Gosh, some of you folks are mighty talented. I have enough trouble using one program at a time. An idle program in the background has little need for dual processors.
Do you ever use a multi-threaded app? That will benefit from multiprocessing even if you manage to kill the Finder, lookupd, diskarbitrationd, coreservicesd, and all the other daemons that are always running in the background.
Basically any app that can do a task without beachballing is multithreaded.
doesn't anyone else upload stuff at 60KB/s download at a 100 and move 20GB around different drives at the same time...try that with a single processor for fun
doesn't anyone else upload stuff at 60KB/s download at a 100 and move 20GB around different drives at the same time...try that with a single processor for fun
In no way do I support the idea that MP machines do not provide significant value, but the fact is, not everyone takes/needs all of the power two processors provides. We have several Dual G5s at the office and I monitor performance from time to time. Even our well used machines spend most of the day with both processors below 50%. That said, I wouldn't be buying the machines if I thought the second processor didn't provide a significant performance increase. But why are we even talking about this? The bottom line is everyone will be excited if Apple actually delivers faster machines tomorrow.
Thank you all for the history lesson. I was not aware of Apple's history with dual processors before the G4 debacle. If you begin you knowledge of duals with the G4 500 as I did, then it is hard not to come to the conclusion that I did. I am still confused about Apple's motives. Why did they only go all dual when they seemed to hit a snag? When the G5 was introduced, why did they only release one model with a dual CPU? Why did they only add the second model by force rather than by design? It made it look like they were only using duals to compete on the high end and bragging rights, not for the good of the platform. Perhaps someone can shed some light on what they may have been/be thinking.
Talking about Quad systems, I recently saw the price of a 4CPU opteron board, it was £1500, and about £1200 for each opteron 850(2.4ghz) or £700 for an 842(1.6ghz). Therefore the entry price of the 4CPU PC market is around £6000 (or $8000), if Apple could do this for £3000, or $4500, I think they would have a winner. And a Xeon MP (for 4 way boxes is about £2500 ($4000) at 1.5ghz.
Has anyone checked the newest seeds of OSX to see if it is compiled for more than 2 CPU?
When the G5 was introduced, why did they only release one model with a dual CPU? Why did they only add the second model by force rather than by design? It made it look like they were only using duals to compete on the high end and bragging rights, not for the good of the platform. Perhaps someone can shed some light on what they may have been/be thinking.
I think it was a shortage of processors that forced their hand. After discovering that the dual 2.0 was the hot selling model they had to upgrade the 1.8 to duals to take the pressure off the high end. That was my take on it anyway. Kinda like SUVs, people were buying the big powerful beasts, not because they needed them but because they were there, and anything else seemed lackluster.
Did anyone else notice that TS revised their article to reflect newer (slower) processor speeds?
Didn't it use to say 2.6, 2.4, and 2.2, all Dual?
Now it says 2.6 OR 2.5 for the high end, then Dual 2, dual 1.8, and an entry single 1.8...
as
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
A 25% increase in speed is not all that bad; granted it's not the 3GHz everyone was expecting, but they still have until September, kinda, sorta officially to hit that mark.
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
Yes, that dual 2.6 will never cut it...piece of shit. It's only when you tack on that extra 400MHz and hit 3GHz that the products start to really mean something!
\
I've been nice, but I'm starting to lose my grip with some of you...
Are you kidding? The prices on these "new" G5 machines are going to suck. One whole year and is this the best they can do? A $1299 single G5 1.6GHz is not going to sell. DO you have any idea what kind of PC can be had for $1299?
At least when Intel stagnates, it cuts prices on its crap significantly. Last year a 3.2GHz P4C was about ~$700, now it's $250.
Yes, that dual 2.6 will never cut it...piece of shit. It's only when you tack on that extra 400MHz and hit 3GHz that the products start to really mean something!
\
I've been nice, but I'm starting to lose my grip with some of you...
Hello? You have totally missed the point. Not everyone can afford the top model and if the other two models are 1.8 Ghz and 2.0 Ghz (same as we already have) then what the hell is the point? One model faster than before after a full year of nothing? A 200 Mhz increase on the bottom two models after a full year of nothing? We have every right to wonder what the hell is going on.
Comments
Originally posted by iDave
Gosh, some of you folks are mighty talented. I have enough trouble using one program at a time. An idle program in the background has little need for dual processors.
Do you ever use a multi-threaded app? That will benefit from multiprocessing even if you manage to kill the Finder, lookupd, diskarbitrationd, coreservicesd, and all the other daemons that are always running in the background.
Basically any app that can do a task without beachballing is multithreaded.
Apple Brazil is now running a G5 tower ad on the front page instead of the Airport Express ad.
Originally posted by Bigc
doesn't anyone else upload stuff at 60KB/s download at a 100 and move 20GB around different drives at the same time...try that with a single processor for fun
In no way do I support the idea that MP machines do not provide significant value, but the fact is, not everyone takes/needs all of the power two processors provides. We have several Dual G5s at the office and I monitor performance from time to time. Even our well used machines spend most of the day with both processors below 50%. That said, I wouldn't be buying the machines if I thought the second processor didn't provide a significant performance increase. But why are we even talking about this? The bottom line is everyone will be excited if Apple actually delivers faster machines tomorrow.
Originally posted by mactivo
But why are we even talking about this? The bottom line is everyone will be excited if Apple actually delivers faster machines tomorrow.
Heh, a 600MHz speed bump opens the way for a G5 iMac, which too many of us have been bitching about for a year.
Anyway I know I will get myself one of those beasts today, I've waited long enough.
cheers.
Originally posted by GnOm
oh well, 2,6GHz is not that bad, I just somehow fell in love with the PPC975/PCIexpress idea. As it looks now we can bury that until at least MWSF.
Yes, this sadly looks to be the case.
I'll wait to see some reviews on how Motion runs on a G5 iMac. If it's decent I'll get that as a stop gap, otherwise it looks like next January.
Looks like no PM's this week.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Talking about Quad systems, I recently saw the price of a 4CPU opteron board, it was £1500, and about £1200 for each opteron 850(2.4ghz) or £700 for an 842(1.6ghz). Therefore the entry price of the 4CPU PC market is around £6000 (or $8000), if Apple could do this for £3000, or $4500, I think they would have a winner. And a Xeon MP (for 4 way boxes is about £2500 ($4000) at 1.5ghz.
Has anyone checked the newest seeds of OSX to see if it is compiled for more than 2 CPU?
$3000
Didn't it use to say 2.6, 2.4, and 2.2, all Dual?
Now it says 2.6 OR 2.5 for the high end, then Dual 2, dual 1.8, and an entry single 1.8...
as
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
When the G5 was introduced, why did they only release one model with a dual CPU? Why did they only add the second model by force rather than by design? It made it look like they were only using duals to compete on the high end and bragging rights, not for the good of the platform. Perhaps someone can shed some light on what they may have been/be thinking.
I think it was a shortage of processors that forced their hand. After discovering that the dual 2.0 was the hot selling model they had to upgrade the 1.8 to duals to take the pressure off the high end. That was my take on it anyway. Kinda like SUVs, people were buying the big powerful beasts, not because they needed them but because they were there, and anything else seemed lackluster.
Originally posted by Playmaker
$3000
He didn't say $ 3000, he said £ 3000. That's a big difference!
Originally posted by AaronS
Did anyone else notice that TS revised their article to reflect newer (slower) processor speeds?
Didn't it use to say 2.6, 2.4, and 2.2, all Dual?
Now it says 2.6 OR 2.5 for the high end, then Dual 2, dual 1.8, and an entry single 1.8...
as
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
Originally posted by Existence
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
A 25% increase in speed is not all that bad; granted it's not the 3GHz everyone was expecting, but they still have until September, kinda, sorta officially to hit that mark.
If that's true this update is going to suck and is probably only an interim update until 3GHz G5's come in September. No wonder Steve didn't want to introduce these at WWDC.
Yes, that dual 2.6 will never cut it...piece of shit. It's only when you tack on that extra 400MHz and hit 3GHz that the products start to really mean something!
I've been nice, but I'm starting to lose my grip with some of you...
Originally posted by pscates
I've been nice, but I'm starting to lose my grip with some of you...
A good thing AI doesn't allow guns....
At least when Intel stagnates, it cuts prices on its crap significantly. Last year a 3.2GHz P4C was about ~$700, now it's $250.
Originally posted by pscates
Yes, that dual 2.6 will never cut it...piece of shit. It's only when you tack on that extra 400MHz and hit 3GHz that the products start to really mean something!
I've been nice, but I'm starting to lose my grip with some of you...
Hello? You have totally missed the point. Not everyone can afford the top model and if the other two models are 1.8 Ghz and 2.0 Ghz (same as we already have) then what the hell is the point? One model faster than before after a full year of nothing? A 200 Mhz increase on the bottom two models after a full year of nothing? We have every right to wonder what the hell is going on.