We can't promise multi-processor 2GHz G5s, but we can promise a performance leap of more than 100% in processing speed alone over the existing PowerMac....and major leaps in almost every category on the motherboard. - MOSR
They posted this today:
We have also been given a tantalizing sneak peek at what to expect from the next generation of PowerMacs due out this summer.
We can't promise multi-processor 2GHz G5s, but we can promise a performance leap of more than 100% in processing speed alone over the existing PowerMac....and major leaps in almost every category on the motherboard. - MOSR
They posted this today:
We have also been given a tantalizing sneak peek at what to expect from the next generation of PowerMacs due out this summer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MOSR hasn't been posting "rumours" for some time, at least a couple of months - they're just posting news follow-ups to announcements (perhaps with some speculative analysis thrown in).
"We have also been given a tantalizing sneak..."
All this means is "Woah, look at the servers, DDR RAM". They don't mean they've seen something we haven't.
MOSR has nothing, when they do get something it is only moments before an actual announcement. They certainly haven't been shown anything about future PowerMacs. If meader ever gets a 'sneak peak' of anything, he'll get arrested for leud behavior before breach of NDA. The site is a joke, no one would ever show him a thing.
I don't think the Xserve (the "XBox"!?) processor speeds are all that relevant to whether Apple *announces* new machines at MWNY (or Seybold).
- Apple has a history of announcing products before they are ready to ship (did it again today)
- Apple also has a history of fairly regular processor speed updates
Given that new Macs are announced at MWNY I think it's reasonable to assume that at least some of those configs won't be available until September or October, which is a more than reasonable time frame to boost the server processor speeds.
Well, for what it's worth, I just read this @ Metafilter. If true, then they should just do it and get the pain and howling over with ASAP.
I think that Apple is preparing to move OSX onto AMD's new 64-bit architecture and that is why these ports are being made. I like Motorola a lot, but if Apple could make the move to the AMD-64 it would leapfrog MS/Intel's problems moving win to a 64-bit architecture and get a 2x-3x clockspeed boost. BSD on 64-bit x86-like hardware has already been done to boot... and the early reports say that AMD is hitting 2+Ghz on thier prototypes with much faster speeds on the way. Only problem is AMD doesn't have anyone to buy these chips from them as they are not Intel compat.
I don't care what's in the next PowerMacs if they have those freakin awesome blinkin' lights for SMP processor useage like the XServe on the front panel.
No one has responded to my initial question. If you want a fater Mac, why not get a couple of Xservers and make them a workstation. I think that say 6 1ghz G4's (for under $10k) would outpower any DP Dell workstation.
<strong>I don't care what's in the next PowerMacs if they have those freakin awesome blinkin' light for SMP processor useage like the XServe on the front panel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think they look pretty cool too, but I'm hoping for four rows of little blinky lights....
My wait for a .13u legitimate DDR product continues.
Concern:
Apple chose ATA-100, why not 133?
Ok, so they gave us 4 independent channels, but is it ATA100 or ATA66 which runs into a memory limit at around a 130GB?
A higher capacity limit is essential for macs in the coming year. A hard-drive upgrade is one of the few cost effective upgrades you can give to virtually any machine (to extend it's life) With current drives approaching the memory limit of the on-board controller, it will make upgrading your iMac's or PowerBook's HDD more of a headache than it needs to be. The speed difference between 100 and 133 is a moot point -- you need more than 2 drives to even notice and Apple gives multiple channels -- it's the space/partition limit issue that they need to adress.
<strong>No one has responded to my initial question. If you want a fater Mac, why not get a couple of Xservers and make them a workstation. I think that say 6 1ghz G4's (for under $10k) would outpower any DP Dell workstation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well Apple is talking about clustering, so, who knows. But I think that to get something to cluster (ie software) you need to write it to do so.
Perhaps Apple could write an API that off-loads processing to multiple clustered units, but i don't think that functionality is there now.
<strong>My wait for a .13u legitimate DDR product continues.
Concern:
Apple chose ATA-100, why not 133?
Ok, so they gave us 4 independent channels, but is it ATA100 or ATA66 which runs into a memory limit at around a 130GB?
A higher capacity limit is essential for macs in the coming year. A hard-drive upgrade is one of the few cost effective upgrades you can give to virtually any machine (to extend it's life) With current drives approaching the memory limit of the on-board controller, it will make upgrading your iMac's or PowerBook's HDD more of a headache than it needs to be. The speed difference between 100 and 133 is a moot point -- you need more than 2 drives to even notice and Apple gives multiple channels -- it's the space/partition limit issue that they need to adress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
137GB is the limit on ATA-100 that I can find.
ATA-133 => An evolution of ATA-100 and using the same 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cables, Maxtor's new ATA-133 standard manages to take the maximum theoretical transfer rate of the ATA standard up another 33% to 133 MB/s. Another Maxtor initiative called "Big Drives" breaks the 137GB disk size barrier set by today's current 24-bit Logical Block Addressing. So, if you tried to use a 140 or 160GB drive on a current motherboard or Ultra ATA-100 IDE controller, it would only recognize as 137GB, unfortunately wasting all the leftover space that you're paying extra for. The "Big Drive" technology breaks this 137GB barrier by using a new 48-bit LBA pattern, which can handle drives up to 144 Petabytes (that's 144,000,000 gigabytes).
<strong>No one has responded to my initial question. If you want a fater Mac, why not get a couple of Xservers and make them a workstation. I think that say 6 1ghz G4's (for under $10k) would outpower any DP Dell workstation.
Just my two cents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not for day to day work like Adobe Photoshop and such. But if you were rendering lightwave and Maya, definately, with the right software.
Another Maxtor initiative called "Big Drives" breaks the 137GB disk size barrier set by today's current 24-bit Logical Block Addressing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nitpicking, I know, but still: LBA adresses are 28 bits wide, not 24.
Can I remind people that Motorola have only managed to increase the G4 clock speed by 0.5 Ghz in the last two years, what makes anyone think they can boost it by nearly that again in the next two months?
1.4 Ghz in July? don't make me laugh!
1.2 would be borderline plausible, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is no speed bump in July at all, maybe the low end models will climb the Mhz ladder and the prices all go down. Perhaps they may also try and distract us with some Bluetooth tech.
I doubt a multibutton Apple mouse is on the way either, this goes against Apple user interface doctrine, and with Steve in charge, ethos is everything.
<strong>Can I remind people that Motorola have only managed to increase the G4 clock speed by 0.5 Ghz in the last two years, what makes anyone think they can boost it by nearly that again in the next two months?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, it's actually been almost three years now.
Please clue me in ... 'cause I ain't all hip and rockin' with this DDR thingy ...
... If the new Apple servers have DDR Ram in them already, what's the big deal? Aren't all machine's with DDR running a bus speed of 133? In other words, if Apple's limited to 133, how can it get away with RAM that runs at 266?
<strong>Please clue me in ... 'cause I ain't all hip and rockin' with this DDR thingy ...
... If the new Apple servers have DDR Ram in them already, what's the big deal? Aren't all machine's with DDR running a bus speed of 133? In other words, if Apple's limited to 133, how can it get away with RAM that runs at 266?
What exactly is the "hack" that people speak of?
no capito</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pay attention to the 1GB/s that the memory controller (which is part of the system controller here) is connected to the two G4s with.
So it's like there's a 4 lane highway from the memory to the system controller, but once you get there it narrows down to a 2 lane highway to get to the CPUs, and you have a traffic jam.
[quote]It's still using the same Motorola MCP7455 CPU. The bus design on that processor hasn't changed, thus it's still the 133MHz SDR, 1GB/sec bus that we're familiar with from previous Macs.<hr></blockquote>
It's like trying to stuff a marshmallow into the slot of a piggy bank. All of the info is screaming towards the processor only to hit a huge traffic jam and sitting.
I doubt that there is much performance improvement in this system over the current Dual GHz towers.
Of course it should also be noted that the new G4s are already breaking the 200fps barrier on the toughest games when used with the high end graphics cards
Are you joking? In Q3A a DP 1GHz w/ a Radeon 8500 or GF3 gets only 150FPS at 640x480. Q3A is not one of the "toughest games" either, and that limit appears to be because of the processor/bus, *not* the card. Try running RtCW on *any* Mac with *any* card and getting 200FPS with *any* settings....dumbass.
Using that analogy, now pretend that the ethernet and fire wire lane also merge into the central highway. Now there is plenty bandwidth to accomadate all memory streams with out bottle neck TO the memory. Not ideal but not so bad either.
Comments
We can't promise multi-processor 2GHz G5s, but we can promise a performance leap of more than 100% in processing speed alone over the existing PowerMac....and major leaps in almost every category on the motherboard. - MOSR
They posted this today:
We have also been given a tantalizing sneak peek at what to expect from the next generation of PowerMacs due out this summer.
<strong>About the coming new PowerMacs in July:
We can't promise multi-processor 2GHz G5s, but we can promise a performance leap of more than 100% in processing speed alone over the existing PowerMac....and major leaps in almost every category on the motherboard. - MOSR
They posted this today:
We have also been given a tantalizing sneak peek at what to expect from the next generation of PowerMacs due out this summer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MOSR hasn't been posting "rumours" for some time, at least a couple of months - they're just posting news follow-ups to announcements (perhaps with some speculative analysis thrown in).
"We have also been given a tantalizing sneak..."
All this means is "Woah, look at the servers, DDR RAM". They don't mean they've seen something we haven't.
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
I don't think the Xserve (the "XBox"!?) processor speeds are all that relevant to whether Apple *announces* new machines at MWNY (or Seybold).
- Apple has a history of announcing products before they are ready to ship (did it again today)
- Apple also has a history of fairly regular processor speed updates
Given that new Macs are announced at MWNY I think it's reasonable to assume that at least some of those configs won't be available until September or October, which is a more than reasonable time frame to boost the server processor speeds.
I think that Apple is preparing to move OSX onto AMD's new 64-bit architecture and that is why these ports are being made. I like Motorola a lot, but if Apple could make the move to the AMD-64 it would leapfrog MS/Intel's problems moving win to a 64-bit architecture and get a 2x-3x clockspeed boost. BSD on 64-bit x86-like hardware has already been done to boot... and the early reports say that AMD is hitting 2+Ghz on thier prototypes with much faster speeds on the way. Only problem is AMD doesn't have anyone to buy these chips from them as they are not Intel compat.
It might be everything we always wanted and more.
posted by n9 at 3:14 PM PST on May 14
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
Just my two cents.
<strong>I don't care what's in the next PowerMacs if they have those freakin awesome blinkin' light for SMP processor useage like the XServe on the front panel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think they look pretty cool too, but I'm hoping for four rows of little blinky lights....
Oh, and I want a blue motherboard too.
Concern:
Apple chose ATA-100, why not 133?
Ok, so they gave us 4 independent channels, but is it ATA100 or ATA66 which runs into a memory limit at around a 130GB?
A higher capacity limit is essential for macs in the coming year. A hard-drive upgrade is one of the few cost effective upgrades you can give to virtually any machine (to extend it's life) With current drives approaching the memory limit of the on-board controller, it will make upgrading your iMac's or PowerBook's HDD more of a headache than it needs to be. The speed difference between 100 and 133 is a moot point -- you need more than 2 drives to even notice and Apple gives multiple channels -- it's the space/partition limit issue that they need to adress.
<strong>No one has responded to my initial question. If you want a fater Mac, why not get a couple of Xservers and make them a workstation. I think that say 6 1ghz G4's (for under $10k) would outpower any DP Dell workstation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well Apple is talking about clustering, so, who knows. But I think that to get something to cluster (ie software) you need to write it to do so.
Perhaps Apple could write an API that off-loads processing to multiple clustered units, but i don't think that functionality is there now.
<strong>My wait for a .13u legitimate DDR product continues.
Concern:
Apple chose ATA-100, why not 133?
Ok, so they gave us 4 independent channels, but is it ATA100 or ATA66 which runs into a memory limit at around a 130GB?
A higher capacity limit is essential for macs in the coming year. A hard-drive upgrade is one of the few cost effective upgrades you can give to virtually any machine (to extend it's life) With current drives approaching the memory limit of the on-board controller, it will make upgrading your iMac's or PowerBook's HDD more of a headache than it needs to be. The speed difference between 100 and 133 is a moot point -- you need more than 2 drives to even notice and Apple gives multiple channels -- it's the space/partition limit issue that they need to adress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
137GB is the limit on ATA-100 that I can find.
ATA-133 => An evolution of ATA-100 and using the same 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cables, Maxtor's new ATA-133 standard manages to take the maximum theoretical transfer rate of the ATA standard up another 33% to 133 MB/s. Another Maxtor initiative called "Big Drives" breaks the 137GB disk size barrier set by today's current 24-bit Logical Block Addressing. So, if you tried to use a 140 or 160GB drive on a current motherboard or Ultra ATA-100 IDE controller, it would only recognize as 137GB, unfortunately wasting all the leftover space that you're paying extra for. The "Big Drive" technology breaks this 137GB barrier by using a new 48-bit LBA pattern, which can handle drives up to 144 Petabytes (that's 144,000,000 gigabytes).
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>No one has responded to my initial question. If you want a fater Mac, why not get a couple of Xservers and make them a workstation. I think that say 6 1ghz G4's (for under $10k) would outpower any DP Dell workstation.
Just my two cents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not for day to day work like Adobe Photoshop and such. But if you were rendering lightwave and Maya, definately, with the right software.
<strong>
Another Maxtor initiative called "Big Drives" breaks the 137GB disk size barrier set by today's current 24-bit Logical Block Addressing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nitpicking, I know, but still: LBA adresses are 28 bits wide, not 24.
Bye,
RazzFazz
1.4 Ghz in July? don't make me laugh!
1.2 would be borderline plausible, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is no speed bump in July at all, maybe the low end models will climb the Mhz ladder and the prices all go down. Perhaps they may also try and distract us with some Bluetooth tech.
I doubt a multibutton Apple mouse is on the way either, this goes against Apple user interface doctrine, and with Steve in charge, ethos is everything.
Socrates
<strong>Can I remind people that Motorola have only managed to increase the G4 clock speed by 0.5 Ghz in the last two years, what makes anyone think they can boost it by nearly that again in the next two months?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, it's actually been almost three years now.
August, 1999: 500Mhz G4 is introduced.
... If the new Apple servers have DDR Ram in them already, what's the big deal? Aren't all machine's with DDR running a bus speed of 133? In other words, if Apple's limited to 133, how can it get away with RAM that runs at 266?
What exactly is the "hack" that people speak of?
no capito
<strong>Please clue me in ... 'cause I ain't all hip and rockin' with this DDR thingy ...
... If the new Apple servers have DDR Ram in them already, what's the big deal? Aren't all machine's with DDR running a bus speed of 133? In other words, if Apple's limited to 133, how can it get away with RAM that runs at 266?
What exactly is the "hack" that people speak of?
no capito</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pay attention to the 1GB/s that the memory controller (which is part of the system controller here) is connected to the two G4s with.
So it's like there's a 4 lane highway from the memory to the system controller, but once you get there it narrows down to a 2 lane highway to get to the CPUs, and you have a traffic jam.
[quote]It's still using the same Motorola MCP7455 CPU. The bus design on that processor hasn't changed, thus it's still the 133MHz SDR, 1GB/sec bus that we're familiar with from previous Macs.<hr></blockquote>
It's like trying to stuff a marshmallow into the slot of a piggy bank. All of the info is screaming towards the processor only to hit a huge traffic jam and sitting.
I doubt that there is much performance improvement in this system over the current Dual GHz towers.
Are you joking? In Q3A a DP 1GHz w/ a Radeon 8500 or GF3 gets only 150FPS at 640x480. Q3A is not one of the "toughest games" either, and that limit appears to be because of the processor/bus, *not* the card. Try running RtCW on *any* Mac with *any* card and getting 200FPS with *any* settings....dumbass.