Processors using SMT (simultaneous multi threating, aka hyperthreating) are generally identified as multiple CPUs by the OS (Pentium IV Northwood with some XP versions, for example, where the CPU monitor also show two bars for only one processor). The G4 is not SMT capable, but if the G5 performance claims are real this would probably mean that the G5 uses SMT, as this is a good technique to optimize processor unit usage. This could mean that a machine with a single G5 processor could show indeed four cpu performance bars if the G5 uses 4-times SMT technology.
<strong>Processors using SMT (simultaneous multi threating, aka hyperthreating) are generally identified as multiple CPUs by the OS (Pentium IV Northwood with some XP versions, for example, where the CPU monitor also show two bars for only one processor). The G4 is not SMT capable, but if the G5 performance claims are real this would probably mean that the G5 uses SMT, as this is a good technique to optimize processor unit usage. This could mean that a machine with a single G5 processor could show indeed four cpu performance bars if the G5 uses 4-times SMT technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, as I understand it, SMT mainly allows the processor to use otherwise idle execution units, and as such has the greatest effect on architectures with very long pipelines. In case the G5's pipeline won't be way longer than the 7450's, I'd imagine it could keep it's EUs busy, and without idle EUs in the first place, SMT isn't very useful...
Hmm, as I understand it, SMT mainly allows the processor to use otherwise idle execution units, and as such has the greatest effect on architectures with very long pipelines. In case the G5's pipeline won't be way longer than the 7450's, I'd imagine it could keep it's EUs busy, and without idle EUs in the first place, SMT isn't very useful...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, SMT helps to keep the execution units occupied, and yes, it's not very useful if the units already get enough instructions (like the G4). But, on the other hand, it allows to add more execution units that will have to be feed with instructions. So a G5 could have more units than the G4, and SMT could help to keep the additional units busy
With all the info we have now I think it's an IBM 4-way 604e server.
People got the old Mac OS to run on these with a lot of hacking, so I wouldn't be surprised if OS X would run as well. Then the movies aren't palying yet the bars are about 40%.
Whatever it is, it's not a 4xG4 and even less a G5.
(btw the G5 does not use multiple cores per die, what you mean is the Power4)
<strong>Most applications are multithreaded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the "NOT!" after that statement. As in, "Most applications are multithreaded. NOT!"
However, even though most apps aren't multithreaded, you still get the speed benefit with extra processors nearly automatically in OS X, simply because, not only are separate threads allocated to different processors, but entire processes are as well (being, essentially, one big thread of execution).
If you have a non-threaded app, that counts as one process (ok, so it's obviousness). Two non-threaded processes can be allocated to two separate processors. OS X has a lot of separate processes going all the time. The Window Server, the kernel, every app you have running simultaneously, etc., etc.. These can all be allocated to different processors.
<strong>The "PC" case in the picture is the same as the case for IBM's RS6000 E30 machine. It has the same PowerPC label as the E30 is also a PowerPc machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The RS6K case has gone through several revs over the past few years. Where IBMs boxes are now almost all black, they used to be all beige. In fact, an old RS6K was my first thought on seeing this picture.
Maybe someone who has IBM equipment in their server room would be kind enough to check this out for us?
JAG
Now, of course I'd like to believe that this is really a 16-way 2.8GHz G5, scheduled to ship next week for the low, low price of $99...
<strong>I wouldn't make too much out of high processor util. Maybe he crunches RC5...
Are the pictures still up? The link in the first post was empty for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like who ever was hosting the images pulled them. Here is a link to some images of the same photos on <a href="http://www.spymac.com"; target="_blank">www.spymac.com</a> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I'd say it looks a lot like the F40 shown on that page - the detail on the top/left is similar, and it has the IBM trademark Big Red Switch.
So, the photos look quite convincing, and there is a chance that someone could have ported Darwin to this box, and then got Mac OS X running on top of it.
It's also possible that this is an Apple test machine in an old IBM box that Apple had lying around ? this enclosure would have the sort of power supply and cooling a quad machine would need.
I'm very sure that Apple will have quad processor machines in their labs, though I don't think they'd seed them unless it was in their mind to produce them commercially.
I have the RS6000 sitting in our prepress dept as a RIP. I am dead sure it is the E30 case. After the E30, IBM released newer models F50, F80 etc, so you might not be able to get a picture of the E30 from the IBM site
good eye on the play button on the quicktime windows. There should be a pause button where the play button is on each window if they where all playing at the same time.
Later Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the original picture has been replaced, but whatever the link points to now, all of the movies except the pro mouse commercial show pause buttons, not play buttons, in their QT players. (The TiBook commercial player is obscured.) Could be real. Fun to speculate either way.
All I can say is that it must be an older machine with older processors (or completely faked). When the start a movie playing, the cpu usage skyrockets on movies that are very small. Not very impressive.
just a note, i dont know if its been mentioned (could not be bothered to read all) but just make four copies of the CPU monitor app place the small windows side by side and voila you too can have a quad CPU machine (and no when u run a memory intensive task the levels on each bar dont stay equal to each other). PS the box could be some other PPC hardware -- not a clone. and i dont know for certain but i see a white cursor at the bottom left hand side of the screen in the first picture.
Has anybody noticed the crappy masking job around the monitor? Those gray walls certainly are not real. Check out the reflections on the wall near the monior. Also note the vertical corner lines above the desk do not match below.
The iWalk images were more realistic.
Are these images real? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Comments
so you know shit. is that what you wanted to tell us?
<strong>Processors using SMT (simultaneous multi threating, aka hyperthreating) are generally identified as multiple CPUs by the OS (Pentium IV Northwood with some XP versions, for example, where the CPU monitor also show two bars for only one processor). The G4 is not SMT capable, but if the G5 performance claims are real this would probably mean that the G5 uses SMT, as this is a good technique to optimize processor unit usage. This could mean that a machine with a single G5 processor could show indeed four cpu performance bars if the G5 uses 4-times SMT technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, as I understand it, SMT mainly allows the processor to use otherwise idle execution units, and as such has the greatest effect on architectures with very long pipelines. In case the G5's pipeline won't be way longer than the 7450's, I'd imagine it could keep it's EUs busy, and without idle EUs in the first place, SMT isn't very useful...
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
<strong>
Hmm, as I understand it, SMT mainly allows the processor to use otherwise idle execution units, and as such has the greatest effect on architectures with very long pipelines. In case the G5's pipeline won't be way longer than the 7450's, I'd imagine it could keep it's EUs busy, and without idle EUs in the first place, SMT isn't very useful...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, SMT helps to keep the execution units occupied, and yes, it's not very useful if the units already get enough instructions (like the G4). But, on the other hand, it allows to add more execution units that will have to be feed with instructions. So a G5 could have more units than the G4, and SMT could help to keep the additional units busy
People got the old Mac OS to run on these with a lot of hacking, so I wouldn't be surprised if OS X would run as well. Then the movies aren't palying yet the bars are about 40%.
Whatever it is, it's not a 4xG4 and even less a G5.
(btw the G5 does not use multiple cores per die, what you mean is the Power4)
G-news
<strong>Most applications are multithreaded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the "NOT!" after that statement. As in, "Most applications are multithreaded. NOT!"
However, even though most apps aren't multithreaded, you still get the speed benefit with extra processors nearly automatically in OS X, simply because, not only are separate threads allocated to different processors, but entire processes are as well (being, essentially, one big thread of execution).
If you have a non-threaded app, that counts as one process (ok, so it's obviousness). Two non-threaded processes can be allocated to two separate processors. OS X has a lot of separate processes going all the time. The Window Server, the kernel, every app you have running simultaneously, etc., etc.. These can all be allocated to different processors.
<strong>The "PC" case in the picture is the same as the case for IBM's RS6000 E30 machine. It has the same PowerPC label as the E30 is also a PowerPc machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't llook like any Rs/6000 I've ever seen:
<a href="http://www.ibm-computer-hardware.com/rs6000.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ibm-computer-hardware.com/rs6000.html</a>;
Maybe someone who has IBM equipment in their server room would be kind enough to check this out for us?
JAG
Now, of course I'd like to believe that this is really a 16-way 2.8GHz G5, scheduled to ship next week for the low, low price of $99...
Are the pictures still up? The link in the first post was empty for me.
<strong>I wouldn't make too much out of high processor util. Maybe he crunches RC5...
Are the pictures still up? The link in the first post was empty for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like who ever was hosting the images pulled them. Here is a link to some images of the same photos on <a href="http://www.spymac.com"; target="_blank">www.spymac.com</a> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
in there BBS section.
<a href="http://www.spymac.com/bbs/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=208"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/bbs/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=208</a>;
Later Steve
<strong>
It doesn't llook like any Rs/6000 I've ever seen:
<a href="http://www.ibm-computer-hardware.com/rs6000.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ibm-computer-hardware.com/rs6000.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
I'd say it looks a lot like the F40 shown on that page - the detail on the top/left is similar, and it has the IBM trademark Big Red Switch.
So, the photos look quite convincing, and there is a chance that someone could have ported Darwin to this box, and then got Mac OS X running on top of it.
It's also possible that this is an Apple test machine in an old IBM box that Apple had lying around ? this enclosure would have the sort of power supply and cooling a quad machine would need.
I'm very sure that Apple will have quad processor machines in their labs, though I don't think they'd seed them unless it was in their mind to produce them commercially.
view it and tell us what you think. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<a href="http://www.spymac.com/members/nightcrawler/"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/members/nightcrawler/</a>;
Later steve
I have the RS6000 sitting in our prepress dept as a RIP. I am dead sure it is the E30 case. After the E30, IBM released newer models F50, F80 etc, so you might not be able to get a picture of the E30 from the IBM site
<strong>
good eye on the play button on the quicktime windows. There should be a pause button where the play button is on each window if they where all playing at the same time.
Later Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the original picture has been replaced, but whatever the link points to now, all of the movies except the pro mouse commercial show pause buttons, not play buttons, in their QT players. (The TiBook commercial player is obscured.) Could be real. Fun to speculate either way.
All I can say is that it must be an older machine with older processors (or completely faked). When the start a movie playing, the cpu usage skyrockets on movies that are very small. Not very impressive.
The iWalk images were more realistic.
Are these images real? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
wow, now this is news. I couldn't believe it when i saw it.