Putting the PCI bus on the southbridge is similar to the the faux DDR solution employed by the G4 machines. It's much more efficent to put it on the northbridge.
Putting the PCI bus on the southbridge is similar to the the faux DDR solution employed by the G4 machines. It's much more efficent to put it on the northbridge.
Would you say that the current G5's have faux PCI busses then? They are on the south bridge. The issue with the G4 is that there is a bottle neck ( max bus ) which makes fast memory ineffective. As long as there is no bottle neck then that isnt really a problem. It is typical in modern designs to find the PCI bus on the south bridge, typically connected to the north bridge by a high speed serial bus ( hypertransport, v-link, intel hub architecture ).
Latency is an issue with these designs ( there would be less latency if the pci controller was in the north bridge ). But the devices typically connected to the PCI bus tend to be tolerant of latency ( network, disk controller, sound, usb ).
The net result is that very few end users would see any benefit from the increased cost associated with building the PCI controller into the north bridge ( or even onto the cpu, that would be much better again ). There are niche markets where these designs make sense, single chip embedded systems for example.
What is really interesting is that they appear to be using a PCI Express controller designed for use with Opterons. It would appear that Apple wouldnt have to put in a lot work to reap the benefits of PCI Express, and they could even keep the current AGP slot ( as it is in the north bridge ).
I'd love to see an Apple Blade Server and I think we'll eventually have just that. However there's nothing really particularly special about the nForce 4 chipset. It's rather basic. I'd like to see something a little more forward thinking come from Apple/IBM what Nvidia offers.
With Xserve sales improving could a Blade be that far off?
I would love to see Apple release a rebranded IBM BladeCenter.
Seeing how there's a lot of attention around G5 clusters, I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been a cluster built with the JS20's already. The chassis can hold 14 dual 2.2Ghz G5 blades. That's twice the processor density as XServes. The blades and redundant power supplies are hot-swappable.
For networking they have Gb Ethernet, FibreChannel and InfiniBand modules available. Not only that, but the chassis mid-plane allows for much faster communication between the blades than you get over even InfiniBand.
Use the same HW design with a little Apple design and you have a nice PowerServe with very little R&D.
I didn't see that blade having PCI-E, or being an nForce chipset, but I only scanned the page real quickly.
I think the reason he wants to see the nForce Chipset (I could be wrong) is because that is what the Dual Opteron SLI boards are going to be.
Unless I'm wrong your associating the AMD 64bit w. the IBM 64bit, and hoping for something similar from Apple using PCI-E, and SLI.
I agree with hmurchison. I too think Apple, and IBM could do a lot better than the nForce 4 chipset, but would nVidia be pleased with either of them if they did, and would it affect their relationship? I believe that IBM under contract is manufacturing the Nvidia GPU in their facilities?
I reiterate. How would it affect their relationship of they went outside of the nVidia design to design an XserveBlade motherboard for Apple. And would it affect the Apple/Nvidia relationship?
I guess in the best of both worlds nVidia could be overwhelmingly pleased with the idea, but it seems funny.
I didn't see that blade having PCI-E, or being an nForce chipset, but I only scanned the page real quickly.
I think the reason he wants to see the nForce Chipset (I could be wrong) is because that is what the Dual Opteron SLI boards are going to be.
Unless I'm wrong your associating the AMD 64bit w. the IBM 64bit, and hoping for something similar from Apple using PCI-E, and SLI.
I agree with hmurchison. I too think Apple, and IBM could do a lot better than the nForce 4 chipset, but would nVidia be pleased with either of them if they did, and would it affect their relationship? I believe that IBM under contract is manufacturing the Nvidia GPU in their facilities?
I reiterate. How would it affect their relationship of they went outside of the nVidia design to design an XserveBlade motherboard for Apple. And would it affect the Apple/Nvidia relationship?
I guess in the best of both worlds nVidia could be overwhelmingly pleased with the idea, but it seems funny.
Apple currently uses the AMD8111 as its southbridge which was designed for opteron servers. Using another chip designed for the AMD64 platform isn't that much of a strech.
Do home users need blades? Do schools need blades? XServe is enough for the majority of Apple clients. Apple is not in the same market as Dell. Its main competitor is Sony. And does Sony sell blades? Its more natural to ask for Apple digital cameras (yum!) and TVs...
Do home users need blades? Do schools need blades? XServe is enough for the majority of Apple clients. Apple is not in the same market as Dell. Its main competitor is Sony. And does Sony sell blades? Its more natural to ask for Apple digital cameras (yum!) and TVs...
If Apple starts making cameras, and TV"s that would totally blow. It would just be another distraction from their computers. Are they not far enough in the hole with these already? Even after all the iMac converts showed up some of us legacy users still prefer, want, and have a need for a screaming Power desktop computer from Apple. Things like Cameras, and TV's only seem like a distraction from what is notably gone missing for the past 3 years starting with one G4 fiasco, and leading into this one.
... some of us legacy users still prefer, want, and have a need for a screaming Power desktop computer from Apple.
I contend that what you really want is a really fast machine which runs OSX. I dont think you really care if it runs Power or Amd64. Most of the existing hardware is shared between Macs and PCs anway. The only major components which are Apple specific are the CPU and the OS. And the case. If Apple put nice shiny dual Opterons in a G5 case running OSX would you complain? Frankly I dont think any of us really care about whats under the hood as long as its the latest, fastest tech. No?
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
If Apple starts making cameras, and TV"s that would totally blow. It would just be another distraction from their computers.
They do look like a distraction if you look at computers and TVs and cameras as separate markets. And to a certain extent they are. But look at it from another point of view however: all these devices are becoming digital - consumers want to shift media around from one device to another. Why is it ok for a consumer electronics company to make TVs, stereos, digital cams, computers (Sony) and not for a music player maker to sell computers, digital cameras, etc? You stream your itunes stuff round the house, you sync your iPod. You could, if Apple fully commits to the CE space, sync your iCamera, etc. Sony does consumer electronics and so, tentatively is Apple. CE is about brand/image. Both Sony and Apple have that in spades.
I contend that what you really want is a really fast machine which runs OSX. I dont think you really care if it runs Power or Amd64. Most of the existing hardware is shared between Macs and PCs anway. The only major components which are Apple specific are the CPU and the OS. And the case. If Apple put nice shiny dual Opterons in a G5 case running OSX would you complain? Frankly I dont think any of us really care about whats under the hood as long as its the latest, fastest tech. No?
Your right. If my computer was an Alienware DCC Workstation case w/Dual Hot Swap-able SATA RAID-0 drive Chassis, and Dual AMD Opteron 2.4GHz processors, with an Nvidia SLI setup running 2x SLI Quadro FX 3400 PCI-E cards under OS X - I would not bother complaining about PowerMacs because I would have exactly the machine I've been drooling over. Excluding OS X of course. Which is probably what I will have shortly after MacWorld SF. Accept I wish it was a Dual PCI-E Quadro FX PowerMac with all the trimmings running OS X, but I can't keep imagining that Apple gives a crap about 3D workstations anymore.
I read that Pixar used 3dSudioMax for the incredibles, and that does not run on a Mac so I don't think Apple really cares about the market even though they could probably sell enough to Pixar if they made them to justify their creation.
Comments
Originally posted by ibookgeek
I wish apple would release something like this for the powermac
Link to pdf file
Putting the PCI bus on the southbridge is similar to the the faux DDR solution employed by the G4 machines. It's much more efficent to put it on the northbridge.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Putting the PCI bus on the southbridge is similar to the the faux DDR solution employed by the G4 machines. It's much more efficent to put it on the northbridge.
Would you say that the current G5's have faux PCI busses then? They are on the south bridge. The issue with the G4 is that there is a bottle neck ( max bus ) which makes fast memory ineffective. As long as there is no bottle neck then that isnt really a problem. It is typical in modern designs to find the PCI bus on the south bridge, typically connected to the north bridge by a high speed serial bus ( hypertransport, v-link, intel hub architecture ).
Latency is an issue with these designs ( there would be less latency if the pci controller was in the north bridge ). But the devices typically connected to the PCI bus tend to be tolerant of latency ( network, disk controller, sound, usb ).
The net result is that very few end users would see any benefit from the increased cost associated with building the PCI controller into the north bridge ( or even onto the cpu, that would be much better again ). There are niche markets where these designs make sense, single chip embedded systems for example.
What is really interesting is that they appear to be using a PCI Express controller designed for use with Opterons. It would appear that Apple wouldnt have to put in a lot work to reap the benefits of PCI Express, and they could even keep the current AGP slot ( as it is in the north bridge ).
With Xserve sales improving could a Blade be that far off?
Seeing how there's a lot of attention around G5 clusters, I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been a cluster built with the JS20's already. The chassis can hold 14 dual 2.2Ghz G5 blades. That's twice the processor density as XServes. The blades and redundant power supplies are hot-swappable.
For networking they have Gb Ethernet, FibreChannel and InfiniBand modules available. Not only that, but the chassis mid-plane allows for much faster communication between the blades than you get over even InfiniBand.
Use the same HW design with a little Apple design and you have a nice PowerServe with very little R&D.
I think the reason he wants to see the nForce Chipset (I could be wrong) is because that is what the Dual Opteron SLI boards are going to be.
Unless I'm wrong your associating the AMD 64bit w. the IBM 64bit, and hoping for something similar from Apple using PCI-E, and SLI.
I agree with hmurchison. I too think Apple, and IBM could do a lot better than the nForce 4 chipset, but would nVidia be pleased with either of them if they did, and would it affect their relationship? I believe that IBM under contract is manufacturing the Nvidia GPU in their facilities?
I reiterate. How would it affect their relationship of they went outside of the nVidia design to design an XserveBlade motherboard for Apple. And would it affect the Apple/Nvidia relationship?
I guess in the best of both worlds nVidia could be overwhelmingly pleased with the idea, but it seems funny.
Originally posted by onlooker
I didn't see that blade having PCI-E, or being an nForce chipset, but I only scanned the page real quickly.
I think the reason he wants to see the nForce Chipset (I could be wrong) is because that is what the Dual Opteron SLI boards are going to be.
Unless I'm wrong your associating the AMD 64bit w. the IBM 64bit, and hoping for something similar from Apple using PCI-E, and SLI.
I agree with hmurchison. I too think Apple, and IBM could do a lot better than the nForce 4 chipset, but would nVidia be pleased with either of them if they did, and would it affect their relationship? I believe that IBM under contract is manufacturing the Nvidia GPU in their facilities?
I reiterate. How would it affect their relationship of they went outside of the nVidia design to design an XserveBlade motherboard for Apple. And would it affect the Apple/Nvidia relationship?
I guess in the best of both worlds nVidia could be overwhelmingly pleased with the idea, but it seems funny.
Apple currently uses the AMD8111 as its southbridge which was designed for opteron servers. Using another chip designed for the AMD64 platform isn't that much of a strech.
Originally posted by onlooker
I didn't see that blade having PCI-E, or being an nForce chipset, but I only scanned the page real quickly.
If you zoom in on the block diagram you'll see that the southbridge provides a PCIe interface for the additional components.
In addition the block is labeled 'Crush K8', which is an nVidia product.
I want to see Apple using standard HT parts so that they can reduce their dependance on expensive, in-house designs.
Apple doesn't use the AMD-8111, but they do use the AMD-8131 for PCI-X. IBM uses the AMD-8111 in the JS20.
What's wrong with the nForce 4? It looks like the best chipset for any platform.
Originally posted by wmf
The #4 computer in the world is a 970 blade system: http://www.top500.org/sublist/System.php?id=7119
Apple doesn't use the AMD-8111, but they do use the AMD-8131 for PCI-X. IBM uses the AMD-8111 in the JS20.
What's wrong with the nForce 4? It looks like the best chipset for any platform.
Absolutely nothing. I wish the G5 had an onboard memory controller so it could make full use of the chipset.
Originally posted by wmf
The #4 computer in the world is a 970 blade system: http://www.top500.org/sublist/System.php?id=7119
Apple doesn't use the AMD-8111, but they do use the AMD-8131 for PCI-X. IBM uses the AMD-8111 in the JS20.
What's wrong with the nForce 4? It looks like the best chipset for any platform.
Nothing that I know of, but I always think Apple could have done better. But they usually don't.
I would flip out, and scream if they added an onboard memory controller, and a level 3 cache, but I just don't see it happening.
I wish they would loose the radiator too, but the chances of that seem slim at the moment as well.
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Do home users need blades? Do schools need blades? XServe is enough for the majority of Apple clients. Apple is not in the same market as Dell. Its main competitor is Sony. And does Sony sell blades? Its more natural to ask for Apple digital cameras (yum!) and TVs...
No. but home users need PCI Express.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
No. but home users need PCI Express.
Or, they will in a few years...
Originally posted by Amorph
Or, they will in a few years...
Most wanted, or needed it yesterday.
If Apple starts making cameras, and TV"s that would totally blow. It would just be another distraction from their computers. Are they not far enough in the hole with these already? Even after all the iMac converts showed up some of us legacy users still prefer, want, and have a need for a screaming Power desktop computer from Apple. Things like Cameras, and TV's only seem like a distraction from what is notably gone missing for the past 3 years starting with one G4 fiasco, and leading into this one.
Originally posted by onlooker
... some of us legacy users still prefer, want, and have a need for a screaming Power desktop computer from Apple.
I contend that what you really want is a really fast machine which runs OSX. I dont think you really care if it runs Power or Amd64. Most of the existing hardware is shared between Macs and PCs anway. The only major components which are Apple specific are the CPU and the OS. And the case. If Apple put nice shiny dual Opterons in a G5 case running OSX would you complain? Frankly I dont think any of us really care about whats under the hood as long as its the latest, fastest tech. No?
Originally posted by onlooker
If Apple starts making cameras, and TV"s that would totally blow. It would just be another distraction from their computers.
They do look like a distraction if you look at computers and TVs and cameras as separate markets. And to a certain extent they are. But look at it from another point of view however: all these devices are becoming digital - consumers want to shift media around from one device to another. Why is it ok for a consumer electronics company to make TVs, stereos, digital cams, computers (Sony) and not for a music player maker to sell computers, digital cameras, etc? You stream your itunes stuff round the house, you sync your iPod. You could, if Apple fully commits to the CE space, sync your iCamera, etc. Sony does consumer electronics and so, tentatively is Apple. CE is about brand/image. Both Sony and Apple have that in spades.
Originally posted by UnixPoet
I contend that what you really want is a really fast machine which runs OSX. I dont think you really care if it runs Power or Amd64. Most of the existing hardware is shared between Macs and PCs anway. The only major components which are Apple specific are the CPU and the OS. And the case. If Apple put nice shiny dual Opterons in a G5 case running OSX would you complain? Frankly I dont think any of us really care about whats under the hood as long as its the latest, fastest tech. No?
Your right. If my computer was an Alienware DCC Workstation case w/Dual Hot Swap-able SATA RAID-0 drive Chassis, and Dual AMD Opteron 2.4GHz processors, with an Nvidia SLI setup running 2x SLI Quadro FX 3400 PCI-E cards under OS X - I would not bother complaining about PowerMacs because I would have exactly the machine I've been drooling over. Excluding OS X of course. Which is probably what I will have shortly after MacWorld SF. Accept I wish it was a Dual PCI-E Quadro FX PowerMac with all the trimmings running OS X, but I can't keep imagining that Apple gives a crap about 3D workstations anymore.
I read that Pixar used 3dSudioMax for the incredibles, and that does not run on a Mac so I don't think Apple really cares about the market even though they could probably sell enough to Pixar if they made them to justify their creation.
Chances are the sales would not stop there.