would see that the Apple Macintosh isn't a computer that is content to sit in second, or third place. Dont forget. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
  • Reply 31 of 38
    I just ordered a 2 Ghz dual-core G5 and I'm expanding the Ram to 1.5 GB for now. When I get some extra money I'll be upgrading to the 7800GT graphics chip and I may add some more Ram, but we'll see. My current machine with 1.5 GB's Ram shows in status monitor as never using more than half of it, but with two cores that might be different.



    I can't wait. I had made the assumption earlier that only one of my apps takes advantage of multiple processors, but in fact all of them but one, are optimized for such use, so I'm really looking forward to the added power.





    As for the discussion of what might go into a PowerMac from Intel, I have no idea what the next chip will be. However, just a little while ago I read an article stating that Intel is currently working on 16 different new chip designs, each using four cores or more. That is pretty exciting.



    If the Intel chips are not good candidates for 2x systems, maybe they will just throw in one four-core version with some extra features.



    Why does size matter to people.....regarding the PowerMac towers?....lmao.....I mean, in the almost 3 years I've had mine, I've only ever moved it once. I personally couldn't care less if the thing was the size of a mini-fridge and weighed 70 pounds, as long as it was super fast and included the features I want.



    ??
  • Reply 32 of 38
    hxc04hxc04 Posts: 145member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by G520incher

    Why couldn't Apple just use G5 processors? They already have a G5 Quad, and the dual core G5's made next to no difference over the 2 x single G5 processors, except in graphics performance, but that has more to do with the adoption of PCIe than the dual cores.



    We know they are planning on switching to Intel processors before the end of the year, and we know that Intel's won't be going into a PowerMac till at least the 2nd part of 2006, so why not update with G5's?



    I think that would be an excellent way for Apple to distinguish their lines:



    Consumer Machines - Dual Core



    Pro Machines - Quad Core




    Finally someone that agrees that the PPC are just fine. I am going to buy a new PPC before they are disbanded. I have serious doubts about Intel.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,424member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hxc04

    Finally someone that agrees that the PPC are just fine. I am going to buy a new PPC before they are disbanded. I have serious doubts about Intel.



    I wouldn't have doubts about Intel, but I also wouldn't slag the G5 like many have been. The benchmarks over at MacInTouch comparing iMac G5 to the new Core Duo one are interesting -- for some things the G5 does considerably better. There are two possible reasons in each case: (a) Rosetta is somehow being invoked and hampering performance, or (b) the G5's strengths are being demonstrated. I've said all along that for a class of problems the G5 is actually a damn good processor, especially when the code is properly optimized for it. I've seen examples of a 2.5 GHz G5 smoking a 3.8 GHz Pentium4, and the P4 had various system level advantages and both were running Linux. Changing processor lines is not a clear win across the board.



    Eventually Intel's processors will outclass the G5 in all respects, but its not going to happen overnight. I might buy a quad G5 in a year or two, just to get the last generation of them at a decent price.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    I agree Programmer.



    I've had my G5 for almost three years now and before that I was strictly using PC's. I use PC's at work, my friends have PC's, my family has PC's.....I'm around them all the time but I absolutely love my PowerMac and aside from the obvious advantages of OSX over Winblows, the hardware is what I have also fallen in love with. I have had no problems with my system whatsoever, and it is still pretty damn fast, especially for a single 1.6 Ghz processor.



    Although I would love to purchase the Quad, I can't afford it. So by next weekend I will be the proud owner of a new 2 Ghz Dual-Core PowerMac G5. If Apple had switched to Intel for the Macs right now, I would still be buying the G5, mostly because all my software is optimized for it, but also because in many ways, I feel they are better than current Intel processors.



    Yeah, I think the future with Intel will hold many great things, and I agree it was the best choice Apple could have made especially for their line of laptops, but I don't think they are quite up to par with the G5 yet, and I will be waiting for that time before I make the switch.



    I have heard many times in the past, people on these boards explain how much better PowerPC and the G5 are over Intel processors. I have read that Intel chips aren't as efficient as the G5, hence the reason their clock speeds are much higher.



    Maybe. Maybe not. I am certainly no expert. But I find it interesting how many people change their tune about Intel processors as soon as Apple changes to them.



    Either way, I'm very happy with the G5 and soon I'll have two of them with fast DDR2 Ram and PCIe. If it gets my work done faster and allows me even more experimentation and flexibility when designing then I'm happy.



    ( -:
  • Reply 35 of 38
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    Programmer, do you think there's any possibility at all Apple will change course and commit the Mac to being an open architecture platform that will use processors best suited to the respective product lines, whether they be from Intel, IBM, AMD or Freescale? Simply because Apple was not getting what it wanted from IBM on the laptop side of the equation does not mean it should blithely discard the PPC altogether.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Big Mac

    Programmer, do you think there's any possibility at all Apple will change course and commit the Mac to being an open architecture platform that will use processors best suited to the respective product lines, whether they be from Intel, IBM, AMD or Freescale? Simply because Apple was not getting what it wanted from IBM on the laptop side of the equation does not mean it should blithely discard the PPC altogether.



    I will answer this, even though you directed the question to Programmer.



    IMO Apple will not want to have multiple architectures for any longer than they need to. There are several distinct disadvantages to having multiple processor architectures:
    • Universal binaries are twice the size of regular binaries. That means that application developers have to either ship two versions or ship huge files. Neooffice for example have already said they'd use two distinct packages

    • Code optimization is different. It's very likely that each software package will be optimal on one but not all platforms

    • Some programs have small bits written in assembly language for performance. These will require ugly #ifdefs

    • There will always be something that works on one platform but not the other.

    Now the same can be said for different processors from Intel. What is optimal for Yonah may not be optimal for Merom or Conroe, and certainly the EMT-64 extensions are a virtual minefield. But we can trust Intel to have a common denominator (32-bit application with no exotic instructions) that will work on all processors relatively well. With two architectures, all bets are off.



    So, IMO, the answer is no. Even if IBM comes up with a G6 that's 20% faster than the current Intel, Apple will go with a processor that fits its line better - one from Intel or just possibly AMD.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,424member
    synp's answer is pretty good -- I agree with him that now that Apple has moved to Intel, they'll stay with Intel exclusively (once the last PPC products are gone) for the foreseeable future. Don't be concerned, however: microprocessor design is going interesting places and Intel will get there too -- perhaps not first, but possibly best given their strong emphasis on process technology. If x86 has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that it can be evolved. Apple is pretty well positioned to take advantage of new evolutions quickly and effectively.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Plus IBM has no plans to make a low heat version of a G5, or G6 that is suitable for laptops, or mini's. Now that they don't have Apple to cater to they can concentrate on the new customers that they give a crap about.

    They are very happy to be rid of Apple. Apple was a good way to get their new processors noticed in big ways, and Apple got them that, but that was all IBM wanted out of that deal, and Apple gave it to them with good faith that IBM would continue to make the processors Apple needed, but IBM said it was not in their new agenda. Apple moved on, and it was for the better.
Sign In or Register to comment.