SLI usually turns out about 70 to 90%+, but You'll never really know with this until it's in a 9xx variant, and IBM gives more precise information. Anyone can speculate, but I'd say 70 to 80% increase. Like I said anyone can speculate. I think it will very much depend on the application too.
I think the point is that Apple will replace single processor Powermacs with a dual core and dual proc ones with 2 dual cores. I doubt anyone will complain about that!
I thought about that right away too, but I didn't want the good vibe to end. Although the dual core PPC for Apple should be much further along than the XBOX one anyway. We new about the 9xx dual core PPC's before M$ even decided to use an IBM PPC as their processor for the XBOX2.
Couldn't this just be a CHUD update for XBOX2 developers working with three core PowerPCs?
I don't think so. The Xbox 2 developer kits isn't running Mac OS X, they are running a PowerPC version of some slimmed down Windows.. The actual development is probably made on a regular PC and cross compiling.
Why would a dual core machine be considered a dual CPU machine? I get the feeling that we are going to be getting a Quad 2.0 Ghz machine with the old G5 chip and not a new dual core dual CPU machine. Anybody else feel the same?
Why would a dual core machine be considered a dual CPU machine? I get the feeling that we are going to be getting a Quad 2.0 Ghz machine with the old G5 chip and not a new dual core dual CPU machine. Anybody else feel the same?
Why? It's much more complex and expensive to do it that way, and multi-core is the industry-wide trend because it's a more sensible use of transistors than gigantic, unwieldy single cores.
This way, IBM gets almost double the computational horsepower with a modest layout of money and resources relative to developing a new core, and Apple will only need to make a few modest modifications to their PowerMacs in order to double the number of cores. That's one heck of a return on investment for all concerned.
I've been waiting for this for years. It will rock.
Just a comment on the 3-digit red processor badges...
First off, I'm sure its really geared to show more than just 4 processors. I don't expect to see 8 processor powermacs anytime soon, but the new layout is a big improvement and is more flexible going forward.
Currently though, the badge says "x2" for dual processor machines. For dual core, dual processor machines, it could say 2x2, which is 3 digits. The screenshot from Monster however implies that they'd list each core as a separate CPU... but then again, Monster is developer-heavy tool and if I was profiling my code, as long as there's no different between cores and processors, I'd rather them all listed out like that as separate processors. This is kinda like running top on a machine with Hyper Threading.
Another theory on the new, wider processor-count-badge.
It's possible that apple has rolled the rendering of red number badges into a nice cocoa class. Remember, some APIs and objects are kept private. If previously, the badges were handled on a per app basis, then switching to the new standardized object might change things like default width.
Another theory on the new, wider processor-count-badge.
It's possible that apple has rolled the rendering of red number badges into a nice cocoa class. Remember, some APIs and objects are kept private. If previously, the badges were handled on a per app basis, then switching to the new standardized object might change things like default width.
And, if I am not mistaken, this is the same badge as used by the Mail app icon (in the Dock) when it tells you how many unread emails are in your InBox...
And, if I am not mistaken, this is the same badge as used by the Mail app icon (in the Dock) when it tells you how many unread emails are in your InBox...
It is not the same badge. Mail uses badges in four sizes and CHUD three. There's one size CHUd uses that'll fit between the smallest and the second smallest of Mail's badges.
Comments
In practical terms we see that graphics cards in SLI or Dual proc configs are never actually TWICE as fast as just having a single unit.
Hence the question.
Do you think/know/speculate that its the same as having todays dual setup, or around 90%-50-%-30% as efficient?
I would love to see all powermac units ship with at least dual cpu's... whether they are dual core or dual proc.
If they do, I would isntantly grab one at 1300 dollars (dev discount) for a low end... and be very happy.
what does the version (eg. v 2.2) mean exactly? Are all 970's v. 2.2?
My 970fx is v3.0.. Are any of the newer xserve 2.3ghz ones a newer ver. than that?
Originally posted by dirk gently
question:
what does the version (eg. v 2.2) mean exactly? Are all 970's v. 2.2?
My 970fx is v3.0.. Are any of the newer xserve 2.3ghz ones a newer ver. than that?
I think that is an original 2.0 GHz from the G5 original announcement. Just an oddly educated guess though.
Originally posted by Thereubster
I doubt anyone will complain about that!
Say it ain't soooo..
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
Couldn't this just be a CHUD update for XBOX2 developers working with three core PowerPCs?
I don't think so. The Xbox 2 developer kits isn't running Mac OS X, they are running a PowerPC version of some slimmed down Windows.. The actual development is probably made on a regular PC and cross compiling.
Originally posted by mikenap
http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/
And oh, it's gonna be sweet.
Originally posted by anand
Why would a dual core machine be considered a dual CPU machine? I get the feeling that we are going to be getting a Quad 2.0 Ghz machine with the old G5 chip and not a new dual core dual CPU machine. Anybody else feel the same?
Why? It's much more complex and expensive to do it that way, and multi-core is the industry-wide trend because it's a more sensible use of transistors than gigantic, unwieldy single cores.
This way, IBM gets almost double the computational horsepower with a modest layout of money and resources relative to developing a new core, and Apple will only need to make a few modest modifications to their PowerMacs in order to double the number of cores. That's one heck of a return on investment for all concerned.
I've been waiting for this for years. It will rock.
First off, I'm sure its really geared to show more than just 4 processors. I don't expect to see 8 processor powermacs anytime soon, but the new layout is a big improvement and is more flexible going forward.
Currently though, the badge says "x2" for dual processor machines. For dual core, dual processor machines, it could say 2x2, which is 3 digits. The screenshot from Monster however implies that they'd list each core as a separate CPU... but then again, Monster is developer-heavy tool and if I was profiling my code, as long as there's no different between cores and processors, I'd rather them all listed out like that as separate processors. This is kinda like running top on a machine with Hyper Threading.
It's possible that apple has rolled the rendering of red number badges into a nice cocoa class. Remember, some APIs and objects are kept private. If previously, the badges were handled on a per app basis, then switching to the new standardized object might change things like default width.
Originally posted by dfiler
Another theory on the new, wider processor-count-badge.
It's possible that apple has rolled the rendering of red number badges into a nice cocoa class. Remember, some APIs and objects are kept private. If previously, the badges were handled on a per app basis, then switching to the new standardized object might change things like default width.
And, if I am not mistaken, this is the same badge as used by the Mail app icon (in the Dock) when it tells you how many unread emails are in your InBox...
So, it could be a generic three digit badge...
Originally posted by MacRonin
And, if I am not mistaken, this is the same badge as used by the Mail app icon (in the Dock) when it tells you how many unread emails are in your InBox...
It is not the same badge. Mail uses badges in four sizes and CHUD three. There's one size CHUd uses that'll fit between the smallest and the second smallest of Mail's badges.
Originally posted by Amorph
I think we can safely say that this is actually, really CONFIRMED!!!
And oh, it's gonna be sweet.
You just don't see the administrators get all bright eyed, and bushy tailed every day now do you?